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

Re: [GTh] Part I ofThe Synoptic Gospel Problem and Thomas

Expand Messages
  • Ron McCann
    Well, Hello!, Frank. Delighted to see you on this list. Thanks for that lucid presentation in Part 1 of the competing theories of Gospel origins, including
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 13, 2005
      Well, Hello!, Frank.

      Delighted to see you on this list. Thanks for that lucid presentation
      in Part 1 of the competing theories of Gospel origins, including your
      own. I will most definitely read and try to follow yoy in the
      remaining parts of your posts.

      You have omitted, quite properly, what I might immodestly claim as
      The McCann Hypothesis, for it has never been tossed into the
      scholarly arena for consideration, save only such vetting as it might
      have received on the gthomas group.

      In that Hypothesis, the two or even four source theories are left
      intact, the Book of Q is not a chimera, and all three of Q, Mark and
      Thomas borrow from a common source earlier to all three of them which
      I presently call Papais's Matthew Hebrew Sayings Collection. In
      Thomas, for instance, all sayings with Synoptic/Q counterparts are
      from that source.

      An existing defect in that hypothesis is that it cannot fully account
      for all those Thomas sayings with NO synoptic/Q parallels- what I
      call "The Spooky Stuff". Some of these sayings are very likely from
      the Matthean Logia Collection (Papias' s collection) , but it is
      impossible to tell if that is true or not, since we don't have a
      copy. I was left to conclude that Thomas, either the Apostle Thomas
      or Jude-Thomas, Jesus brother had supplied them.

      If your, or any other Scholarly hypothesis, has an answer that
      addresses the origins of these "spooky" sayings of Thomas in an
      inclusive and all encompassing way with those sayings of Synoptic/Q
      origin, I would be most eager to read it.

      Am I to take it that I will find that here?

      Eccentric, Frank? I don't think so. Maybe just a tad long-winded?
      (grin). I've always enjoyed your work, and I'll just bet that this
      stuff is sterling, if not gold.

      Ron
    • fmmccoy
      ... From: Ron McCann To: Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Part I ofThe Synoptic
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 14, 2005
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Ron McCann" <ronmccann1@...>
        To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 2:54 PM
        Subject: Re: [GTh] Part I ofThe Synoptic Gospel Problem and Thomas


        > Well, Hello!, Frank.
        >
        > Delighted to see you on this list. Thanks for that lucid presentation
        > in Part 1 of the competing theories of Gospel origins, including your
        > own. I will most definitely read and try to follow yoy in the
        > remaining parts of your posts.
        >
        > You have omitted, quite properly, what I might immodestly claim as
        > The McCann Hypothesis, for it has never been tossed into the
        > scholarly arena for consideration, save only such vetting as it might
        > have received on the gthomas group.
        >
        > In that Hypothesis, the two or even four source theories are left
        > intact, the Book of Q is not a chimera, and all three of Q, Mark and
        > Thomas borrow from a common source earlier to all three of them which
        > I presently call Papais's Matthew Hebrew Sayings Collection. In
        > Thomas, for instance, all sayings with Synoptic/Q counterparts are
        > from that source.

        Hi Tom!

        There's a hypothesis that has some similarities to the one you are
        proposing. This is Brian E. Wilson's Logia Translation Hypothesis (LTH). .

        According to it, the apostle named Matthew made a written collection of
        Aramaic logia. They were translated into Greek and then used by Mark, a
        different Matthew, and Luke in writing their gospels. He posits that the
        Greek logia document was very large.

        One big difference is that the McCann Hypothesis (MH) has Matthew's work
        being a source for GTh, GMk, and Q, while the LTH has Matthew's work being
        a source for GMt, GMk, and GLk.

        Another big difference is that MH appears to take Matthew's collection to be
        a collection of sayings, while the LTH takes it to be a collection of
        reports--meaning that it contained considerable narrative material.

        The difference, here, lies in how to translate the word "logia". Can it
        mean "sayings"? Or, is it only Greek word "logoi" that can mean "sayings"?
        Ron, P Oxy. 654, which includes the Greek version of the incipit for GTh,
        has "logoi" rather than "logia" for "sayings". Perhaps, then, it is a
        mistake to think that Matthew's collection of logia was a collection of
        sayings? Ron, have you considered the idea that, if it ever existed, it
        might have included much more than just sayings?

        Information about LTH is found here:

        http://homepage.ntlworld.com/brenda.wilson99/
        .
        Ron, are you familiar with the LTH? Why do you think that the MH is more
        likely to be correct than it?

        Regards,

        Frank McCoy
        Maplewood, MN USA 55109
      • Ron McCann
        At 10:17 AM 10/14/05, Frank, in response to my last post, wrote:- ... This has me very excited. Thank you for the cite. ... He is sure on the right track here.
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 15, 2005
          At 10:17 AM 10/14/05, Frank, in response to my last post, wrote:-

          >Hi Tom! (Make that "Ron")
          >
          >There's a hypothesis that has some similarities to the one you are
          >proposing. This is Brian E. Wilson's Logia Translation Hypothesis (LTH).

          This has me very excited. Thank you for the cite.

          > .
          >
          >According to it, the apostle named Matthew made a written collection of
          >Aramaic logia. They were translated into Greek and then used by Mark, a
          >different Matthew, and Luke in writing their gospels. He posits that the
          >Greek logia document was very large.

