Re: [GTh] The Logia of Matthew
- Hi Frank,
Thanks for the response. It's very helpful. I have not yet had a
chance to get into Brian Wilson's. LTH, nor have I had a chance to
get to Parts 2-4 of your material. Forgive me, but I'm stuggling just
to keep up with the daily volumes on the GospelofThomas general list,
and am busy there presenting what is turning into a magnus opus
exegesis of the Creation Story in the first chapter of Genesis. Now,
on to your comments, criticisms and cautions.
At 05:28 PM 10/18/05, You wrote :
> > At 10:17 AM 10/14/05, Frank, in response to my (Ron's) last post, wrote:-Not to worry, you addressed me as Ron in the rest of your E-mail. (grin).
> > >Hi Tom! (Make that "Ron")
>I'm sorry! Somehow I got a crossed wire in the brain between you and Tom
You further responded with:-
> > >There's a hypothesis that has some similarities to the one you areI had responded:-
> > >proposing. This is Brian E. Wilson's Logia Translation Hypothesis (LTH).
> > This has me very excited. Thank you for the cite.You replied:-
>Thank you. Wilson's hypothesis is very well thought out and I think youI responded:-
>will find his exposition on it quite informative..
> > He is sure on the right track here. When I first posited theToday you replied:-
> > 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.
>Ron, all that Jerome can confirm is that, in his lifetime, there was anTrue. Thank you. The Papais description of the Collection he had
>Aramaic (or Hebrew?) sayings gospel which was alleged to have been written
>by the apostle Matthew. Since we do not possess a copy of this Aramaic (or
>Hebrew?) sayings gospel, we are in no position to determine whether this
>allegation is true or false. In short, it is pure speculation to conclude
>that it had been a genuine work of the apostle Matthew.
heard about, and the description of the one that Jerome had in hand,
were both referred to as "collections" of Jesus's sayings, both were
written in a tongue other than Greeks- namely Hebrew or Aramaic, were
both allegedly penned by the Apostle Matthew, (who Jerome mistakenly
thought was the same guy who had written the Gospel of Matthew) and
both express the difficulty other translators had or would have in
translating and reading the collection. In Jerome's case, it is
written in Hebrew supposedly to protect it from uninitiated or
profane Greek eyes. (So we have yet another "Secret" "gospel", which
when added to the Secret "Gospel" of Thomas and the alledged "Secret
Gospel of Mark, makes three now., none of them still extant.). I
don't think I am going too far out on a limb in suggesting that
Papias's Hebrew Matthew Sayings Collection, and Jerome's Hebrew
Matthew Sayings Collection are one and the same. True, I can't prove
that collection is the same as the early collection I say existed
(The Matthean Logia Collection) and from which Mark, Thomas and
Q each drew in writing their "gospels". But just how many earlier
non-extant sayings collections could there have been circulating at
this early date? I submit, it's a reasonable assumption, by occam's
razor, that these are three are one and the same.
You had previously written:-
>One big difference is that the McCann Hypothesis (MH) has Matthew'sI had replied:-
>work (the collection- not the gospel) being a source for GTh, GMk,
>and Q, while the LTH has Matthew's work (the collection- not the
>Gospel) being a source for GMt, GMk, and GLk. (bracketed material mine-R)
> Well, ultimately it (the Matthean Logia Collection) is a sourceYou replied:-
> for GMt,GLk andGMk, but not directly ,except for Mark. Q basically
> IS GMt,GLK without the Markan material.
> I take it his (Wilson's) 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?
>The classic definition of Q is that it consists of the non-Markan materialRight
>found in *both* GMt and GLk.
> I am aware that Q advocates, in order toMore or less true, and sometimes they made a mistake in doing so. But
>maintain the viability of the Q hypothesis, have been forced to loosen this
forced? They have included in some unique-to-Luke alone sayings, in
creating their expanded "Complete" book of Q, and also allowed in
some Matthew-Luke parallel sayings which HAVE Markan parallels, but
they feel there are reasons why these should appear in the greater or
expanded Complete Book of Q. Where I did once object strongly to
this, and felt it was a cheat, I have grudgingly come round to their
view that at least SOME of these anomalies might properly belong in
Q. I cannot say that I think, in doing this, they were trying to
"maintain the viability" the Q- Hypothesis. For me, it initially
undermined my belief in their scholarly integrity, at first, and made
me wonder if the Q-Hypothesis might not be a crock. I am still not
happy with some of those Luke-alone inclusions, which I think might
just as easily come from "Special" Luke, but I can live with it as a
> However, I am not aware of any Q scholar who hasCorrect again, I misspoke. I was imprecise. What I intended to say
>loosened it to the point of defining Q to be GMt and GLk without the Markan
>material. So, Ron, I think you need to tighten your definition of Q above.
was that those "sayings" of Jesus that Luke and Matthew each have a
version of, and which clearly did not come from Mark ARE for all
intents and purposes. Q. (Only one of the two versions of the saying
can be chosen of course.) These type of sayings form very nearlly all
of the Book of Q, and certainly "core" Q.- also known as "minimalist"
Q. Sorry about that.
>In any event, your point is well taken. Brian E. Wilson's hypothesis failsThank you for telling me that. I believed I had asked you expressly
>to take into account GTh, and the same goes for the Two Document Hypothesis
>and the Farrer Hypothesis.
if any or them did. This answers my question. It's too bad really. I
wonder if Wilson wouldn't be keen on giving it a run. It'll support
his contention, (if that is what it is) that there was indeed a
"Matthean Logia Collection "that functioned directly or indirectly as
a "supersource" or "primary source" for all the "collections"
and Synoptic Gospels.
