Common Sayings Source

Last updated August 03, 2023

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 by different groups to suit their own needs.

The main proponent of the theory is John Dominic Crossan. He chaired the historical Jesus section of the Society of Biblical Literature and was co-director of the Jesus Seminar.^[1] The theory is based on research previously done by John Kloppenborg on the Q source, William Arnal on the Gospel of Thomas, and Stephen Patterson on the Common Tradition. John Dominic Crossan uses these scholars’ research and combines them to create the theory of the Common Sayings Source.

This source provides insight into the Synoptic Problem and lends more evidence for the two-document hypothesis and the Q source.^{[ citation needed ]}

The Common Sayings Source

Based on three scholars’ previous work, Crossan uses the research in order to establish his theory of a Common Sayings Source.

John Kloppenborg had investigated the Q source and established the traditional stratification. He provided evidence to show that Q has three layers.
- Q¹ provides the Sapiential Layer that contains six wisdom speeches.
- Q² is the Apocalyptic Layer that has five judgment speeches.
- Q³ provides the Biographical Layer with the three stories of the temptations in the desert.^[1]^: 251
William Arnal provided insight into the Gospel of Thomas and developed the idea of compositional stratification. Arnal established two layers in the Gospel of Thomas, a Sapiential Layer and Gnostic Layer. The Sapiential Layer contains wisdom speeches and the Gnostic Layer contains esoteric and Gnostic wisdom.^[1]^: 252

Arnal believes that the Gnostic Layer was added to the Sapiential layer, which is where his compositional stratification theory comes from.^[1] Similarly, Kloppenborg's theory of traditional stratification suggests that the Sapiential Layer existed and the apocalyptic was later developed.^[1]^: 250

Patterson found the Sapiential Layers of both Gospels contained similar wisdom speeches. He called this shared material “Common Tradition Source”.^[1]^: 254 Patterson continued his theory further by establishing the redaction of the common material and explaining the theology of the redactors. According to Patterson, the editor of the Q source was concerned with apocalyptic issues, while the Gospel of Thomas deals with Gnostic issues.

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 Patterson, contained neither Gnosticism nor Apocalypticism, but required redactional adaptation towards either or both of those eschatologies.^[1]

The Common Sayings Source suggests that there are enough parallels in the Q source and Gospel of Thomas to suggest a common source.

28% (37 out of 132 units) of the Gospel of Thomas has parallels in Q.
37% (37 out of 101 units) of Q has parallels in the Gospel of Thomas.

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.^[1]^: 249

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 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.^[1] 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 synoptic problem

The common material believed to be the Common Sayings Source can be found in the “special” material of the Synoptic Gospels.

30% (11 out of 37 units) of what is common to the Gospel of Thomas and Q Gospel has parallels in Mark.
12% (16 out of 132 units) of the Gospel of Thomas has parallels in material special to Matthew.
7% (9 out of 132 units) of the Gospel of Thomas has parallels in material special to Luke.

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.^{[ citation needed ]}

This argument is considered a straw man when one observes that Q is not extant, and that 72 logia of the 114 (63%) that are in Thomas, have parallels in the Synoptic Gospels.^[2] If there was a Q, the Gospel of Thomas is more than a perfect fit, with two thirds of it appearing in the four canonical gospels alone

As a hypothetical document, the Q source is still only a hypothesis. Prior to the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas in 1945^[3]^: 321 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.^[4]

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 of the Common Sayings Source.

Arguments in support

A debate has formed around the dating of the Gospel of Thomas. In order for Crossan's theory to be possible, an earlier dating for the Gospel of Thomas is necessary in order to be written prior to the Synoptic Gospels, like the Q source. Some scholars suggest that due to the Gnostic content, Thomas was compiled in the 2nd Century, one century after the Synoptic Gospels.^[3]^: 323 These scholars believe that the author of Thomas incorporated the Synoptic texts after their circulation began and therefore, Thomas could not have been connected to the Q source.

