Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Synoptic-L] The Case against The Logia, Thomas, or Q

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    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,
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 28, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      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

       

      From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ronald Price
      Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 10:22 AM
      To: Synoptic-L
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The Case against The Logia, Thomas, or Q

      David Inglis wrote:

      > I wasn't asking whether Q could be equated with the logia, but rather whether
      > 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
      > Q?
      > 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?
      >
      David,

      I'll leave it to 2ST supporters to answer questions about their perceptions
      of Q.

      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 was
      > one of Luke's 'many' sources?

      The logia as I have reconstructed it consists solely of sayings. The "many
      (people)" of Lk 1:1 refers to recorders of events, i.e. it clearly implies
      narrative content.

      Ron Price,

      Derbyshire, UK

      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.