> Just why the vastly overwhelming majority ofAgreed, and afortiori, their conclusions about the nature of the
>scholars agree that GTh can safely be ignored in trying to solve the
>Synoptic problem is something I just can't fathom and I think they are
>making a SERIOUS judgment error here.
Historical Jesus, and what Jesus "really" said. I think that both the
Matthean Logia Collection and the McCann document should be factored
into this assessment along with Thomas. My view is that both the MLC
and the MD predate ALL existings Gospels or Sayings Collections
including Thomas. This both of the two (MLC and MD are pre 60 CE stuff, imho.
I had further written
> > I know some people think that the Book of Q is a chimera. But toYou replied:-
> > 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.
>Ron, I've forgotten how this works. Which version of the postulated firstI used the Q-1 strata of sayings from Burton Mack's "The Lost Gospel-
>stratum of Q do you accept? Can you cite the author and book in which its
>text is found?
The Book of Q & Christian Origins., HarperSanFrancisco (1993). I
undertand this is now on the net and I can dig out the cite for you.
> How can you tell what parts of this postulated Q 1 come fromYour, Welcome. Matthean Logia Collection sayings are identified by
>the Matthean Logia collection and what parts come from the McCann Document?
whether or not they have a double or triple attestation in Mark, Q
and Thomas. These are struck out of Q, What's left is ' What ELSE"
the Q-1 author/compiler used in creating Q-1. Namely, the McCann
document, which falls out in a proper continuous readable sequence
when those remaining sayings are just joined one after the other..
There are some errors in the Q-1 document which should be corrected
first. The quickest and simplest way to see The McCann Document
emerge is to just strike out any saying in it with a parallel to a
Thomas saying. It then needs to be cleaned up a bit (by eliminating
sayings wrongly included by the Q scholars in the Q-1 stratum) , then
checking to see which of the Matthew or Luke versions fits best. So
Q-1, as is the whole Book of Q, is not free of errors.
I recently posted a more polished version of the McCann Document to
the general Gospel of Thomas group, which I can forward to the list
or directly to you if you want another peek. Remarkably, with all
the errors the scholars extracting Q-1 made in constituting Q 1,
according to you who personally checked this (I had never done so),
every saying in the Document had earned a pink or red rating from the
Jesus Seminar. Do you remember our discussion now?
You next wrote:-
> > >The difference, here, lies in how to translate the word "logia". Can itI had replied:-
> > >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 oneYou wrote:-
> > 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 translated the mention as Papais
> > saying "oracles", some "sayings" and some "Logia". As I recall, the
> > Jerome reference is vager.
>You're referring to Ray Summers, The Secret Sayings of the LivingThanks for the quotation. I never noticed that business about
>Jesus--which was published in 1968.
>On pp. 16-17, he states, "This collection of sayings (logia) is similar
>to the collection of sayings (logia) set up by source criticism two
>generations ago as a working hypothesis to explain the 272 verses presented
>*in common* in Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark. The collection, known
>as 'Logia,' or 'Quelle' (the German word for 'source') or simply 'Q,' was
>posited as the second major written document used by Matthew and Luke,...".
"Logia" referring to the Book of Q. What would you propose I call it
then? I wanted to distinguish it in the reader's mind from Matthew's
GOSPEL. and identify it as a sayings collection, like Thomas or Q.
>As far as I am aware, both the idea that "logia" means "sayings" and theWell perhaps I shouldn't use it then. I was unaware it was a term
>usage of "Logia" as an alternate title of the postulated Q have long been
>abandoned in scholarly circles.
that used to be an alternative title for the Book of Q. My book by
Ray Summer was destroyed in a housefire along with most of my other
books and early work several years back. Did you notice he
accidentally omitted some of the sayings?
>So, Ron, as far as I can tell, the position of Summers is out of date andWhat?-The idea that Thomas as a document resembles the Q-collection
because they are both collections, not Gospels? How is that out of
date or untenable? I'm confused. What he says about those 277 verses
of Q is "minimalist" Q, and remains correct today. Are you saying
it's untenable or out of date because the Whole Book of Q is now much
longer than "minimalist Q, to-day?The only thing I see "dated" is the
use of the word "Logia" as another title for the Book of Q.
>In any event, you are working with two separate hypotheses:
>(1) a document existed which was used as a source by Thomas and Mark and the
>author of Q
>(2) this document was originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew by the apostle
You then wrote:-
>The second hypothesis has some serious weaknesses--none is fatal, but theyPerhaps. Future experience may bear that out.
>are serious enough to raise major doubts about its credibility. Perhaps,
>then, Ron, you are better off sticking only with the first hypothesis. Just
There clearly is no question the identification of the Matthean Logia
Collection with the Hebrew Matthew Collection of Papais and the
Hebrew Matthew of Collection of Jerone is weak for now ,and needs
more support, but I think I'll keep advancing the second hypothesis
just the same, in order to obtain further "hits". I fully expect that
somewhere in some museum, the vatican or some university library is a
mouldering document or pieces of a document wrongly labled " A
Collection of Jesus Sayings extracted from Matthew's Gospel,
Converted into Hebrew (or Aramaic.") just waiting to be discovered
again, that will prove to be a copy of the Mattthew Logia Collection.
I think it's just a matter of time before further "proof" turns up.
Thanks Frank, I'll look forward to some suggestions from you as to
what I should call this thing in the interim.