"or not the connections between ""Q"" and Thomas are anything more than a coincidence. Many scholars seem to have no issue believing that Thomas began from an oral tradition, which is suggested by the theory of the Common Sayings Source. Koester believes “Thomas is either dependent upon the earliest version of ""Q"", or more likely shares with the author of ""Q"" one or several early collections of Jesus’ sayings ... Thus Thomas attests to a stage in the ""Logoi Gattung"" shared by ""Q"" and Thomas which had not yet been redacted under the influence of Apocalyptic expectation.” This seems surprisingly"
"Common Sayings Source The Common Sayings Source is one of many theories that attempts to provide insight into the Synoptic Problem. The theory posits that the Gospel of Thomas, a sayings gospel, and the Q source, a hypothetical sayings gospel, have a common source. Elements of this Common Sayings Source can be found in the text of the Gospel of Thomas and what scholars are proposing existed in the ""Q"" source. The high level of similarities between the two sources suggests that both documents are later redactions of a single source, the original Common Sayings Source, which was then redacted"
"primarily on two different sources: Mark and a written collection of Jesus's sayings, which has been given the name Q by scholars. This latter document has now been lost, but at least some of its material can be deduced indirectly, namely through the material that is common in Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark. In addition to Mark and Q, the writers of Matthew and Luke made some use of additional sources, which would account for the material that is unique to each of them. There is general consensus among New Testament scholars that the Mark used a variety"
"not mention his crucifixion, his resurrection, or the final judgment; nor does it mention a messianic understanding of Jesus. Since its discovery, many scholars have seen it as evidence in support of the existence of the so-called Q source, which might have been very similar in its form as a collection of sayings of Jesus without any accounts of his deeds or his life and death, a so-called ""sayings gospel"". Bishop Eusebius included it among a group of books that he believed to be not only spurious, but ""the fictions of heretics"". However, it is not clear whether he was"
"Q source. This view, known as the Two-source hypothesis (Mark and Q), allows for a further body of tradition known as ""Special Matthew"", or the M source, meaning material unique to Matthew; this may represent a separate source, or it may come from the author's church, or he may have composed these verses himself. The author also had the Greek scriptures at his disposal, both as book-scrolls (Greek translations of Isaiah, the Psalms etc.) and in the form of ""testimony collections"" (collections of excerpts), and, if Papias is correct, probably oral stories of his community. These sources were predominantly in"
"Three-source hypothesis The three-source hypothesis is a candidate solution to the synoptic problem. It combines aspects of the two-source hypothesis and the Farrer hypothesis. It states that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke used the Gospel of Mark and a sayings collection as primary sources, but that the Gospel of Luke also used Gospel of Matthew as a subsidiary source. The hypothesis is named after the three documents it posits as sources, namely the sayings collection, the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Matthew. The sayings collection may be identified with Q-lite, and some (typically narrative-related)"
"understanding early Christianity outside the New Testament. In terms of faith, however, no major Christian group accepts this gospel as canonical or authoritative. It is an important work for scholars working on the Q document, which itself is thought to be a collection of sayings or teachings upon which the gospels of Matthew and Luke are partly based. Although no copy of Q has ever been discovered, the fact that Thomas is similarly a 'sayings' Gospel is viewed by some scholars as an indication that the early Christians did write collections of the sayings of Jesus, bolstering the Q hypothesis."