          He is sure on the right track here. When I first posited the
          existence of a common earlier source drawn upon by Mark, Q and
          Thomas, I was hard pressed to find ANY evidence of any such earlier
          document. I then found the Papias reference to a Hebrew collection of
          the "oracles" of Jesus collected and written down by the Apostle
          Matthew. That was almost ten years ago. Just this week, Roger Mott (I
          think) of the GospelofThomas group reproduced material from Jerome
          confiming the existence of just such a collection, which he himself
          (Jerome) had been asked to translate. So what started off as an
          unsupported theory ( The sayings from it, as reproduced in Thomas, Q,
          and Mark, when compared and closely examined very strongly pointed to
          the existence of an earlier common source- but that was the only
          support there was for it.) has gained ground, and The Matthean Logia
          Collection may yet be accepted by scholars as real.


          >One big difference is that the McCann Hypothesis (MH) has Matthew's work
          >being a source for GTh, GMk, and Q, while the LTH has Matthew's work being
          >a source for GMt, GMk, and GLk.

          Well, ultimately it is a source for GMt,GLk andGMk, but not directly
          ,except for Mark. Q basically IS GMt,GLK without the Markan material.
          I take it his work doesn't cover Thomas. So it seems a good
          hypothesis, as far as it goes, but it doen't really cover all the
          bases- does it?

          I know some people think that the Book of Q is a chimera. But to
          invoke some Churchillian words "some chicken, some neck!" If it was a
          Chimera, Frank, it could not in a million years have been used to
          generate The McCann Document (if you recall it). The fact that that
          Document "fell out" when material from the Matthean Logia collection
          was struck out of Q 1 really proves that Q is not a Chimera, and
          Neither is the Matthean Logia Collection. The Q-Matthean Logia thesi
          mutually reinforce each other.


          >Another big difference is that MH appears to take Matthew's collection to be
          >a collection of sayings, while the LTH takes it to be a collection of
          >reports--meaning that it contained considerable narrative material.

          In this, this fellow is also correct. Firstly, on a basic sayings
          count, even if only sayings are used
          in it's reconstuition, it's BIG. It's very large. Just how large we
          will never know. When reconstituted (just like Q was) from the
          sayings that are doubly or triply attested in Mark, Q and Thomas (The
          formula for identifing a Matthean Logia Saying) we get only a
          minimalist text but its quite big. The Three likely borrowed more
          sayings from it, but we cannot now know that or know for sure what
          other sayings in Mark or Q, or Thomas may have been in it.

          However, we can say that at least SOME narrative and dialogue
          material with those double or triple attestations ALSO appeared in
          it. You can apply the Double/Triple Attestation Formula I developed
          to Narrative and Dialogue material contained in Mark, Q and Thomas.
          In doing so, you identify any such material which also appeared in
          the Matthean Logia collection. I haven't chased these down because I
          work primarily with individual sayings. Let me give you some examples
          ( there are others):-
          1) The Beelzebub Controversy- found in Mark 3-20-28 and in Q at QS8
          2) The Temptation of Jesus- found in Mark 1 12-14 (where it is
          only a two liner!) and in Q at QS6.
          3) The "Enter Heaven Maimed" story- found in Mark and the "Make
          the Hands a hand" saying found in Thomas ( although you have to
          "massage" both of these bit to see the parallel.)
          4) The Virgins Enter Bridechamber story- found damaged in
          Thomas, and hugely amplified in Matthew, who likely found a simpler
          version in Q.

          >The difference, here, lies in how to translate the word "logia". Can it
          >mean "sayings"? Or, is it only Greek word "logoi" that can mean "sayings"?
          >Ron, P Oxy. 654, which includes the Greek version of the incipit for GTh,
          >has "logoi" rather than "logia" for "sayings". Perhaps, then, it is a
          >mistake to think that Matthew's collection of logia was a collection of
          >sayings?

          The term Logia was my own, borrowed from Ray Summers who issued one
          of the first ever public books containing Thomas. He uses it as a
          plural for logion. It seems from what you say, that's wrong. In the
          original Papais mention, some have transnlated the mention as Papais
          saying "oracles", some "sayings" and some "Logia". As I recall, the
          Jerome reference is vager.

          > Ron, have you considered the idea that, if it ever existed, it
          >might have included much more than just sayings?

          As I just stated, oh, yes, it had more than just sayings in it. It
          had some dialogue and narrative material as well- which makes it even Bigger.


          >Information about LTH is found here:
          >
          >http://homepage.ntlworld.com/brenda.wilson99/
          >.
          >Ron, are you familiar with the LTH? Why do you think that the MH is more
          >likely to be correct than it?

          I haven't yet got to it, and no I was not familiar with it.


          More comprehensive, maybe? I factor in Q and Thomas. From what you
          say, he doesn't- but it seems he is "not far from the Kingdom". I'll
          have to get back to you when I've had a look. Thanks again for this
          info. I'm quite excited about it.

          Ron McCann
          Saskatoon, Canada


          >Regards,
          >
          >Frank McCoy
          >Maplewood, MN USA 55109
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >--------------------------------------------------------------------
          >Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
          >To unsubscribe from this group,
          >send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.