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

Re: Q and oral tradition

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    ... When I use the term I mean to suggest that Q did not use Thomas in the composition of his gospel; and neither did Thomas use Q in the composition of his.
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 20, 1997
    • 0 Attachment
      At 08:02 AM 8/20/97 -0500, you wrote:

      >What do we mean by *independent* source? To me, it seems clear that
      >Thomas is not taken directly from the Synoptics; neither were the
      >Synoptics taken directly from Thomas. There is too much divergence
      >in language for there to be literary dependence.

      When I use the term I mean to suggest that Q did not use Thomas in the
      composition of his gospel; and neither did Thomas use Q in the composition
      of his. Further, Q is independent of Matthew- but Matthew is not
      independent of Q.

      Q and Thomas are independent compositions which sometimes overlap because
      they draw on some of the same oral traditions. Just as two eyewitnesses are
      independent when they are interviewed by the police after viewing an
      accident; yet their testimonies can overlap because they viewed the same event.

      >
      >BUT the similarities are too great for the accounts to be entirely
      >independent. They go back to a common oral tradition at some point
      >on "this side" of Jesus. Does this make them dependent? Semi-dependent?
      >Independent?
      >

      Independent in composition.

      >I would be interested in hearing how others view this. Even if you
      >don't agree with my reconstruction (which is based on the study of
      >oral tradition, not literary criticism), how would you assess the
      >degree of dependence if it *were* true?
      >

      Q and Thomas contain both early, reliable tradition concerning the
      historical Jesus; but they also contain late, theological interpretation of
      the Christ of faith as seen by their communities.

      Like gospel texts, the text of Q and Thomas are little windows which allow
      us to view the beliefs of a particular community. Each biblical text, in
      fact, is such a window.

      Jim

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      Jim West, ThD
      Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology

      jwest@...
    • Mr A.J.A. LABOUCHERE
      ... On the Thomas vs. synoptics matter raised by Waltz and others, the works of Gilles Quispel are seminal. Especially the collations in the appendices of his
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 20, 1997
      • 0 Attachment
        >From Bill Petersen, abroad at the moment:

        On the Thomas vs. synoptics matter raised by Waltz and others, the works of
        Gilles Quispel are seminal. Especially the collations in the appendices of
        his *Tatian and the Gospel of Thomas.* Quispel, who was one of the first
        scholars to examine GTh, and who (co-)edited the ed.princ., has always
        argued for the independence of GTh. His articles (which appeared in NTS,
        NovT, VigChr, etc.) are collected in his two-volume *Gnostic Studies*.

        --Petersen, Penn State Univ., Netherlands Inst. for Adv. Studies.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.