The Thomas/Q Hypothesis
- Although I've enjoyed the discussion related to Steve's "Thomas/Q
Project" immensely, I'm somewhat surprised that not much time seems to
have been spent on formulating the hypothesis. As Bruce Brooks wrote:
> ... could ... anybody ... state for me and perhaps for others:In response, Mark Goodacre quotes from Mahlon Smith's note of June 5:
> of what hypothesis was this project a test?
> Luke's form of Q sayings is generally supported by Thomas againstMahlon obviously did not take himself to be stating an hypothesis here,
> Matthew ...
else I'm sure he would have worded it differently. At least, my own
response upon reading this statement was: what is it exactly that's
supposed to be "against Matthew"? And what does it mean to be "supported
by" Thomas? I think that, rather than to take this quote as an adequate
statement of the hypothesis, we ought to re-word it, somewhat along the
lines of the following (with minimal intrusion of my own style, I hope):
> Thomas is generally more in agreement with Luke's form of Q-sayingsJim West, perhaps sensing that this way of stating it might be taken to
> than with Matthew's.
imply that Thomas came *after* Luke and Matthew, puts it this way:
> Luke is more like Thomas than Matthew [is].Unfortunately, this is a little too simple. Let me put myself on the
line and suggest the following alternative:
> Those sayings in Thomas that correspond to Q are usually more likeMike G.
> the Lukan form than the Matthean form (where this is understood
> not to imply that Luke & Matthew preceded Thomas).
The Codex II Student Resource Center
- On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 19:54:04 +0900, anneq@... writes:
>Plainly it does. However, we must take the following census of
>I'm confused. So many of you have defended the idea of an oral tradition
>'because of illiteracy'. Yet Luke 4:16-17 says:
>"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the
>synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read:
>and there was given to him the book ofthe prophet Isaiah. He opened the
>book and found the place where it was written."
>Doesn't this assume that Jesus could read?
synagogues with caution. Like the record of the united kingdom
under David and Solomon, archaeology doesn't confirm it.
However, every time I try to find out how literate were the people
of Egypt whose temples all had schools connected to them, the results
on the ground ONLY find support in the village of the Tomb Workers
at Deir el Medina at Western Thebes and the graffiti found on
some pyramid stones at Giza and at the quarries up and down the Nile.
As has just been noted in the papers about Peking Man using fire, we
have not read carefully the relics in many cases. As a consequence.
until we do more work on settlements, we can't say if the Ancients
were more literate than Elizabethan English people.
>According to "The Galilean Jewishness of Jesus" by Bernard J. Lee, S. M.As noted above, better be sure the evidence on the ground is not
>page 122, the synagogues usually had schools attached to them--pre-70 ACE
>Jerusalem had 480 synagogues each of which had both a 'house of reading'
>(bet sefer) and a 'house of learning' (bet talmud). In the first century
>ACE the majority of Jewish boys receive a formal education in these
>schools. Lee goes on to say that most male children in Palestine in Jesus'
>time attend school, even those from poor families starting at the age of five.
>In this case wouldn't many people have had the ability to write down what
>they remembered Jesus saying? Why should (at least the early Jewish
>Christians) have to rely on an oral tradition?
wishful thinking or driven by a desire to prove a point.