there was an older version of Gospel of Thomas which was Q & Matthew and Luke used it

Go down

there was an older version of Gospel of Thomas which was Q & Matthew and Luke used it

Post by redpill on Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:04 am

Sun Aug 19, 2018

i offer an alternative theory to Gathercole and late camp

Matthew and Luke used Mark, which explains the triple material.

this part is firm scholarship.

Matthew and Luke used Q, which is controversial.

My theory is that Q was the original version of the Gospel of Thomas,

there was a collection of sayings which included the sayings both in the Gospel of Thomas and Q.

This version was written in Aramaic, Jesus native language

I call this original gospel Q-Thomas

Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience, his purpose is to prove Jesus was the messiah as foretold in the prophets.

Matthew used the Q-Thomas material into his Gospel + Mark

Luke was writing to a Gentile Audience, and he also used Q-Thomas into his Gospel + Mark

The saying in this Q-Thomas also has a saying preseved in Luke special L, the kingdom of heaven is within you

Thomas had Q-Thomas, he removed the apocalyptic material in Q-Thomas, creating his version, which we know as Thomas


in this version, it is the reverse of Gathercole, Matthew and Luke used Q-Thomas

and than Thomas came along and removed the apocalyptic Q-Thomas leaving us with Thomas.

so Q-Thomas was the oldest written Gospel, consisting solely of sayings that was transmitted orally.

Some of these sayings, such as circumcision was also attested by Paul and Thomas.

then Matthew kept the material of Q-Thomas that suited his purpose, same with Luke.

Since Matthew and Luke had similar agenda, the Q-Thomas gospel material they kept was what we know as Q

Thomas also had a copy of Q-Thomas, but had a very different agenda, and only kept the Thomas material out of the Q-Thomas

so my thesis is the reverse of Gathercole Perrin et al, Q-Thomas was the earliest gospel and the New Testament is dependent on it, not the reverse.

It is more parsimonious explanation as it explains why Thomas often has a more primitive version of the sayings than in the New Testament. It explains how Thomas ended up in the New Testament, rather than a dependence of Thomas on the New Testament. Luke freely admits there were many accounts of Jesus then in circulation which he used and relied on. My theory is he used Q-Thomas.

In many cases Q-Thomas was too primitive so M & L changed the wording, but Thomas preserves the more original saying
In some cases, M & L thought to quote Q-Thomas word for word, so its M & L using Thomas, not Thomas using M & L

this explanation accounts for why Thomas when it is also attested by the NT, seems to be more primitive yet also explains its seeming dependence on M & L. the latter used Thomas, not the other way around.

Author of John may have had access to Q-Thomas, but not Mark. He had his own agenda anyway

My theory explains that there was an older version of Thomas, which was identical to Q, and was used by Matthew and Luke, not the other way around. Q-Thomas

The Thomas we have is the result of its author removing a lot of Q-Thomas material to give us the Thomas we now know.

It explains the apparent similarity of some of Thomas sayings to Special-M and Special L, Matthew and Luke used Thomas, not the other way around as Gathercole has it.

Q did exist, but its material had both Q as preserved in M & L and Thomas

It's possible Mark and even Paul had a copy of Q-Thomas, and quote from it when it suited their purpose.

Paul talked about circumcision and cited Jesus teachings on divorce, he may have had a copy of Q-Thomas

John may have had a copy of Q-Thomas but it mostly did not suit his purpose.


conclusion Q-Thomas was written in Aramiac, it represents the oldest sayings transmitted orally then written down.

Q-Thomas was a sayings gospel, consisting solely of sayings of Jesus and it could be reconstructed with both Thomas and Q

Mark may have used it when he wrote his gospel.

Matthew and Luke used mostly the Q in Q-Thomas as well as Mark, but some Thomas in Q-Thomas, thus Special M and Special L were from Thomas, not the other way around

Thomas removed some of the Q Q-Thomas giving us Thomas, but still preserves the oldest aramaic teachings and tells us useful information about the jesus of history

Paul was familiar with Q-Thomas
John was also familiar with Q-Thomas

the new testament was dependent on Q-Thomas, and Thomas is a redaction of Q-Thomas

one way to tease this all out,

is to employ forensic linguistics, using a scientifically validated question document examination, also familiar with languages of Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, to test what is the most parsimonious tree, using science. using scientific analysis similar to what evolutionary biologists and geneticists use to determine how different species are related to one another and constructing cladograms, and applying that to gospels.

this would probably require a lot of time and money and the work of many scholars and translators.

it would require a translator to create an aramaic, syric, hebrew and greek versions of thomas and Q,
and the new testament, written entirely in greek, and then using computer and other scientifically validated techniques to determine relationships, using validated scientific techniques

Gathercole is a competent new testament scholar and a rising star, but he's not a forensic linguistics, and isn't using a scientifically validated methodology to determine the arrangements

the relation between Gospel of Thomas and the Gospels can be answered using science, rather than speculation of redaction

_________________
If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side
avatar
redpill

Posts : 2819
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum