Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Reviews

Reviews REVIEWS Jens Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte. Studien zur Rezeption der Logimüberliiferung in Markus, Q und Thomas. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 76, Ncukirchener Verlag. Neukirchen 1997, 529 pages. After a longwinded discussion on the pros and cons of form critical analysis the author argues that the two-sourccs theory (Q and Mark as sources of Matthew and Luke) is a plausible scientific model to which the Gospel of Thomas should now be added. Then follows a fair survey of the questions concerning Mark, Q, and Thomas. Mark is a sort of biography, written about 70 A.D., which tells a story based on oral tradition. Its author did not use any written sources, neither for the parables in chapter 4 nor for the Passion narrative. Q, the supposed written Greek source of Matthew and Luke, is of about the same date: it began possibly with a description of the baptism of Jesus and certainly with a temptation narrative, but contained no tradition about Jesus' death. It transmits both sapiential and prophetic sayings, but these cannot be separated into successive layers. These logia were conducted into orations. Its basic idea is that Jesus is identical with the Son http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Vigiliae Christianae Brill

Reviews

Download PDF
21 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/reviews-n5SezKoKIj

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1999 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0042-6032
eISSN
1570-0720
DOI
10.1163/157007299X00271
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

REVIEWS Jens Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte. Studien zur Rezeption der Logimüberliiferung in Markus, Q und Thomas. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 76, Ncukirchener Verlag. Neukirchen 1997, 529 pages. After a longwinded discussion on the pros and cons of form critical analysis the author argues that the two-sourccs theory (Q and Mark as sources of Matthew and Luke) is a plausible scientific model to which the Gospel of Thomas should now be added. Then follows a fair survey of the questions concerning Mark, Q, and Thomas. Mark is a sort of biography, written about 70 A.D., which tells a story based on oral tradition. Its author did not use any written sources, neither for the parables in chapter 4 nor for the Passion narrative. Q, the supposed written Greek source of Matthew and Luke, is of about the same date: it began possibly with a description of the baptism of Jesus and certainly with a temptation narrative, but contained no tradition about Jesus' death. It transmits both sapiential and prophetic sayings, but these cannot be separated into successive layers. These logia were conducted into orations. Its basic idea is that Jesus is identical with the Son

Journal

Vigiliae Christianae – Brill

Published: Jan 1, 1999

There are no references for this article.