RE: [Synoptic-L] The Case against The Logia, Thomas, or Q
I’m trying to find out whether anyone in a position to know more than I do on the subject (not hard!) can comment on possible links between the logia, Thomas, and Q:
· Papias referred to the logia. The mere existence of Thomas would seem to support the possible existence of the logia, so what (if any) reason is there to believe that the logia didn’t actually exist?
· Assuming the logia did exist, can it be seen as a source for at least part of Q? For example, could someone have used the logia and some other source when writing Q, or could Q actually be all or some of the logia and another source?
· Is there anything that suggests that Thomas could be the logia, or perhaps a later version of it?
The reason for these questions is to try to get to the bottom of this 15-year old quote from Mark Goodacre: “For a while it was thought that 'the logia' to which Papias referred might be Q. Indeed, this was one of the planks on which the Q hypothesis rested in the nineteenth century. But no reputable scholar now believes this.” Is the final statement still true, and if so, why? Can anyone other than Ron comment?
David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
David Inglis wrote:
> I wasn't asking whether Q could be equated with the logia, but rather whetherDavid,
> it could be related to the logia. Perhaps more accurately, could SOME OF Q be
> equated with SOME OF the logia, i.e. could the logia be a source for some of
> Taking things a little further, does the DT require Q to be a single document,
> or is this just the way Q is most commonly envisaged? If Q is allowed to be
> more than one document, could one part of Q be the logia?
I'll leave it to 2ST supporters to answer questions about their perceptions
My conclusion is that the hypothesis that the whole Double Tradition
originated as a single source (Q) is flawed. Some passages in the D.T.
originated in the logia, and the remainder originated in Matthew. Therefore
the hypothetical Q is redundant.
> Going further still what can be presented against the idea that the logia wasThe logia as I have reconstructed it consists solely of sayings. The "many
> one of Luke's 'many' sources?
(people)" of Lk 1:1 refers to recorders of events, i.e. it clearly implies