Why was Thomas not labelled as Q?
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:00 pm
A question that I've often wondered about, given the fact that roughly half of Q is in Thomas - how much did people expect to find, really, given that Q, and then naturally I mean its recreation, as it's never been found (nor mentioned) and never will be found if you ask me, is filled to the rim with material from Luke and Matthew?
http://users.misericordia.edu/davies/thomas/thq.htm is a legacy from Steven Davies, who by the way seems to be active again in academia.edu and even put up a picture to his profile in the post months
I know that Thomas is not quite the poster child for Churchianity, but hasn't there been anyone in the past six decades who was bold enough to suggest "hey guys, this looks an awful lot like Q - how can we be so sure it ain't Q?"
It would be an embarrassment to the Church, of course, if Thomas would turn out to be The Source, but geez, isn't it awfully coincidental that Thomas really does an awful lot like Q?
Anyway, the only question I really have is: do you have any pointers to anyone ever suggesting that Thomas is Q? Who still lives to tell the tale?
http://users.misericordia.edu/davies/thomas/thq.htm is a legacy from Steven Davies, who by the way seems to be active again in academia.edu and even put up a picture to his profile in the post months
I know that Thomas is not quite the poster child for Churchianity, but hasn't there been anyone in the past six decades who was bold enough to suggest "hey guys, this looks an awful lot like Q - how can we be so sure it ain't Q?"
It would be an embarrassment to the Church, of course, if Thomas would turn out to be The Source, but geez, isn't it awfully coincidental that Thomas really does an awful lot like Q?
Anyway, the only question I really have is: do you have any pointers to anyone ever suggesting that Thomas is Q? Who still lives to tell the tale?