Hi Steve,

You remember well, but Philo does more than mention the "Therapeutae" - he
wrote a little book about them!  It is available as "Philo of Alexandria:
The Contemplative Life, Giants and Selections (Classics of Western
Spirituality)" translated by David Winston.  It is an anthology and the book
on the Therapeutae is "The Contemplative Life" part of it.  They were not
gnostics, however, they were apparently Jewish mystics who were into ascent
practices and visions of god.  They were practicing late first century B.C.
and early first century A.D.

Wade

Your Philo does
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve"
>
> I don't recall where I read it but if I remember correctly, Philo
> mentions some Jewish folks in Alexandria who were called "Therapeutae"
> who seemed to have a mixture of Jewish and gnostic conceptions.  The
> brief mention of them, where ever it was, was tantalizing.
>
> Steve

Thank you Steve,

"Philo mentions some Jewish folks in Alexandria who were called "Therapeutae"

This Philo source to the Therapeutae is probably where Szekely got his notion
that Essenes adapted to Gnostic Christianity.  Of course there is no telling
what he made up and what could actually be valid, unless his contentions are
traced and corrected. One of the things to try and clarify is if the Essenes
actually practiced a form of Gnosticism that influenced the historic Jesus.

Clement and others who use references to the Old Testament are either
convoluting their perception to conform to Gnostic dogma of the time, or there
are actual ties in Gnostic understanding to both the old (Jewish understanding)
and that of the new Christian Gnosticism. If Essenes did prescribe to a form of
Gnosticism then the adaptation to Christian Gnosticism might have been easy for
some.  It would also explain the pre-existing 'understanding' that Ehrman refers
to in "Lost Christianities."  He contends that the Gnostic texts are written for
someone who has cultivated an understanding of Gnosticism.

Tom Saunders
Platter, OK



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve" <dermarc@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 8:35 PM
Subject: [GTh] Re: Essenes ....and Therapeutae?


> --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Saunders" <tom@c...>
>
> > That certainly may be the case.  What I am after here is to try and
> place the concepts of pre-Christian ideas of Gnosticism within the
> boundaries of secular Judaism.
> ................................................. Could it be a
> realization of combined ideas from pre-existing notions of Gnosis from
> multiple sources, like some of the notions of the Essenes?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Tom Saunders
> >
>
> Tom,
>
> I don't recall where I read it but if I remember correctly, Philo
> mentions some Jewish folks in Alexandria who were called "Therapeutae"
> who seemed to have a mixture of Jewish and gnostic conceptions.  The
> brief mention of them, where ever it was, was tantalizing.
>
> Steve
>
>

Hi, Steve,

A Google search turned up the following.  The source in Philo is "De Vita
Contemplativa", but as to whether they were "Gnostic", the evidence I could
garner from the web is unclear.  The search engine at www.gnosis.org turned
nothing up on "Therapeutae", & they rather broadly include anything that
might be remotely Gnostic, so I doubt there's a connection.  Mostly, at
least in the link below, the Therapeutae are characterized as forerunners of
Christian monasticism, even to the point of being considered as having been
"converted by St. Mark".  Unlike the Essenes, who were more practical, the
Therapeutae were more contemplative.  They are also mentioned in the work of
Pseudo-Dionysius.

1.1911encyclopedia.org/T/TH/THERAPEUTAE.htm
www.omhros.gr/kat/history/Txt/Rl/Therapeutae.htm

Jim Bauer

--- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Saunders" <tom@c...> wrote:

snip, snip, snip ...


...  What I am after here is to try and place the concepts of
pre-Christian ideas of Gnosticism within the boundaries of secular
Judaism ...

Sincerely,

Tom Saunders

------------------------

Hello Tom "et alia" ...

     I really had to stop and re-read your above sentence several times
to correctly grasp it. I understand what you are saying, although are
we not a bit tainted by concepts of history when we try to define
"pre-Christian" as a period .... indeed during the first few hundred
years after Jesus' death were "Christians" not almost exclusively
practising "Jews" who happened to have a (though serious) curiosity
about Jesus's teachings, or again "Jews" who were prepared to emulate
him in certain ways ?

If not, at what precise date might have "Christians" (as we understand
the term) come to exist? Keep in mind that Judaism was "tolerated" in
the Roman Empire long before "Christianity" was ... at the time of
Constantine's death in the 4th century. So, how are we to define the
start of the Christian era ... immediately after Jesus' death, or at
the dawn of the fourth century.

Cheers !

Maurice Cormier

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Bauer" <jbauer@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Essenes ....and Therapeutae?


