We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
A scribal error has turned up in Q! This has wide-ranging implications and consequences, to which the present paper is designed to point. If there is a scribal error in Q, then Q was indeed a written Greek text, behind which stood an older written Greek text as Vorlage. This, of course, finally puts to rest already outdated theories of Q being only an Aramaic text, or only a layer of oral tradition rather than a written text. It also has important implications for the current view of Q and points into the future of pre-Q research as well. The history of the synoptic tradition is no longer dependent only on the forms of oral transmission, but now has a series of written texts bridging much of the gulf back from the canonical gospels to Jesus.
1 Robinson, James M. and Heil, Christoph, “Zeugnisse eines griechischen, schriftlichen vorkanonischen Textes: Mt 6,28b N*, P.Oxy. 655 I, 1–17 (EvTh 36) und Q 12,27,” ZNW 89 (1998) 30–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 The results of the International Q Project are being published in a one-volume critical edition, The Critical Edition of Q: A Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German and French Translations of Q and Thomas (Minne apolis: Fortress Press; and Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming),Google Scholar and in a lengthy series of volumes with the Database and Evaluations, entitled Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q Through Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted, and Evaluated (Leuven: Peeters, 1996 ff).Google Scholar
3 Grenfell, Bernard P. and Hunt, Arthur S., New Sayings of Jesus and Fragment of a Lost Gospelfrom Oxyrhynchus (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1904) 39–47;Google Scholaridem,The Oxyrhynchus Papyri IV (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1904) 22-28.
4 Bartlet, V., “The Oxyrhynchus ‘Sayings of Jesus’,” Contemporary Review 87 (1905) 116.Google Scholar
5 On 15 July 1998 Skeat sent me a photograph taken at the time under ultra-violet light documenting clearly his reading.
6 P. Oxy. 655 seems first to have been introduced into this discussion by Bovon, François, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, vol. 2: Lk 9,51-14,35 (EKK III/2; Zurich: Benziger; and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996) 298-99.Google Scholar But the parallel between P. Oxy. 655 and Q 12:22-31 seems to have been carried through consistently, and with results practically identical with those in the present essay (though both were composed simultaneously, completely independently one of the other), only by Zockler, Thomas, “Jesu Lehren im Thomasevangelium,” a doctoral dissertation accepted by the Philosophical (!) Faculty of the University of Bonn in 1998, pp. 66–70,Google Scholar and accepted for publication in Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).
7 For example, Minear, Paul S., Commands of Christ (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972) 135–36;Google ScholarBoismard, M.-É., Commentaire, in Benoit, Pierre and Boismard, M.-É., Synopse des Quatres Evangiles enfrancais (3 vols.; Paris: Cerf, 1965-1977) 2. 282Google Scholar; Catchpole, David R., The Quest for Q (Edinburgh: Clark, 1991) 32Google Scholar; Luz, Ulrich, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 1-7) (EKK 1/1; Zürich, Benziger; and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985) 367–68;Google ScholarHoffmann, Paul, Tradition und Situation: Studien zur Jesusiiberlieferung in der Logienquelle und den synoptischen Evangelien (NTA 28; Münster: Aschendorff, 1995) 91Google Scholar; Wischmeyer, Oda, “Matthäus 6,25-34 par: Die Spruchreihe vom Sorgen,” ZNW 85 (1994) 1–22, esp. p. 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bovon, Françis, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 2. 298–99;Google ScholarEbner, Martin, Jesus—ein Weisheitslehrer? Synoptische Weisheitslogien im Traditionsprozefb (Herders biblische Studien 15; Freiburg: Herder, 1998) 256, 258.Google ScholarSee now , Zsckler, “Jesu Lehren im Thomasevangelium,” using P. Oxy. 655, pp. 68–69Google Scholar.
8 For example, , Boismard, Commentaire, 282Google Scholar; , Catchpole, Questfor Q, 34.Google ScholarSee now , Zockler, “Jesu Lehren im Thomasevangelium,” using P. Oxy. 655, pp. 68–69Google Scholar.
