[GTh] Re: Probability of No Mark Parallels for 29 Sayings in Thomas
- Hi Mike,
Yeah, it matches what I have, except I have saying "0" broken out separately. Pdf file like that, you probably need to zoom in to see them clearly.
And there's no shortage of "Q" parallels during that Mark dry spell. The ratio of Q to Mark is seven times greater after saying 66, than before. (Q being defined as Matthew and Luke, but not Mark.)
One can defend the position that up to saying 66 is the Mark part of Thomas, and after 66 is the Q part.
But Matthew and Luke parallels are randomly distributed from beginning to end. It's just that in the beginning, they share the parallel with Mark, and at the end, they don't.
Richard Van Vliet
- Hi Jack,Sorry you are feeling poorly. Hope you feel better soon.Whatever the outcome of these discussions, I just wanted to say that I much admire the fact that, as a historian, you picked up two historical references to two very, very early Chritian documents in Papias (The Matthean Logia and Mark's Notes) and have proposed that one was our Book of Q and the other the Gospel of Thomas.Quite an original idea, and well worth exploring.It's been been both interesting and stimulating trying to test out your intriguing proposal.Thanks.When you get back to this, I have a question.- Since the Matthean Logia is said to have been written down in Aramaic (actually, Papais calls it "Hebrew".) wouldn't back translating the Q parallel sayings in Thomas not also yield the sort of results you've found in the Markan sayings?Best Regards,Ron McCannSasakatoon, Canada PS Couldn't find a listing for a Kilmon in the phone book. Does yourr son go by a different name or like many of the younger set, does he use only a cellphone?