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

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

Expand Messages
  • fmmccoy
    ... From: Ron McCann To: Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Part I ofThe Synoptic
    Message 1 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 2 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.