"Kongzi Jiayu The Kongzi Jiayu (), translated as The School Sayings of Confucius or Family Sayings of Confucius, is a collection of sayings of Confucius (Kongzi), written as a supplement to the ""Analects"" (""Lunyu""). A book by the title had existed since at least the early Han dynasty (206 BC – 220 AD), and was listed in the 1st-century imperial bibliography ""Yiwenzhi"" with 27 scrolls. The extant version, however, was compiled by the Cao Wei official-scholar Wang Su (195–256 AD), and contains 10 scrolls and 44 sections. Chinese scholars had long concluded that the received text was a 3rd-century forgery"
"work from the premise that Thomas represents a collection of early sapiential non apocalyptic sayings and that the earliest stratification of ""Q"" must have been similar in content to it.” This is one of the cornerstones to Crossan’s theory. She adds that “we cannot assume that Thomas was originally or entirely a sapiential gospel. This also meant that we cannot assume that ""Q"" was sapiential because Thomas was sapiential.” Common Sayings Source The Common Sayings Source is one of many theories that attempts to provide insight into the Synoptic Problem. The theory posits that the Gospel of Thomas, a sayings"
"most of its contents appear in Matthew, in Luke, or in both; and that Luke more often preserves the text's original order than Matthew. In the two-source hypothesis, the three-source hypothesis and the Q+/Papias hypothesis Matthew and Luke both used Mark and Q as sources. Some scholars have postulated that Q is actually a plurality of sources, some written and some oral. Others have attempted to determine the stages in which Q was composed. Q's existence has been questioned. Omitting what should have been a highly treasured dominical document from all early Church catalogs, its lack of mention by Jerome"
"Four Document Hypothesis based on the possibility of a Jewish M source (see the Gospel according to the Hebrews). While the standard two-source theory holds Mark and Q to be independent, some argue that Q was also a source for Mark. This is sometimes called the ""Modified two-document hypothesis"" (although that term was also used in older literature to refer to the Four-document hypothesis). A number of scholars have suggested a Three-source hypothesis, that Luke actually did make some use of Matthew after all. This allows much more flexibility in the reconstruction of Q. Dunn proposes an ""Oral Q"" hypothesis,"
"and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!"" The fourth prediction in Matthew is found in Matthew 26:1-2 immediately precedes the plot made against him by the religious Jewish leaders: ""As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified."" The hypothetical Q source, widely considered by scholars to be a collection of sayings of Jesus used, in addition to the Gospel of Mark, by the authors of the Luke and Matthew Gospels,"
"often cited by other scholars and authors. He has researched and written most substantially about the Q document, also known as the Synoptic Sayings Gospel. This document is thought to be one of the oldest circulating sources of the sayings of Jesus. It is thought to be prior to, and to have been known to the authors of The Gospel of Matthew, The Gospel of Luke as well as to the author of the (non-synoptic) The Gospel of Thomas. This work touches on the Synoptic problem. Kloppenborg has also done original research and written on the social world of the"
"unlikely, she does admit that “Thomas emerged as an oral text,” which is not out of line from what Crossan has suggested. The theory of the Common Sayings Source relies a great deal on the acceptance of the two-source hypothesis or the three-source hypothesis and the existence of the ""Q"" source. In addition to the hypothetical material in the ""Q"" source, another important factor to the Common Sayings source is the information provided in the Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas is a relatively recent discovery and it is possible that there were other versions of the text, as"
"set of haiku. I think it's the best thing we've ever done. It has purity and simplicity."" The book contains lists of facts, normally four per page. All the sources for the facts are listed online on the QI website. Other than Lloyd, Mitchinson and Harkin, credit for authorship is also given to ""QI"" researchers (also known as ""Elves"") Anne Miller, Andy Murray and Alex Bell. The reason for the number of facts being 1,227, according to Lloyd and Mitchinson, was that they had originally planned to have 1,000 facts and when they wrote down the list containing all the"
"existence of a ""Q"" source, the percentage of common material found in Thomas and ""Q"" would suggest an earlier source shared by the authors of both documents. However, unlike ""Q"", the Common Sayings Source is presumed to be oral, due to a lack of common order or sequence. This is not to say that a written document is an impossibility. It is clear in the Synoptic Gospels that it was common for authors to edit works for their own needs, including the slight change in the order or sequence. Crossan believes that this Common Sayings Source provided a foundation for"
