The Common Sayings Source is one of many theories that try to provide insight into the Synoptic Problems. This theory suggests that the Gospel of Thomas, a Gospel of speech, and the source of Q, a teaching of hypothetical words, have the same source. These Common Speech Element elements can be found in the text of the Gospel of Thomas and what experts present in the source Q . The high level of similarity between the two sources indicates that the two documents were then a single source conversion, the original Source of the Original Spell, which was then edited by various groups to suit their own needs.
The main proponent of this theory is John Dominic Crossan. He heads the historical Jesus section of the Society of Biblical Literature and co-director of Jesus Seminar. This theory is based on previous research by John Kloppenborg on the sources of William Arnal on the Gospel of Thomas, and Stephen Patterson on the General Tradition. John Dominic Crossan uses the research of these scholars and combines them to create the General Speech theory.
This source provides insight into the Synoptic Problem and lends more evidence for the hypotheses of two documents and sources Q .
Video Common Sayings Source
Sumber Ucapan Umum
Based on the earlier work of three scholars, Crossan used his research to establish his theory of the Common Source of Speech.
- John Kloppenborg has investigated the source Q and specifies the traditional stratification. He gives evidence to show that Q has three layers.
- Q Ã, 1 provided a Layer Budiman containing six speeches of wisdom.
- Q Ã, 2 is an Apocalyptic Layer that has five assessment speeches.
- Q x 3 provides a Biography Layer with three stories of temptation in the desert.
- William Arnal provides insight into the Gospel of Thomas and develops the idea of ​​composition stratification. Arnal sets two layers in the Gospel of Thomas, the Slave and the Gnostic Layers. Layer Budiman contains a speech of wisdom and the Gnostic Layer contains esoteric and Gnostic wisdom.
Arnal believes that the Gnostic Layer is added to the Sapiential layer, which is the origin of the compositional stratification theory. Likewise, Kloppenborg's theory of traditional stratification suggests that the Cow Slaves exist and apocalyptic is then developed.
- Patterson finds the Buddhist Layers of both Gospels containing the same wisdom speech. He calls this shared material "The Source of the General Tradition". Patterson continued his theory further by setting the redaction of the general material and explaining the theology of the editor. According to Patterson, the source editor is concerned with apocalyptic problems, while the Gospel of Thomas addresses the Gnostic problem.
Crossan adjusts Patterson's theory to the so-called Common Source of Speech because he feels that it is more than just tradition but the real source. He agrees that the original Greeting Tradition, presented by Patterson, does not contain Gnosticism or Apocalypticism, but a redactional adaptation to either or both of these eschatologies is required.
The Common Sayings Source shows that there are enough parallels in the sources of Q and the Gospel of Thomas to suggest the same source.
- 28% (37 of 132 units) of the Gospel of Thomas have an alignment in Q .
- 37% (37 of 101 units) Q have parallels in the Gospel of Thomas.
Crossan uses the data provided by the International Project Q to compare the two sources together and shows that roughly one-third of every Gospel is found in the others.
The high level of similarity makes Crossan believe that there must be a common source. Similar to the reasoning behind the two-document hypothesis for the existence of the source Q , the percentage of common materials found in Thomas and Q would suggest the previous source shared by the authors of both documents. However, unlike Q , Common Speech Resources are considered oral, due to lack of common order or sequence. This is not to say that written documents are impossible. It is clear in the Synoptic Gospels that it is common for writers to edit work for their own needs, including slight changes in sequence or sequence.
Crossan believes that the Source of Common Speech provides the foundation for two documents which came to be known as Q and the Gospel of Thomas.
Maps Common Sayings Source
Synoptic issues
Common material believed to be the Source of Common Expression can be found in the "special" material of the Synoptic Gospels.
- 30% (11 of 37 units) of what is common to the Gospel of Thomas and Q The Gospel has parallels in Mark.
- 12% (16 of 132 units) The Gospel of Thomas has parallels in Matthew's special material.
- 7% (9 of 132 units) of the Gospel of Thomas have parallels in the material specific to Luke.
These statistics provide evidence that the sources of the Q and the Gospel of Thomas materialized in the Synoptic Gospels. The Common Sayings source does not provide an alternative solution to the Synoptic Problem but provides a deeper understanding of the theory of the two documents.
As a hypothetical document, the source Q is still only a hypothesis. Prior to the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas in 1945, there was the assumption that the Gospel without a narrative containing only utterance was impossible. The invention of Thomas's Gospel at Nag Hammadi changed the possibility of a gospel of speech. The possibility of the source Q as an ancient document has become closer to reality with Thomas's discovery.
Crossan theory provides further evidence that there is a connection between these two sources and if we find some Q in Thomas that it is possible that these common words come from previous sources. This evidence provides further evidence of the existence of a Public Speaking Source.
