Verbatim NT logia
- I am not certain how many members of this list would claim to be
proficient in both Coptic and in classical / ancient Greek (or
ancient Hebrew for that matter) but I have a nagging question which
someone may be able to help me with ...
While it is generally accepted that as many as 2/3 of Thomas'
logia are grounded in the New Testament, only about 18 of these
logia "appear" to be verbatim as taken from the New Testament. All
of the others have "ever so slight" additions or ommissions added to
them which give them a different (some would say - "original")
flavor. The 18 which I sense could be verbatim or of "extremely high
congruence" with NT sources are: Thomas # 20, 26, 33, 34, 35, 41,
48, 55, 62, 63, 66, 73, 86, 89, 90, 93, 94 and 99. (Others no doubt
also exist depending on each's bias)
Some of their possible sources or congruency could be from:
Th 20 - Matt 13:31
Th 26 - Matt 7:3
Th 33 - Matt 10:27, Matt 5:15, Mark 4:21, Luke 8:16, Luke 11:33
Th 34 - Matt 15:14, Luke 16:39
Th 35 - Matt 12:29, Mk 3:27, Luke 11:21
etc, etc ...
Has anyone done research (or could they direct me to published
research) which distinguishes Coptic Thomas logia from the seeming
NT parallel sources which we are all familiar with ??? In short, has
anyone answered the question why Thomas would copy some of his
material virtually "verbatim" from whatever source, while adjusting
some of his other logia (seemingly) from some of these same New
Testament sources ??? Indeed (the bigger question really being ...)
could the author of Thomas have copied some of his source material
from now long lost (gosapel) sources which the early Church or early
Church Fathers may have earlier banned from the inquisitive eyes of
New Testament researchers ... and what might these sources be ????
Cheers and thank you - Maurice Cormier