"the two later documents known as ""Q"" and The Gospel of Thomas. The common material believed to be the Common Sayings Source can be found in the “special” material of the Synoptic Gospels. These statistics provide evidence that the ""Q"" source and Gospel of Thomas material play a minor role 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 two-document theory. As a hypothetical document, the ""Q"" source is still only a hypothesis. Prior to the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas in 1945"
"it was thought that a Gospel without a narrative that only contained sayings was out of the question. The find of the Gospel of Thomas in Nag Hammadi changed the possibility of a gospel of sayings. The possibility of the ""Q"" source being an ancient document has become closer to reality with the discovery of Thomas. Crossan’s theory provides further evidence that there is a connection between these two sources and if we find some of ""Q"" in Thomas that it is possible that these common sayings came from an earlier source. This evidence provides further evidence of the existence"
"is highly unlikely that two independent translations would have exactly the same wording. The Q document must have been composed before Matthew and Luke. Some scholars even suggest that Q predated Mark. A date for the final Q document is often placed in the 40s or 50s of the first century, with some arguing its so-called sapiential layer (1Q, containing six wisdom speeches) was written as early as the 30s. If Q existed it has since been lost. Some scholars believe it can be partially reconstructed by examining elements common to Matthew and Luke (but absent from Mark). This reconstructed"
"Patterson, contained neither Gnosticism nor Apocalypticism, but required redactional adaptation towards either or both of those eschatologies. The Common Sayings Source suggests that there are enough parallels in the ""Q"" source and Gospel of Thomas to suggest a common source. Crossan uses the data provided by the International ""Q"" Project in order to compare the two sources together and points out that approximately one third of each gospel is found in the other. The high level of similarities leads Crossan to believe that there must have been a common source. Similar to the reasoning behind the two-document hypothesis for the"
"and the Cynic elements ... may contain a core of reminiscences of an itinerant Cynic-type Galilean preacher (who, however, is certainly not to be identified with the Jesus of the earliest Christian documents)."" Sayings and memories of this preacher may have been preserved in the ""Q"" document that is hypothesized as the source of many ""sayings"" of Jesus found in both gospels of Matthew and Luke. However, Wells concluded that the reconstruction of this historical figure from the extant literature would be a hopeless task.What we have in the gospels is surely a fusion of two originally quite independent streams"
"similar to the Common Sayings Source theory where Crossan contends that a common source without apocalyptic or Gnostic information is the source for ""Q"" and Thomas. McLean provides an explanation for any slight variation that can be found between the sayings in the two sources. “One would expect that the discrete sayings collections available to ""Q"" and Thomas would have varied in content and been made available at different times.” Even those who oppose Crossan’s theory, like Deconick, find themselves confused when attempting to locate the possible source for Thomas. Even though she believes the Common Sayings Source theory is"
"teachings of the historical Jesus would be inapplicable to those who did not hold his first-century apocalyptic worldview. Weiss also developed form criticism in its application to the New Testament, a theme expanded upon by Rudolf Bultmann and many other scholars. This tool enabled Weiss to conclude that I Corinthians is a collection of excerpts from letters by the Apostle Paul, and not a single letter in its own right. Weiss is particularly notable for giving the name ""Q"" to the hypothetical sayings source used by the authors of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. Many hold"
"material normally assigned to Q may instead be attributed to Luke's use of Matthew. This theory has been advocated by Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Eduard Simons, Hans Hinrich Wendt, Edward Y. Hincks, Robert Morgenthaler and Robert H. Gundry. Three-source hypothesis The three-source hypothesis is a candidate solution to the synoptic problem. It combines aspects of the two-source hypothesis and the Farrer hypothesis. It states that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke used the Gospel of Mark and a sayings collection as primary sources, but that the Gospel of Luke also used Gospel of Matthew as a subsidiary source."