9 For example, Bultmann, Rudolf, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (FRLANT 29; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921) 47Google Scholar; Klostermann, Erich, Das Mätthausevangelium (2d ed.; HNT5; Tubingen: Mohr, 1927) 62Google Scholar; , Minear, Commands of Christ, 136–37;Google Scholar, Boismard, Commentaire, 282Google Scholar; Tannehill, Robert C., The Sword of his Mouth (Philadelphia: Scholars Press, 1975) 60–61;Google ScholarZeller, Dieter, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche bei den Synoptikern (Würzburg: Echter, 1977) 86Google Scholar; Merklein, Helmut, Die Gottesherrschaft als Handlungsprinzip (Würzburg: Echter, 1978) 178Google Scholar; , Luz, Mt 1-7, 365Google Scholar; , Hoffmann, Tradition und Situation, 91, 108Google Scholar; Gnilka, Joachim, Das Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1: Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1-13, 58 (Freiburg: Herder, 1986) 246Google Scholar; , Wischmeyer, “Die Spriiche vom Sorgen,” 9Google Scholar; Bovon, François, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 2. 298–299.Google ScholarSee Zöckler, now, “Jesu Lehren im Thomasevangelium,” using P. Oxy. 655, pp. 69–70Google Scholar.
10 For example, , Minear, Commands of Christ, 137–38;Google Scholar, Boismard, Commentaire, 282Google Scholar; , Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnspriiche, 86 n. 238Google Scholar; , Hoffmann, Tradition und Situation, 98 n. 17 and 107.Google ScholarSee now , Zöckler, “Jesu Lehren im Thomasevangelium,” using P. Oxy. 655, p. 69, n. 53.Google Scholar
11 For example, , Klostermann, Matthäusevangelium, 62Google Scholar; , Bultmann, Geschichte, 2 (2d ed., 92)Google Scholar; , Minear, Commands of Christ, 139–40;Google Scholar, Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnspriiche, 87Google Scholar; , Hoffmann, Tradition und Situation, 93, 113Google Scholar; , Bovon, Evangelium nach Lukas, 2. 298Google Scholar; , Ebner, Jesus — ein Weisheitslehrer? 256Google Scholar.
12 For example, , Merklein, Die Gottesherrschaft als Handlungsprinzip, 177, 180Google Scholar; , Luz, Mt 1-7, 365-66, 370–71;Google Scholar, Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 1. 245, 251Google Scholar; Dillon, Richard, “Ravens, Lilies, and the Kingdom of God (Matthew 6:25-33 / Luke 12:22-31),” CBQ 53 (1991) 605-27: 606, 626Google Scholar; , Wischmeyer, “Die Spriiche vom Sorgen,” 13Google Scholar.
13 Schrage, Wolfgang, Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienubersetzungen: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur gnostischen Synoptikerdeutung (BZNW 29; Berlin: Topelmann, 1964) 90–91.Google Scholar Here as elsewhere Schrage is paraphrased by Fieger, Michael, Das Thomasevangelium: Einleitung Kommentar und Systematik (NTA 22; Münster: Aschendorff, 1991) 128–29.Google Scholar Ignored has been the detailed refutation of this “gnostic” ascription by Smith, Jonathan Z. (“The Garments of Shame,” HR 5 [1965-1966] 217-38, esp. pp. 217, 237),Google Scholar who finds the motifs of Saying 37 not distinctive of Gnosticism, but “joined together only within baptismal rituals and homilies.” Similarly Meeks, Wayne A. (“The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity,” HR 13 [1974] 165–208)Google Scholar traces the tradition to Pauline churches such as Corinth and especially to encratite Syrian liturgies. MacDonald, Dennis Ronald(There is no Male and Female: The Fate ofa Dominical Saying in Paul and Gnosticism [HDR 20; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987])Google Scholar argues that the concept of the “garments of shame” and associated androgyne mythology go back to the pre-Pauline baptismal practice reflected already in Gal 3:27-28. Conick, April D. de and Fossum, Jarl (“Stripped before God: A New Interpretation of Logion 37 in the Gospel of Thomas,” VC 45 [1991] 123–50)Google Scholar place the saying in a Jewish-Christian encratite setting without explicit sacramental context, although the motifs are in some texts associated with a sacrament of unction. None of these history-of-religion analyses of Saying 37 consider it distinctively “gnostic” or use it to explain the Coptic abbreviation of Saying 36, much less the text of P. Oxy. 655.
