Re: [GTh] Part I ofThe Synoptic Gospel Problem and Thomas
- At 10:17 AM 10/14/05, Frank, in response to my last post, wrote:-
>Hi Tom! (Make that "Ron")This has me very excited. Thank you for the cite.
>There's a hypothesis that has some similarities to the one you are
>proposing. This is Brian E. Wilson's Logia Translation Hypothesis (LTH).
> .He is sure on the right track here. When I first posited the
>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.
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 workWell, ultimately it is a source for GMt,GLk andGMk, but not directly
>being a source for GTh, GMk, and Q, while the LTH has Matthew's work being
>a source for GMt, GMk, and GLk.
,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 beIn this, this fellow is also correct. Firstly, on a basic sayings
>a collection of sayings, while the LTH takes it to be a collection of
>reports--meaning that it contained considerable narrative material.
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 itThe term Logia was my own, borrowed from Ray Summers who issued one
>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
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, itAs I just stated, oh, yes, it had more than just sayings in it. It
>might have included much more than just sayings?
had some dialogue and narrative material as well- which makes it even Bigger.
>Information about LTH is found here:I haven't yet got to it, and no I was not familiar with it.
>Ron, are you familiar with the LTH? Why do you think that the MH is more
>likely to be correct than 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.
>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 firstname.lastname@example.org
>Yahoo! Groups Links