Subject: Re: Q and oral tradition

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 21:04:40 -0400 (EDT)

At 05:48 PM 8/19/97 -0700, you wrote:
>In addition to comparing the Q material in Matthew and Luke, I find it
>instructive to look at the parallel passages in the Gospel of Thomas. I'm
>not a sholar, but it looks to me like much of Gos. Thomas was derived from
>the Q tradition, though it had developed here along lines which are rather
>different from the Mattean and Lukan versions.

Q and Thomas are, properly speaking, independent sources.

Jim

>
>---
>Gregory Woodhouse
>[email-masked]    /    http://www.wnetc.com/home.html
>If, in English, we have pronouns, why do we not also have proverbs?
>
>
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology

[email-masked]

---

From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 22:44:31

>Q and Thomas are, properly speaking, independent sources.

Properly speaking, scholars are divided on the question of whether Thomas
is independent of or dependent upon the synoptics, although I detect some
momentum in favor the position endorsed by Jim West.  Compare John P. Meier,
A MARGINAL JEW: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1991)
1:124-39 with Stephen J. Patterson, THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS & JESUS (Sonoma,
Calif.: Polebridge Press, 1993) 9-110 for extensive treatments of the issue
by scholars on opposite sides.

There is a third position, viz. that the synoptics are dependent on Thomas.
For a recent proposal that Mark is dependent on Thomas, see Stevan L. Davies'
recent articles in Neotestamentica [sorry, paper cites not available], which
are reproduced by permission at Davies' Gospel of Thomas Homepage at:
	http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                   : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
[email-masked]              : and songs chant the words.
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ :               -- Shujing 2.35

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 08:02:44 -0500 (CDT)

>	http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html

I think we're getting off-topic for this list (and yes, I know, I am
contributing to the problem). But this brings up a serious question:
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.

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?

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?

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)