Adding GTh, pt. 4

We now examine logia from GTh found uniquely in one synoptic gospel or another.



5) Logia unique to GMt would most likely be logia added to GMt at the time of composition (rather than triple-tradition logia redacted from GMk and GLk) though they could possibly be Q-logia ignored by the Lukan author (whether Luke or Marcion).

        There are a few sayings in this category.  They are:

        8 30 32 39:3 57 62 76:1 90 93 109

It seems reasonable to assume that either Matthew made some use of GTh, or that these were found in Q and that Luke/Marcion had a reason to ignore them.  We'll return to this question; for now, notice that four of the Matthean parallels fall nearly adjacent to one another in Mt 13, in a stretch of material unique to GMt:

        8    Mt 13:47-50
        57    Mt 13:24-30
        76:1    Mt 13:45
        109    Mt 13:44

6) Logia unique to GMk would be either logia added to GMk at a late date (i.e. after it was used by Matthew and Luke/Marcion), or Markan logia ignored by both Matthew and Luke/Marcion. 

         There is, intriguingly, only a single saying in this category.  It is:

         21:9

All of Mk 4:26-29, where the parallel is found, is unique Markan material.  We can imagine that this is  just one pericope that happened to be ignored by Matthew and Luke/Marcion, for some other reason--it's reasonable to assume that this sort of thing can happen once or twice, without need for further explanation.  It's also easy to imagine that this parallel is due to oral tradition, and that it independently found its way into GTh and some later addition to GMk.  The context is very different in each.

Thus we can safely ignore this parallel; it indicates no relationship between GTh and GMk beyond the one that introduced the 1)-material and the two examples of the 3) material.  All material taken by GMk directly from GTh was taken at the same time.

7) Logia unique to GLk/Mc would most likely be logia added to GLk/Mc at a late date (rather than triple-tradition logia redacted from GMt and GMk), though they could possibly be Q-logia ignored by the Matthean author.

        There are a few sayings in this category, which have an interesting pattern.  They are:

        3:3a 10 63 72 79 113

Let's show the Lukan parallels:

        3:3a    Lk 17:21b
        10    Lk 12:49
        63    Lk 12:16-21
        72    Lk 12:13-14
        79    Lk 11:27-28
        113    Lk 17:20-21
   
Notice that they are found in GLk in the reverse order that they are found in GTh, with the exception of the last, 113--but that is found in the very same verse as the first, 3:3a!  There seems a clear relationship of order here, and at the very least they are found together, in two clusters. Furthermore, we know they are all found in Marcion.

At first there seem to be no more here than found in GJn, so why assume they are of any significance?  However, the parallels are far more direct here than in GJn, so it's likely this shows a real, textual relationship between GTh and GLk/Mc, one way or another.

(I think there are actually more than listed here, but I will discuss that later on.  Basically Lk 17:20ff will deserve its own treatment.)

So we are left with four significant uses of GTh in the synoptics:

1) + 3) triple-tradition material, found in GMk, and probably put there by Mark
2) Q material, probably put there by the Q-author
5) material unique to GMt, put there by Matthew
7) material unique to GLk and to Mc--in my HSH, Marcion would be responsible for this

(Plus three sayings whose use in GMk and GJn are probably independent of GTh: 21:9, 31, and 91)

So, we could just draw four arrows from GTh, one each to GMk, Q, GMt, and Mc.  Remember, though, that we are seeking the simplest explanation, given the evidence.  And in the next post, we'll try to simplify the picture slightly.