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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , Oct 15 2:31 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      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

      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:
      >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

      >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.