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve" <dermarc@...>
> To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 8:35 PM
> Subject: [GTh] Re: Essenes ....and Therapeutae?
>
>
> > --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Saunders" <tom@c...>
> >
> > > That certainly may be the case.  What I am after here is to try and
> > place the concepts of pre-Christian ideas of Gnosticism within the
> > boundaries of secular Judaism.
> > ................................................. Could it be a
> > realization of combined ideas from pre-existing notions of Gnosis from
> > multiple sources, like some of the notions of the Essenes?
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Tom Saunders
> > >
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > I don't recall where I read it but if I remember correctly, Philo
> > mentions some Jewish folks in Alexandria who were called "Therapeutae"
> > who seemed to have a mixture of Jewish and gnostic conceptions.  The
> > brief mention of them, where ever it was, was tantalizing.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
>
> Hi, Steve,
>
> A Google search turned up the following.  The source in Philo is "De Vita
> Contemplativa", but as to whether they were "Gnostic", the evidence I
could
> garner from the web is unclear.  The search engine at www.gnosis.org
turned
> nothing up on "Therapeutae", & they rather broadly include anything that
> might be remotely Gnostic, so I doubt there's a connection.  Mostly, at
> least in the link below, the Therapeutae are characterized as forerunners
of
> Christian monasticism, even to the point of being considered as having
been
> "converted by St. Mark".  Unlike the Essenes, who were more practical, the
> Therapeutae were more contemplative.  They are also mentioned in the work
of
> Pseudo-Dionysius.
>
> 1.1911encyclopedia.org/T/TH/THERAPEUTAE.htm
> www.omhros.gr/kat/history/Txt/Rl/Therapeutae.htm
>
> Jim Bauer
>
>
>
Philo on the Therapeutae is online at
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book34.html

Andrew Criddle

Hi Maurice,

  'So, how are we to define the
start of the Christian era ... immediately after Jesus' death, or at
the dawn of the fourth century?"


I would put it at the dawn of the first Christian apokatastasis, described in
Pistis Sophia.  Karen King puts the work in the third century but I don't think
it can be that late. There are several things that indicate to me that the work
is very early (it's folksy style); and it has two fundamental purposes.  One is
to indicate those disciples known to have started Gnostic Christianity, and been
handed 'special knowledge' by Jesus' teachings.  The other is to indicate that
Matthew, Thomas, and Phillip are bearers of that knowledge and wrote it down
from the earliest time.

As to a historical and archeological place of origin, the 'ground zero' would be
the Apostle's Village, in Jerusalem.   A connection to Essenes would show a
propensity for some of the first converts to have been very literate.  This
suggests that there would have been scribes, who would have written some things
down at the earliest part of the formation of the first Christian networks. 
Proto-Thomas & Matthew.  Clement refers to Matthew and Paul, but would have had
Pistis Sophia.  If it was incorrect, in assuming the characters portrayed, and
the texts written, it would have been an issue for the "Stromata," I'm sure.

At this point Apostles were still alive and there would be no question to their
rightful place as Christian Elders. But we know from Acts and other texts that
communities had huge problems. Simply, not all new converts could grasp Plato's
Republic, Philo, and related tenets of Gnosticism.  From the earliest time of
community, Gnostics and those that subscribed to the GThom and what it says it
is, would probably be (a select) few. And like Ehrman suggests, among and amidst
the 'others.'

When the first Jewish convert could go through apolutrosis, in some form of
cateshise of Gnostic training, then that is when I see the Christian era
beginning, at least for the Gnostic.  I am suggesting from the earliest times
more than one Christianity developed.  Not all of any large group could be
expected to be equally adept at becoming enlightened.  ( Pneumatic: One who
identifies with the spirit (pneuma), beyond that of the physical (hylic) world
and the intellect alone (psychic). The pneuma, described in the Gospel of
Phillip as breath, refers to bonding with the internal spark (spinther) that
came from and is drawn to reunite with the Father in some Gnostic schema. One
who awakens it (the spinther) within the self does it through the process of
gnosis.) And, apokatastasis, according to Haracleon.

Regardless of the similarities in non-Christian concepts of Gnosis, the
Christian era began when one reached Gnosis through Jesus. Other Christians
didn't reach Gnosis.

Tom Saunders
Platter, OK













[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi All,

As to the question of mysticism and Gnosticism, I would contend that a great
deal of Gnosticism could be considered a type of mysticism.  Consider the
following:

The goal of mysticism is direct experiential communion with God. In this
experience the mystic no longer exists as a separate individual but becomes one
with Oneness. This vision can only arise when the mystic realizes that the
ego-self is only an illusionary veil that masks the true divine Self, and that
this Self is God, the being of all beings, the one true Self of All existence. 
God is not something 'other' but is our shared essential identity.  Communion
with God is experienced as freedom from suffering the separation of solitary
confinement with the mortal self, and the blissful liberation into the
expansive, all embracing nature of God.  The human being is an animal who has
received the vocation to become God."  "Basil of Caesarea, Asia Minor 359-79"
This description seems to fit both the perimeters of Gnosticism and what Basil
calls mysticism.  I am sorry that I do not have the exact source of the above
yet.  I got the quote from a friend and have asked about its source.  If anyone
knows I would appreciate the reference.

Tom Saunders

Platter, OK



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

useful links
"The interdisciplinary seminar on the Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian
Mysticism"
http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/


At 10.17 22/03/04 -0800, you wrote:
>Hi All,
>As to the question of mysticism and Gnosticism,

Elio Jucci

   SETH - Semitica et Theologica
   http://dobc.unipv.it/SETH/index.htm
   http://lettere.unipv.it/SETH/religioni.htm
http://lettere.unipv.it/SETH/qumr_cav.htm
"Ex magno amoris incendio tantus uirtutis decor in animo crescit ..."
                          (Richard Rolle, Incendium Amoris)

The following is a note that appeared on the Crosstalk2 list on
March 20th. The author (Gordon Raynal) has given me permission to
repost it to the GThomas list, together with other notes and
materials to follow. For reference purposes, I've uploaded
Gordon's "Thomas 2" text to our group files section at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/files/. Of course, this
doesn't constitute an endorsement of Gordon's views, but rather
an effort to bring them to the attention of our members.
-Mike Grondin

--- Begin forwarded message ---

In a note to follow I want to post what I take to be the original
layer of the Gospel of Thomas.  Over the years I've worked with
this, but never took time to type it out until yesterday and this
morning (urged on to do so by an offline discussion with one of our
members). I well imagine that there were more collections of Jesus'
speech than just Q and Thomas.  But for those who have a hard time
accepting Q, Thomas represents an extant text.  I understand that
one can maintain that the person/community who produced the text can
view: 1. the text as only a whole, 2. that it is a second century
production based in copying from earlier works and oral tradition.
My own view is that there was this original text that I will post.
Most likely it was written down very early for utilization
by "missionaries" for teaching purposes and for communities to have
a copy of Jesus' sayings for their own worship and study (perhaps as
early as the 30's).  If one will start with this base one can see
the second layer/ first redaction of sayings and creation of sayings
that give a "spiritualist" or what might be called "mystic" framing
of the earlier work.  These framings and new sayings are
not "gnostic," but rather take the document in a particular
theological direction. (as Q1 is redacted with Classical Prophetic
and Apocalyptic resources and reflections, I would suggest this
different sort of schema)  I would date this redaction after the
Roman Jewish War, but before the Gospel of John (so between 70 and
90).  Such "a spin" (to use that modern expression) is certainly and
understandable and legimate theological line of reflection,
especially in the face of dealing with the effects of the war. I
think the third layer/ second redaction is after John and takes us
on towards gnostic interpretation, although I don't think the extant
Thomas is fully gnostic.  I'd suggest a date after Luke, which I
place 110 to 120.

The translation used is "the Scholar's Version" done by the Jesus
Seminar. Please pardon any typos. I will cut and paste this, so as
not to send it as an attachment.

Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC
--- End forwarded message ---

Gordon Raynal:

"(as Q1 is redacted with Classical Prophetic
and Apocalyptic resources and reflections, I would suggest this
different sort of schema)  I would date this redaction after the
Roman Jewish War, but before the Gospel of John..."

What effects would be relevant to Christian groups that would cause a change in
their epistemologies?  No doubt it had effects but I am wondering what others
think were the key points to understand the changes in Christian groups, at this
time. The Romans probably did not make the distinction between Christians and
Jews, so in the "War Zones" Christians would have been at great risk, I assume.

Is there a chance we could get Mr. Raynal in the group?  It seems to me he could
be a great contributor.

Tom Saunders
Platter, OK


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>"(as Q1 is redacted with Classical Prophetic
>and Apocalyptic resources and reflections, I would suggest this
>different sort of schema)  I would date this redaction after the
>Roman Jewish War, but before the Gospel of John..."
>
>What effects would be relevant to Christian groups that would cause a
>change in their epistemologies?  No doubt it had effects but I am wondering
>what others think were the key points to understand the changes in
>Christian groups, at this time. The Romans probably did not make the
>distinction between Christians and Jews, so in the "War Zones" Christians
>would have been at great risk, I assume.
>
>Is there a chance we could get Mr. Raynal in the group?  It seems to me he
>could be a great contributor.
>
>Tom Saunders
>Platter, OK

Hi Tom and all,

Mike suggested I might want to join the group and so I have.  I appreciate
your and others interest in my work on G.Th.

To your questions:

First, before we move to the production of a second/new text I work from the
position that the earliest community was a religiously diverse community
within the context of a diverse Hebrew/Jewish heritage.  As such I think
there were folks for whom "spirituality/religious life" was first and
foremost internal-- what we might call "a matter of the heart." The
heritage, of course, contains the Psalms and Proverbs, many of which are all
about the inward disposition of the self and/or community in relation to the
things of faith.  So, my first suggestion for thought is that the original
speech of the community was a ripe source for reflection in relation to this
way of spirituality.

Second, I think issues of difference between "the inaugural time" and
"making for a continuing community" lead to different kinds of focus on the
inaugural language.  Just as an example:  In it's original setting an
aphorism's function to raise a conversation or make comment in a
conversation about subject "x," can be continued by simply recording it and
utilizing it "from the paper" in like situations to come. [What I'm
suggesting here is that part of the utility of GT1 (my shorthand for
"Original Thomas") was for the missionaries to have a brief text of the
inaugural language to take with them as they circulated about to spread the
movement and in those "houses" where the movement was already going, to
rehearse again the conversations that got the movement going in the first
place and expand upon them]  But as a community moves on and seeks to
establish itself and define itself (issues of rules, norms, leadership,
social boundaries, central praxis, etc.), then there is the need to reframe
language in light of the establishing and defining needs.  Hence aphorisms
and parables that originally had one utility can have a second as well.  In
my example here of "the original" raising a conversation, with reframing and
reshaping can now become rule defining or "spiritual direction giving" (if I
may use that odd phrasing). Such as the genre shift via allegorization or
framing the language as a specific directive shifts the original language in
a new direction.

Third, I want to simply mention more study and thought and action.  What I'm
after here is that "a good and juicy thought" that is powerful in one
circumstance might just be "good and juicy" in a different sort of way later
on.  I take it that this Hebrew/Jewish community more and more thought about
the original language in terms of the Hebrew Scriptures.  And I take it that
new circumstances that aroused abiding ethical and theological issues in a
new way led to thoughts and reflections about the original language in those
new circumstances.  So facing situation "x" and thinking about the
Scriptures and thinking about the intellectual produce in the community
facing "x," led to reframing and extending or even redefining "the original
gist" in a new way.

So... before we even think about a new text production and before we think
about major conflicts in the community and in the world about, I think we
need to think about such as these 3 issues.

Now to get to the issues of tensions/conflict which I think propelled new
textual production, I think we need to think both in terms of internal and
external issues. Internally and based on the above ideas the production of a
new text, a new text works to express the identity and interpretative
practices of this group.  As such it differentiates this group from others.
Second, I think we need to think about the effects of the death of the first
generation leaders and the task of carrying on by a new generation.

   Externally, I think we need to think about the Romans and the growing
divide among groups claiming the religious Hebraic/Jewish heritage.  I think
the biggest issue by far to think about is the effect of the Roman-Jewish
war, the sacking of Jerusalem, the loss of the temple and all the death,
suffering and distruction that was a part of that great trauma.  But also
external to this community was how others were claiming and redefining the
received heritage.  Some groups simply ceased to be in this great conflict
(the Essenes, the Zealots).  But the Pharisees endured.  And the Samaritans
endured. And it seems that some of the followers of the Baptizer were
hanging on... hence I say "Hebrew/ Jewish" as I think we need to keep such
as JTB's followers and the Samaritans in view when we think about the era
and the textual production.

To end for this note, one mode of dealing with all above and most especially
the trauma of the R-J War and its effects, could be to think about and work
out of the Classical Prophetic and Apocalyptic materials.  I think this is
what we see in the development in Q.  But another highly understandable way
to face such trauma is to "turn inward" and focus upon "matters of the
heart."  I think this is what we see in GT2.  GT2 is what I'd term "a
Spiritual Gospel."  It is **not** gnostic or proto-gnostic (which ever
language folks want to apply to extant G.Th.).  Rather, by way of
comparison, it's rather like the meditative Psalms and Proverbs, a resource
for reflecting on the shaping of one's heart and the community's heart.

Does this help?

Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC

Hi Gordon,

Welcome to the group.  I am largely in agreement with some of your suggestions
on the development of the GThom.  Frank McCoy and I agree that parts of the
GThom most certainly came about in different proto-documents, such as the
parables.  Frank is one of the best scholars I have ever seen when it comes to
figuring out ways the Gospels have come about.  This group has some of the
finest 'academic hairsplitters' in the biz, so don't be surprised if they give
you the "once over."

The parables are an example of a specific group of sayings that can be
classified as a separate and recognizable type of literature. They can also be
thought of to be one of the first recorded things that Jesus said during his
lifetime.  As a literary subset to the GThom they are mysterious indeed. To me
they are the proof in the pudding that the GThom was assembled from parts.
Whether they were contrived to go along with an agenda is the big question.

Perhaps the GThom was in part meant to preserve an earlier model presented in
the parables, and the rest of the GThom was written around them.  It is as hard
to prove as which Gospel came first.

Some in this group can bring up good conviction that "Q" is 'prunikus' (faulty).
What I like about your suggestions are they regard the conception of the GThom
for utility or application due to a cause, or in your case causes.

You suggest that part of the GThom was not meant to be Gnostic.  I would suggest
that Gnostic is in the eye of the beholder, and the GThom is meant to foster
'gnostic perspective,' along with related Gospels.  So, what I am suggesting
here is that one privy to the 'way' of developing Gnostic views is going to
interpret the GThom as a Gnostic text, totally. That would mean that what you
have perceived as 'meditative' is still not separate from Gnostic perspective. 
It may well be related to meditations known by Thomasine sects. The "Books of
Jue" seem to be based upon meditations relative to Gnostic study. ( If anyone on
the list has the complete set I still have not been able to get them (especially
the drawings), and would appreciate seeing a copy.)

Another consideration to utility has to do with the aspects of group dynamics. 
A lot of information points to the fact that 'all' in a group could not grasp
the concept of the "All."  Ehraman, in his book "Lost Christianities" I think
argues convincingly this point. Thomas communities were inside other
communities, and they were separate because they demonstrated the capacity to
use the Gnostic tools.

As to the effect of the Roman-Jewish War, was there any specific event that can
be linked to a specific change in Christian epistemology?

Tom Saunders
Platter Flats, OK






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Tom,

>Welcome to the group.

Thank you.

   I am largely in agreement with some of your
>suggestions on the development of the GThom.  Frank McCoy and I agree that
>parts of the GThom most certainly came about in different proto-documents,
>such as the parables.

I agree that I think this was "a writing crowd," that we are working from
only bits of the produce and that a lot of different communities may have
produced like works.  In fantasy I'm hoping a bulldozer turns over a
collection of sealed amphora in Capernaum one of these days... and out pops
a nice collection of the parables written on skins!

  This group
>has some of the finest 'academic hairsplitters' in the biz, so don't be
>surprised if they give you the "once over."

Oh, I'm use to that from the J.Sem list when I was on it some years ago, and
from the Xtalk list of which I'm a part now.  I like a good argument as long
as it avoids the waste of time personal attacks.
>
>The parables are an example of a specific group of sayings that can be
>classified as a separate and recognizable type of literature. They can also
>be thought of to be one of the first recorded things that Jesus said during
>his lifetime.  As a literary subset to the GThom they are mysterious
>indeed. To me they are the proof in the pudding that the GThom was
>assembled from parts. Whether they were contrived to go along with an
>agenda is the big question.

Well said.  I'll be interested what you and others have to say about "the
agenda" issue(s).
>
>Perhaps the GThom was in part meant to preserve an earlier model presented
>in the parables, and the rest of the GThom was written around them.  It is
>as hard to prove as which Gospel came first.

"Prove," of course, is a tough word to use in these matters.  What one can
do is demonstrate a core of speech from across the documents and show the
patterns of development of that speech.  The issue of "edges" will always be
fairly fluid ( that is a simple aphorism may have been created at a later
date and appended to a work), but there is a core of speech that is either
directly saved or the source for further creativity and reflection.  So
we're only talking degrees of probability, but there are clearly higher and
lower ones of those.
>
>Some in this group can bring up good conviction that "Q" is 'prunikus'
>(faulty).

I won't die, if Q is take out of the picture, but I do hold that Q was a
real document that also has an original layer and two redactions before use
by Matthew and later, Luke.

   What I like about your suggestions are they regard the
>conception of the GThom for utility or application due to a cause, or in
>your case causes.

Thank you.  I think the utility issue is important.  In the case of gathered
sayings works, the Hebraic/Jewish heritage considered such works important
(Proverbs, ben Sira, the Wisdom of Solomon).  Even if one wants to make
other historical claims about HJ, it makes perfect sense that the wisdom
words would be gathered for utilization at memorial meals, for textual
study, for missionary proclamation, for purposes of affirming the essential
constitution of the movement.  That some of these would be given leadership
figure approval and hence gain an authoritative place is the stuff of
organizational formation.  There are those who vehemently want to argue that
G.Th. is second century and taken from the synoptics and perhaps other
sources.  I think that makes no sense literarily, historically,
theologically nor in terms of thinking about praxis and community formation
issues.
>
>You suggest that part of the GThom was not meant to be Gnostic.  I would
>suggest that Gnostic is in the eye of the beholder, and the GThom is meant
>to foster 'gnostic perspective,' along with related Gospels.  So, what I am
>suggesting here is that one privy to the 'way' of developing Gnostic views
>is going to interpret the GThom as a Gnostic text, totally. That would mean
>that what you have perceived as 'meditative' is still not separate from
>Gnostic perspective.  It may well be related to meditations known by
>Thomasine sects. The "Books of Jue" seem to be based upon meditations
>relative to Gnostic study. ( If anyone on the list has the complete set I
>still have not been able to get them (especially the drawings), and would
>appreciate seeing a copy.)

