Wallener

Where did Q come from?

freigeister

Well, if I'm harming my own cause, then I'll be happy to shut up

freigeister

Jinx!

S.C.Carlson

There are a couple of possibilities:

(a) From listening to Jesus;

(b) From oral tradition (listening to people who claimed either (a) or (b) recursively);

(c) From the imagination of a first century member of the Jesus movement;

(d) From the imaginations of nineteenth-century source critics; OR

(e) Various combinations of two or more of (a), (b), (c), and (d).

Stephen

yalla

I regard "Q" as super oral trad. It serves a similar function- without it scholars would have to admit that one of "Matthew" or "Luke" NOt ONLY copied "Mark", thus blowing any claims to witness status, BUT ALSO the other as well thus exacerbating the problem. Much easier to claim that they had a different source to "Mark", thus creating another hypothetical witness. In some books I've read they manage to backdate Q to pre-"Mark" days adding an aura of credibility to the whole gospels stuff.
It's an apologetic device.
I read the Jesus Seminars "Five Gospels" [I think that was the title] in which they footnoted references in their reconstruction of Q to the other gospels AND to the Tanakh. I checked the parallels they referenced. Of the first 10 I checked 7 clearly were derived from the Tanakh. Aha I have found Q! It's the Jewish scriptures being mined by either "Matthew" or "Luke" in the same way they mined the "M", "L" material and "Mark" got chunks of his story lines which they later copied and added their idiosyncratic touches [cue for scholar to spend a page or so on variant oral/trad.]
Both Q and oral/trad are so convenient!

Diogenes the Cynic

Where did The Gospel of Thomas come from?

It could have come (at least partially) from Jesus, or it could have come from some other store of sayings. Burton Mack thinks that Q was compiled over time by various Jesus communities in a process by which more and more sayings were gradually attributed to Jesus (although Mack is somewhat coy about whether he thinks Jesus actually existed).

As I said upthread, I'm drawing a distinction between the possibility of an oral sayings tradition (which I have no problem with) and an oral source for actual narratives like the Passions, the Nativities, nature miracles, etc.

Joan of Bark

On a side note, the NIV version of this passage puts exclamation marks around the word 'Gods'.

freigeister

There is plenty of good stuff in the Sayings Gospel. Most people could do very well just by sticking to that.

I would just point out a couple of things. First, that these exceptional sayings point to an exceptional sayer. Second, it is a mistake to totally discount the Passion. The thoroughly concentrated power of this guy is wonderfully manifest in that last bit. Sure, there are problems with the Passion narratives as we have them. But taking the sayings without the Passion is like ordering a gin and tonic and getting just a glass full of ice, and settling for that.

Amaleq13

What is "exceptional" about them? From what I've seen similar sentiments, if not the exact same words, can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures or Cynic wisdom teachings.

What do you mean by "totally discount"? Your subjective reaction to reading them doesn't make them historical records. They appear to be literary creations primarily based on the Hebrew Scriptures. I don't understand how recognizing their primary source requires one to "discount" them. I consider them to be expressions of the authors' faith.

Julian

Not sure if this link has been posted yet but it seems pertinent:

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/OralTrans.html

Julian