Arguments in support
Debates have been formed around the date of the Gospel of Thomas. In order for the Crossan theory to be possible, an earlier date for the Gospel of Thomas is required to be written before the Synoptic Gospels, such as the source Q . Some scholars argue that because of the Gnostic content, Thomas was collected in the 2nd century, a century after the Synoptic Gospels. These scholars believe that the author of Thomas incorporated the Synoptic texts after their circulation began and as such, Thomas could not possibly connect with the source Q .
However, many scholars feel that the dating of Thomas actually belonged to no more than 200 CE B. Grenfell and A. Hunt placed Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1, one of the earliest copies of the Gospel of Thomas, in this period. This is not a signature copy and therefore, must be there earlier than 200ce. In addition, textual inquiry provides internal evidence showing the date of authorship to be the beginning of the 2nd century. This timeline will match the time of the Synoptic Gospels and give support to the idea that Thomas may have been written around the time Q .
Koester adds insight when he concludes that Thomas did not evolve from the editing of the Synoptic parables but from an independent oral source. From "a careful analysis of the Parable of the Sower in the Synoptics and Thomas, John Homan concludes not only that the version in Thomas is independent, but it really enables us to restore an earlier version of this parable." These examples provide evidence that Crossan's theory may be accurate when he discusses Thomas's early dating and independent oral sources.
Another important issue of Crossan's theory is to find out whether the connection between Q and Thomas is anything more than a coincidence. Many scholars do not seem to have a problem believing that Thomas started from an oral tradition, suggested by the General Speech theory. Koester believes "Thomas relies on the earliest version of Q , or is more likely to share with the author Q one or more early collections of Jesus sayings... Thus Thomas proves a stage in < i> Logoi Gattung distributed by Q and unedited Thomas under the influence of Apocalyptic expectations. "This seems to be very similar to the General Speech theory theory in which Crossan argues that public sources without information apocalyptic or Gnostic is the source for Q and Thomas. McLean provides an explanation for every small variation that can be found between words in two sources. "One would expect that a collection of secret sayings is available for Q and Thomas will vary in content and be available at different times."
Even those who oppose the Crossan theory, like Deconick, find themselves confused as they try to find a possible source for Thomas. Although he believes the General Sources theory is impossible, he admits that "Thomas appears as an oral text," which does not come out of what Crossan suggests.
Reaction
The Common Sayings Source theory relies heavily on the acceptance of the two source hypothesis or the three source hypotheses and the existence of the source Q . In addition to the hypothetical material in the Q source, another important factor for the source of the Common Greeting is the information given in the Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas is a relatively recent invention and it is possible that there is another version of the text, as can be said in the case of many other early Christian writings. Changes received by either the Q document or any other version of Thomas may prove to contain more or less parallel. This can cause problems with or support the Greeting Speech theory.
A number of articles have been written reviewing Crossan's book, The Birth of Christianity , in which he discusses the theory of Sources of Words. Many made the same comment about his theory. William Loader of Murdoch University commented, "Crossan's proposal is too inflexible, to many methodological" short cuts. "" He explained that
- Crossan relies heavily on the assumption that the tradition of Thomas never knew the words of Jesus with such an emphasis, an argument of silence. So much was made to rely on this and on the assumption that the earliest layers of Q as reconstructed by Kloppenborg, were exclusively normative, that is, its failure, allegedly, to include apocalyptic utterances reflecting their rejection. , their eschatology and, like John, their theism.
Loader shows a number of issues with Crossan's methodology and whole issues with important issues. Loaders are not the only scholars to draw attention to this deficiency.
Christopher Mount of Chicago University has described the Crossan methodology as "over-simplified." Mount feels that Cross's reluctance to question the fundamental perspectives of Christian sources by which he works is evident in many ways in his reconstruction, leading to a slope in his generally well-thought-out analysis. Although, Mount ended his review by stating that efforts to get a better work of Crossan "can not be done with the power of arguments and data orders greater than he has applied to the task."
Crossan relies heavily on the work of John Kloppenborg, who does not support Crossan's theory from the outside. "A documentary hypothesis for the relationship between Q and Thomas should be set aside." Kloppenborg points out that there are overlapping examples that scholars believe to be the source of the Common Words found in the wisdom speech, "Thomas does not have the elements present in Q, which Thomas is known for Q, will surely take over. " Kloppenborg creates the stratification theory at Q that Crossan relies on but it seems that Kloppenborg disagrees with his theoretical use to make comparisons between his coating and layering of the Gospel of Thomas.
Deconick also points out that "equally questionable is the dependence on Kloppenborg's hypothesis model of stratification for Q ." Crossan admits in his work that his theory relies heavily on the accuracy of the three theories he incorporates, including the hypothetical source Q . Deconick uses this fact as an argument against Crossan's theory. He also explains that he "reluctantly acknowledges Thomas" categorically "early and that he finds it impossible to work from the premise that Thomas represents a collection of non-apocalyptic non-spiritual sayings and that the earliest stratification of Q certainly like the contents. "This is one of the pillars of Crossan theory. He added that "we can not assume that Thomas was originally or entirely an incorrect Gospel, it also means that we can not assume that Q is lust because Thomas is a categorical."
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments