Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 15:48:41 -0400
From: Jim West <jwest@Highland.Net>
To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
Subject: Thomas/Q project

Thanks to Bob for collating the results.  It seems that the original
contention, i.e., that Luke is more like Thomas than Matthew has in fact
been demonstrated.

What does this mean?

I would like to suggest that Q and Thomas were very similar, and that the
possibility exists that Thomas is simply a later copy of Q.  What do I mean?
Simply put, Thomas is Q redacted by a proto-gnostic.

The idea, then, that Q is hypothetical without substance because it has not
been found "in writing" is no longer viable.  Q exists in written form in
Thomas!  Now all we need do to recover "pure Q" is remove the redactional
layers of Thomas, and viola!  Q!

Best,

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
Adjunct Professor of Bible,
Quartz Hill School of Theology

jwest@highland.net