"Analects The Analects (; ; Old Chinese: ""*[r]u[n] ŋ(r)aʔ""; ), also known as the Analects of Confucius, is a collection of sayings and ideas attributed to the Chinese philosopher Confucius and his contemporaries, traditionally believed to have been compiled and written by Confucius's followers. It is believed to have been written during the Warring States period (475–221 BC), and it achieved its final form during the mid-Han dynasty (206 BC–220 AD). By the early Han dynasty the ""Analects"" was considered merely a ""commentary"" on the Five Classics, but the status of the ""Analects"" grew to be one of the central"
"(ruled 361–363), like Epictetus, praised the ideal Cynic and complained about the actual practitioners of Cynicism. The final Cynic noted in classical history is Sallustius of Emesa in the late 5th century. A student of the Neoplatonic philosopher Isidore of Alexandria, he devoted himself to living a life of Cynic asceticism. Some historians have noted the similarities between the teachings of Jesus and those of the Cynics. Some scholars have argued that the Q document, a hypothetical common source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke, has strong similarities to the teachings of the Cynics. Scholars on the quest for"
"M Source M Source, which is sometimes referred to as M document, or simply M, comes from the M in ""Matthean material"". It is a hypothetical textual source for the Gospel of Matthew. ""M Source"" is defined as that ""special material"" of the Gospel of Matthew that is neither Q source nor Mark. Nineteenth century New Testament scholars who rejected the traditional perspective of the priority of Matthew in favor of Marcan priority speculated that the authors of Matthew and Luke drew the material they have in common with the Gospel of Mark from that Gospel. Matthew and Luke, however,"
"is little doubt among modern scholars that it was composed in Koine Greek, the daily language of the time [although this is disputed; see, for example, Carmignac, ""Birth of the Synoptics"", and Tresmontant, ""The Hebrew Christ"", both of whom postulate early Hebrew gospels.] The author, who is not named in the text itself but who was universally accepted by the early church to be the apostle Matthew, drew on three main sources, the Gospel of Mark, the alleged sayings collection known as the Q source, both in Greek, and material unique to his own community, called M. Mark and Q"
"Four-document hypothesis A four-document hypothesis or four-source hypothesis is an explanation for the relationship between the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It posits that there were at least four sources to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke: the Gospel of Mark, and three lost sources: Q, M-Source, and L source. It was proposed by Burnett Hillman Streeter in 1924, who refined the ""two-source hypothesis"" into a ""four-source hypothesis"". According to Streeter's analysis the non-Marcan matter in Luke has to be distinguished into at least two sources, Q and L. In a similar way he argued"
"Two-source hypothesis The two-source hypothesis (or 2SH) is an explanation for the synoptic problem, the pattern of similarities and differences between the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It posits that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were based on the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection from the Christian oral tradition called Q. The two-source hypothesis emerged in the 19th century. B. H. Streeter definitively stated the case in 1924, adding that two other sources, referred to as M and L, lie behind the material in Matthew and Luke respectively. The strengths of"
"L source In historical-critical analysis, the L source is an inferred oral tradition which Luke used when composing his gospel. It includes the virgin birth of Jesus and many of Jesus' best loved parables. Like Matthew's unique source, known as M, the L source has important parables. Two which appear in L are the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. I. Howard Marshall states ""Luke rightly regarded these sources as reliable"". According to the Four Document Hypothesis, Luke combined Mark, the Q source, and L to produce his gospel. The material in L, like that in M, probably comes from"
"provide such a tool nonetheless. John S. Kloppenborg John S. Kloppenborg (born 1951) is a Canadian professor of religion who has authored numerous books and articles based on New Testament scholarship. He is the Chair of the Department and Centre for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto and a participant in The Context Group. His work includes research on the origins of and sources for early Christian writings including the Q document, thought to have been one of the first written collections of the teachings of Jesus. Kloppenborg has also written and taught about the different versions"
"hypothesis and the ""Q"" source. Based on three scholars’ previous work, Crossan uses the research in order to establish his theory of a Common Sayings Source. Arnal believes that the Gnostic Layer was added to the Sapiential layer, which is where his compositional stratification theory comes from. Similarly, Kloppenborg’s theory of traditional stratification suggests that the Sapiential Layer existed and the apocalyptic was later developed. Crossan adapts Patterson’s theory to be called the Common Sayings Source because he feels that it is more than a tradition but an actual source. He agrees that the original Common Sayings Tradition, presented by"