However, many scholars feel that the dating of Thomas rightfully belongs no later than 200 CE ^[5]^: 48 B. Grenfell and A. Hunt placed the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1, one of the oldest copies of the Gospel of Thomas, in this period. It is not the autograph copy and therefore, must have existed earlier than 200ce.^[5] Additionally, an investigation of the text provides internal evidence that suggests a date of authorship to be the beginning of the 2nd Century.^[5] This timeframe would fit well with the time of the Synoptic Gospels and lend support to the idea that Thomas may have been written around the time of Q.

Koester adds insight when he concluded that Thomas did not evolve from the editing of Synoptic parables but from an independent oral source.^[3]^: 324 From “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 that it does indeed permit us to recover an earlier version of this parable.”^[6] These examples provide evidence that Crossan's theory may be accurate when he discusses an early dating of Thomas and the independent oral source.

Another important issue of Crossan's theory is discovering whether 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.”^[7] This seems surprisingly 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.”^[3]^: 341

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 unlikely, she does admit that “Thomas emerged as an oral text,”^[5] which is not out of line from what Crossan has suggested.

Reactions

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 can be said in the case of many other early Christian writings. A change in either the accepted Q document or another version of Thomas may prove to contain either more or less parallels. This could cause issues with or support to the Common Sayings Source theory.

A number of articles have been written reviewing Crossan's book, The Birth of Christianity, where he discusses the Common Sayings Source theory. Many of these make the same comments regarding his theory. William Loader of Murdoch University comments, “Crossan’s proposals are too inflexible, too much of a methodological ‘short-cut’.”^[8]^: 67 He explains that

Crossan depends heavily on assuming that the Thomas tradition never knew Jesus sayings with such emphasis, an argument from silence either way. So much is made to depend on this and on the supposition that the earliest layer of Q as reconstructed by Kloppenborg, was exclusively normative, that is, its failure, allegedly, to include apocalyptic sayings reflected rejection of them, their eschatology and, as with John, their theism.^[8]^: 70

Loader points out a number of issues with Crossan’s overall methodology and issues with the glossing over of important issues. Loader is not the only scholar to call attention to this deficiency.

Christopher Mount of Chicago University had described Crossan’s methodology as “overly simplified.”^[9] Mount feels that Crossan's unwillingness to question a fundamental perspective of the Christian sources with which he is working is evident at many points in his reconstruction,^[9] which leads to a slant in his generally well-thought-out analysis.^[9]^: 120 Nonetheless, Mount ends his review by stating that attempting to better Crossan's work “cannot be done with greater force of argument and command of the data than [he] has brought to bear on the task.”^[9]

Crossan relies heavily on the work of John Kloppenborg, who does not outwardly support Crossan's theory. “A documentary hypothesis for the relationship between Q and Thomas must be ruled out.”^[3]^: 335 Kloppenborg points out that there are instances of overlap that scholars believe are Common Sayings Source material found in the wisdom speeches, “Thomas lacks elements present in Q, which had Thomas known Q, would surely have taken over.”^[3]^: 335 Kloppenborg created the stratification theory in Q that Crossan relies on but it seems that Kloppenborg does not agree with the use of his theory to create a comparison between his layering of Q and the layering of the Gospel of Thomas.

Deconick also points out that “equally questionable is the reliance on Kloppenborg’s hypothetical model of stratification for Q.”^[5]^: 54–55 Crossan admits in his work that his theory is heavily dependent on the accuracy of the three theories that he has combined, including the hypothetical Q source. Deconick uses this fact as an argument against Crossan's theory. She also explains that she is “reluctant to concede an early “sapiential” Thomas and that she finds it impossible to 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.”^[5]^: 45 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.”^[5]^: 54

Related Research Articles

Gospel originally meant the Christian message, but in the 2nd century it came to be used also for the books in which the message was reported. In this sense a gospel can be defined as a loose-knit, episodic narrative of the words and deeds of Jesus, culminating in his trial and death and concluding with various reports of his post-resurrection appearances. Modern biblical scholars are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically, but nevertheless, they provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and critical study can attempt to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of the later Christian authors.

Marcan priority is the hypothesis that the Gospel of Mark was the first of the three synoptic gospels to be written, and was used as a source by the other two. It is a central element in discussion of the synoptic problem; the question of the documentary relationship among these three gospels.

Burton L. Mack was an American author and scholar of early Christian history and the New Testament. He was John Wesley Professor emeritus in early Christianity at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California. Mack was primarily a scholar of Christian origins, approaching it from the angle of social group formation. Mack's approach was skeptical, and he saw traditional Christian documents like the Gospels as myth as opposed to history. He viewed the gospels more as charter documents of the early Christian movements, not as reliable accounts of the life of Jesus.

The Gospel of Thomas is an extra-canonical sayings gospel. It was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945 among a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library. Scholars speculate that the works were buried in response to a letter from Bishop Athanasius declaring a strict canon of Christian scripture. Scholars have proposed dates of composition as early as 60 AD and as late as 250 AD. Since its discovery, many scholars have seen it as evidence in support of the existence of a "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, referred to as a sayings gospel.

The Jesus Seminar was a group of about 50 biblical criticism scholars and 100 laymen founded in 1985 by Robert Funk that originated under the auspices of the Westar Institute. The seminar was very active through the 1980s and 1990s, and into the early 21st century.

The two-source hypothesis 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 gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar or sometimes identical wording. They stand in contrast to John, whose content is largely distinct. The term synoptic comes via Latin from the Greek σύνοψις, synopsis, i.e. "(a) seeing all together, synopsis"; the sense of the word in English, the one specifically applied to these three gospels, of "giving an account of the events from the same point of view or under the same general aspect" is a modern one.

The Farrer hypothesis is a possible solution to the synoptic problem. The theory is that the Gospel of Mark was written first, followed by the Gospel of Matthew and then by the Gospel of Luke.

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.

John Dominic Crossan is an Irish-American New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, former Catholic priest who was a prominent member of the Jesus Seminar, and emeritus professor at DePaul University. His research has focused on the historical Jesus, the theology of noncanonical Gospels, and the application of postmodern hermeneutical approaches to the Bible. His work is controversial, portraying the Second Coming as a late corruption of Jesus' message and saying that Jesus' divinity is metaphorical. In place of the eschatological message of the Gospels, Crossan emphasizes the historical context of Jesus and of his followers immediately after his death. He describes Jesus' ministry as founded on free healing and communal meals, negating the social hierarchies of Jewish culture and the Roman Empire.

The criterion of multiple attestation, also called the criterion of independent attestation or the cross-section method, is a tool used by Biblical scholars to help determine whether certain actions or sayings by Jesus in the New Testament are from the Historical Jesus. Simply put, the more independent witnesses that report an event or saying, the better. This criterion was first developed by F. C. Burkitt in 1906, at the end of the first quest for the historical Jesus.

John S. (Seargeant) Kloppenborg is a Canadian professor of Religious Studies with expertise in Greco-Roman culture, Judean culture and Christian Origins, particularly the synoptic gospels and Q-source. He is presently at the University of Toronto, where he holds the distinguished title of "University Professor." He was elected a member of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas in 1990, and was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada in 2014. In 2019-2020 he served as the president of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas. He is also a member of The Context Group, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies. He was awarded honorary doctorates from the University of Lethbridge (2011) and the University of Pretoria (2018)

Source criticism, in biblical criticism, refers to the attempt to establish the sources used by the authors and redactors of a biblical text. It originated in the 18th century with the work of Jean Astruc, who adapted the methods already developed for investigating the texts of classical antiquity to his own investigation into the sources of the Book of Genesis. It was subsequently considerably developed by German scholars in what was known as "the higher criticism", a term no longer in widespread use. The ultimate aim of these scholars was to reconstruct the history of the biblical text and also the religious history of ancient Israel.

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 the 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 Jerusalem School Hypothesis is one of many possible solutions to the synoptic problem, that the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew both relied on older texts which are now lost. It was developed by Robert Lindsey, from the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research.

The two-gospel hypothesis or Griesbach hypothesis is that the Gospel of Matthew was written before the Gospel of Luke, and that both were written earlier than the Gospel of Mark. It is a proposed solution to the synoptic problem, which concerns the pattern of similarities and differences between the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The hypothesis is generally first credited to Johann Jakob Griesbach writing in the 1780s; it was introduced in its current form by William R. Farmer in 1964 and given its current designation of two-gospel hypothesis in 1979.

The Q source (also called The Sayings Gospel, Q Gospel, Q document(s), or Q; from German: Quelle, meaning "source") is a hypothetical written collection of primarily Jesus' sayings (λόγια : logia). Q is part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark. According to this hypothesis, this material was drawn from the early Church's oral gospel traditions.

In textual criticism of the New Testament, the L source is a hypothetical oral or textual tradition which the author of Luke–Acts may have used when composing the Gospel of Luke.

The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis is that a lost gospel, written in Hebrew or Aramaic, predated the four canonical gospels. Some have suggested a complete unknown proto-gospel as the source of the canonical gospels. This hypothesis is usually based upon an early Christian tradition from the 2nd-century bishop Papias of Hierapolis. According to Papias, Matthew the Apostle was the first to compose a gospel, and he did so in Hebrew. Papias appeared to imply that this Hebrew or Aramaic gospel was subsequently translated into the canonical Gospel of Matthew. Jerome took this information one step further and claimed that all known Jewish-Christian gospels really were one and the same, and that this gospel was the authentic Matthew. As a consequence he assigned all known quotations from Jewish-Christian gospels to the "gospels of the Hebrews", but modern studies have shown this to be untenable. Modern variants of the hypothesis survive, but have not found favor with scholars as a whole.

Advanced by Dennis R. MacDonald, the Q+/Papias hypothesis (Q+/PapH) offers an alternative solution to the synoptic problem. MacDonald prefers to call this expanded version of Q Logoi of Jesus, which is supposed to have been its original title.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Crossan, John Dominic. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998.
↑ Linssen, Martijn (2020-08-12). "The 72 logia of Thomas and their canonical cousins". Absolute Thomasine priority. Part III: 141 – via academia.edu.
1 2 3 4 5 6 McLean, Bradley H. The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q (Novum Testamentum, Supplements, 75). Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 1995.
↑ Kloppenborg, John S. Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008. Pg. 107
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DeConick, April D. Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel And Its Growth (The Library of New Testament Studies). Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark Publishers, 2006.
↑ Bultmann, Rudolf. History of the Synoptic Tradition. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. Pg 31.
↑ Koester, Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990. pg. 95.
1 2 Loader, William. "Simple Choices: A response to John Dominic Crossan." Colloquium 31.2 (1999): 67-74.
1 2 3 4 Mount, Christopher. "[Untitled Review]." The Journal of Religion 80.1 (2000): 110-120. pg. 119.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[Crossan-1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Crossan, John Dominic. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998.

[2] Linssen, Martijn (2020-08-12). "The 72 logia of Thomas and their canonical cousins". Absolute Thomasine priority. Part III: 141 – via academia.edu.

[McLean-3] 1 2 3 4 5 6 McLean, Bradley H. The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q (Novum Testamentum, Supplements, 75). Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 1995.

[4] Kloppenborg, John S. Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008. Pg. 107

[DeConick-5] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DeConick, April D. Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel And Its Growth (The Library of New Testament Studies). Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark Publishers, 2006.

[6] Bultmann, Rudolf. History of the Synoptic Tradition. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. Pg 31.

[7] Koester, Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990. pg. 95.

[Loader-8] 1 2 Loader, William. "Simple Choices: A response to John Dominic Crossan." Colloquium 31.2 (1999): 67-74.

[Mount-9] 1 2 3 4 Mount, Christopher. "[Untitled Review]." The Journal of Religion 80.1 (2000): 110-120. pg. 119.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]