Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 11:12:03 -0400 (EDT) From: William Arnal To: Jack Kilmon cc: "Crosstalk (list)" Subject: Re: Thomas and Q In-Reply-To: <3373FFFC.FED79834@accesscomm.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 9 May 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote: > Isn't it very possible that The sayings source for Matthew and Luke > (hypothetical Q) and the GThom share a common source ancestor? > Perhaps the "Logia" to which Papias, quoted by Eusebius, refers? > If this is true, it is sufficient reason for the author of Matthew to > have > adopted the Matthean name...a common device similar to deutero- > Isaiah. The common source ancestor in this case would almost certainly NOT have been a signle document: at least, there's way too much divergence in order between Q and Thomas to support the existence of such a document. As far as one can tell from the actual internal evidence of the texts themselves, the relationship between Q and Thomas is not a literary one. I really hate to toot my own horn here, but if anyone is seriously interested in the issue of the literary pre-history (how's that for an oxymoron?) of Thomas, if you have access to _Harvard Theological Review_ do read my "Rhetoric of Marginality" article (it's in 88/4 -- that's October, 95). It seems to me that I'm repeating stuff that I said there, and said BETTER there. Bill _____________________________________ William E. Arnal Centre for the Study of Religion University of Toronto 123 St. George Street warnal@chass.utoronto.ca Toronto, Ontario M5S 2E8 (416) 761-9151