Well I will hold out for this separation on literary and theological
grounds.  Again... the Hebraic tradition has a rich collection of meditative
writings (the Psalms!) that are not capitol "G" Gnostic.  I don't think all
"Gnostics" were simply alike, of course, but I want to be careful not to
simply lump the move to "the inward turn" as necessarily being Gnostic or
leading to Gnosticism.
>
>Another consideration to utility has to do with the aspects of group
>dynamics.  A lot of information points to the fact that 'all' in a group
>could not grasp the concept of the "All."  Ehraman, in his book "Lost
>Christianities" I think argues convincingly this point. Thomas communities
>were inside other communities, and they were separate because they
>demonstrated the capacity to use the Gnostic tools.

I think the true Gnostics in many places joined and were a part of
communities very early.  But I don't think we can talk about full blown
Gnostics being in Jerusalem and very interested either in James' church when
he was alive or even after the war.
>
>As to the effect of the Roman-Jewish War, was there any specific event that
>can be linked to a specific change in Christian epistemology?

Let me simply restate this here... I don't think we get Extant Thomas...
that is GT3 until the second century... and I would say not until after
Luke-Acts ca. 130.  I think the move from GT1 to GT2... "the inward turn of
interpretation" makes special sense in terms of all the loss R/T the R-J
war.  Moving from that to GT3 where we see at least the beginnings of the
rejection of some of the fundamental ideas of the Hebraic heritage (the
essential goodness of creation/ the goodness of life... and the goodness of
the Creator) and the affirmation of a more philosophical dualism is
something that looks a lot more like internal disputes within early
Christianity.  Perhaps the failure of the Bar Kochba rebellion spurred on
this sharper "world negation" (just a guess), but I don't see signs of real
Gnosticism in the first century literary produce.

Thanks for your note.  Always interesting to find areas of agreement and
where the tussles are.

Gordon Raynal

I wanted to make the XTalk discussions on Gordon's stratification of GTh
more immediately available to members, but rather than copy the entire
contents of those notes, I've provided a list of links which can be clicked
if one wants to see the messages. (I'm not sure whether a Yahoogroups
ID is needed. If so, it's easy enough to set up.)

Interrogatory of Liz Fried:
LF: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15381
GR: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15387

The main thread was an interrelated discussion between Joseph Weaks (JW),
Gordon (GR), and myself (MG). Weaks was challenging Q and its stratification
as well; I wasn't. My critique had to do with what I perceive as lack of
rigour in the Raynal theory, though Weaks and myself were both asking about
the criteria that Gordon used to stratify GTh.

JW to GR: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15394
GR to JW: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15402
        (the above is as close as GR comes to providing his criteria)
JW to GR: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15405
GR to JW: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15416
JW to GR: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15432
GR to JW: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15434

MG to GR: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15430
GR to MG: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15436
MG to GR: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15438
GR to MG: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15442
MG to GR: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15450

JW to MG: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15456
MG to JW: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15466
GR to MG: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15461
MG to GR: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15463
GR to MG: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15468

Mike Grondin
The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm
The Coptic Gospel of Thomas in Context
http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/index.htm

This is notice that I've uploaded a spreadsheet for Gordon's stratification
scheme to our Files section (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/files)-
together with a slightly emended version of his text (#68 was shown twice,
with different shadings).

Members may also be interested in a discussion that took place on the old
Crosstalk in March '98 between Bill Arnal (who had a scheme somewhat like
Gordon's), Steve Davies (who objected to it) and others. Andrew Bernhard has
saved these fascinating and still-relevant discussions at:

http://www.gospels.net/xtalk/thomas/index05.html

Finally, I'm hoping that someone has a copy of Bill's paper "Rhetoric of
Marginality" (in which he laid out his scheme). I'd like to be able to
compare Gordon's scheme with Bill's, but I'm unable to locate Bill's paper.

Mike Grondin
The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm
The Coptic Gospel of Thomas in Context
http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/index.htm

Mike and all,

I want to thank Mike on the list (I have done so off-list as well) for this
work he's done.  I write hear with the plea, that sometimes errors might
show up as I'm not the world's greatest typist!  So more eyes reading and
asking questions is a help.

I also want to second that I hope someone does have Bill Arnal's
stratification.  I'd really like to see it as well.

Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC
----------
>From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
>To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [GTh] Crosstalk Discussions
>Date: 30, Mar 2004, 11:51 PM
>

>This is notice that I've uploaded a spreadsheet for Gordon's stratification
>scheme to our Files section (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/files)-
>together with a slightly emended version of his text (#68 was shown twice,
>with different shadings).
>
>Members may also be interested in a discussion that took place on the old
>Crosstalk in March '98 between Bill Arnal (who had a scheme somewhat like
>Gordon's), Steve Davies (who objected to it) and others. Andrew Bernhard has
>saved these fascinating and still-relevant discussions at:
>
>http://www.gospels.net/xtalk/thomas/index05.html
>
>Finally, I'm hoping that someone has a copy of Bill's paper "Rhetoric of
>Marginality" (in which he laid out his scheme). I'd like to be able to
>compare Gordon's scheme with Bill's, but I'm unable to locate Bill's paper.
>
>Mike Grondin
>The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
>http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm
>The Coptic Gospel of Thomas in Context
>http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/index.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
>To unsubscribe from this group,
>send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Raynal" <scudi1@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [GTh] Crosstalk Discussions


> Mike and all,
>
> I want to thank Mike on the list (I have done so off-list as well) for
this
> work he's done.  I write hear with the plea, that sometimes errors might
> show up as I'm not the world's greatest typist!  So more eyes reading and
> asking questions is a help.
>
> I also want to second that I hope someone does have Bill Arnal's
> stratification.  I'd really like to see it as well.
>


Dear Gordon Raynal:

On 8-2-02, I made a nine part posting on there possibly being three layers
to GThomas.   The first of the nine posts can be accessed at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/message/4987

In any event, the fourth part posting includes this excerpt, which gives
some information on Arnal's stratification of GThomas:

In "The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism,  Gnosticism, and Sayings
Gospels" (Harvard Theological Review, 88:4, 1995), Bill Arnal postulates the
existence of two stratum in GTh. The earlier (see p. 478) is "the sapiential
stratum" and it includes GTh 3. 5. 6. 9. 14. 16. 20. 26. 31, 32, 34-36,  42,
45, 47, 54, 55, 57, 63-65, 71, 74, 76, 89, 95-98, 107, 109, and 110.  The
later (see p.479) is "the gnostic-leaning stratum" and it includes Gth 11,
13, 15, 18, 21-22, 27-28, 49-50, 51, 60, 61, 83, 84, 101, 105, 108, 11, and
114.

I hope this helps.

Incidentally, the fourth post, from which this excerpt comes, is a great
embarrasment to me to this day because, in it, I inadvertently referred to
April DeConick as "he".   After Tom's recent compliment of me (thank you
Tom, you are way too kind!),  remembrance of gross mistakes like this one,
that I way too frequently make, help to bring me back to reality.

Regards,

Frank McCoy
1809 N. English Apt. 15
Maplewood, MN USA 55109

Frank McCoy wrote:
> In "The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism,  Gnosticism, and Sayings
> Gospels" (Harvard Theological Review, 88:4, 1995), Bill Arnal postulates
the
> existence of two stratum in GTh. The earlier (see p. 478) is "the
sapiential
> stratum" and it includes GTh 3. 5. 6. 9. 14. 16. 20. 26. 31, 32, 34-36,
42,
> 45, 47, 54, 55, 57, 63-65, 71, 74, 76, 89, 95-98, 107, 109, and 110.  The
> later (see p.479) is "the gnostic-leaning stratum" and it includes Gth 11,
> 13, 15, 18, 21-22, 27-28, 49-50, 51, 60, 61, 83, 84, 101, 105, 108, 11,
and
> 114.

What about 1,2,4,7,8,10,12,17,19,23,24,25 ...?
If split-strata like some of Gordon's, would need details for full
comparison.

Mike Grondin

>On 8-2-02, I made a nine part posting on there possibly being three layers
>to GThomas.   The first of the nine posts can be accessed at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/message/4987
>
>In any event, the fourth part posting includes this excerpt, which gives
>some information on Arnal's stratification of GThomas:
>
>In "The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism,  Gnosticism, and Sayings
>Gospels" (Harvard Theological Review, 88:4, 1995), Bill Arnal postulates the
>existence of two stratum in GTh. The earlier (see p. 478) is "the sapiential
>stratum" and it includes GTh 3. 5. 6. 9. 14. 16. 20. 26. 31, 32, 34-36,  42,
>45, 47, 54, 55, 57, 63-65, 71, 74, 76, 89, 95-98, 107, 109, and 110.  The
>later (see p.479) is "the gnostic-leaning stratum" and it includes Gth 11,
>13, 15, 18, 21-22, 27-28, 49-50, 51, 60, 61, 83, 84, 101, 105, 108, 11, and
>114.
>
>I hope this helps.

I appreciate this and do want to look at your work and Bill's in depth.  As
it is Lent/Easter time it will probably be after this season is over, but
I'll print this and look at your work in the egroup files later on.

Thank you for this help.
>
>Incidentally, the fourth post, from which this excerpt comes, is a great
>embarrasment to me to this day because, in it, I inadvertently referred to
>April DeConick as "he".   After Tom's recent compliment of me (thank you
>Tom, you are way too kind!),  remembrance of gross mistakes like this one,
>that I way too frequently make, help to bring me back to reality.

I understand... and I hope that groups like this work to help us correct our
misstakes!

Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Raynal" <scudi1@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "Michael Ensley" <mensley@...>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: [GTh] Crosstalk Discussions


> >In "The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism,  Gnosticism, and Sayings
> >Gospels" (Harvard Theological Review, 88:4, 1995), Bill Arnal postulates
the
> >existence of two stratum in GTh. The earlier (see p. 478) is "the
sapiential
> >stratum" and it includes GTh 3. 5. 6. 9. 14. 16. 20. 26. 31, 32, 34-36,
42,
> >45, 47, 54, 55, 57, 63-65, 71, 74, 76, 89, 95-98, 107, 109, and 110.  The
> >later (see p.479) is "the gnostic-leaning stratum" and it includes Gth
11,
> >13, 15, 18, 21-22, 27-28, 49-50, 51, 60, 61, 83, 84, 101, 105, 108, 11,
and
> >114.
> >
> >I hope this helps.

> I appreciate this and do want to look at your work and Bill's in depth.
As
> it is Lent/Easter time it will probably be after this season is over, but
> I'll print this and look at your work in the egroup files later on.
>
> Thank you for this help.


Dear Gordon Raynal:

I think I made a mistake in the above.  In the final sequence  of "108, 11,
and 114", judging by my hand-written notes, the middle saying should be 111
rather than 11.

Also,  Mike has asked the question about how Arnal classified the sayings
not listed above.  It's been over a year since I read Arnal's paper, so I
don't know how trustworthy my recollections about it are.  In any event, to
the best of my recollection, he didn't classify them.  So, to the best of my
recollection, he made decisions only about the above listed sayings and left
the rest in an ambiguous situation.

> >Incidentally, the fourth post, from which this excerpt comes, is a great
> >embarrasment to me to this day because, in it, I inadvertently referred
to
> >April DeConick as "he".   After Tom's recent compliment of me (thank you
> >Tom, you are way too kind!),  remembrance of gross mistakes like this
one,
> >that I way too frequently make, help to bring me back to reality.

> I understand... and I hope that groups like this work to help us correct
our
> misstakes!

I would like to add two points.  First, April DeConick has written a paper
that I consider a "must read" for those doing research on the question of
whether there are layers of tradition in GThomas.  It is, "The Original
Gospel of Thomas" (Vigiliae Christianae, LVI: 2, 2002, pp.167-199).

Second, your "misstakes" is a mis-take!

Regards,

Frank McCoy
1809 N. English Apt. 15
Maplewood, MN 55109

Hi everyone! Frank McCoy wrote:

>Also,  Mike has asked the question about how Arnal classified the sayings
>not listed above.  It's been over a year since I read Arnal's paper, so I
>don't know how trustworthy my recollections about it are.  In any event, to
>the best of my recollection, he didn't classify them.  So, to the best of
>my
>recollection, he made decisions only about the above listed sayings and
>left
>the rest in an ambiguous situation.

That is exactly right. I tried to charactertize each "stratum" in terms of
the sayings that I felt could be assigned to each with some confidence. The
remaining sayings could be anything -- later add-ons, yet another stratum,
or (my personal preference) material that does belong to one or another of
the two strata I isolated, but which do not show sufficient evidence to
assign with certainty. Thomas is a pain, in part because it's not organized
into coherent discourses, and this makes it awfully hard, at times, to even
venture guesses as to the import of individual sayings. One of Kloppenborg's
main principles for discerning redaction in Q was the juxtaposition of units
in terms of thematic organizing principles. If this can be done in Thomas at
all, it only applies to a very small handful of sayings.

Frank added:

>I would like to add two points.  First, April DeConick has written a paper
>that I consider a "must read" for those doing research on the question of
>whether there are layers of tradition in GThomas.  It is, "The Original
>Gospel of Thomas" (Vigiliae Christianae, LVI: 2, 2002, pp.167-199).

Absolutely! This is the most recent RIGOROUS attempt to stratify Thomas (in
print, that is: I'm not implying that Gordon's lacks rigour!). I think it
would be instructive, though, to read April's piece alongside mine, since
there are marked *methodological* differences between the two. I'm not all
that committed, anymore, to the actual stratification I proposed. But I
remain committed to the METHOD I applied to arrive at that stratification,
and continue to think that that method is superior to that used either by
April or by Gordon. But I say this without prejudice to the results, i.e.,
which actual stratification is more likely to be right, if any.

regards and happy spring to all,
Bill
______________________
William Arnal
University of Regina

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://\
hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

Hi Bill,

Good to hear from you!  So you survived the winter freeze:)!  Is April's
work available online?  Can you easily send me your "rigorous work?"

To another matter, I'd like to hear your thoughts about the date and sitz of
early Thomas.  Do you conceive it, like you conceive Q1, "very early" (as
from you "Jesus and the Village Scribes" work)?

Gordon

Hi Frank,

>I think I made a mistake in the above.  In the final sequence  of "108, 11,
>and 114", judging by my hand-written notes, the middle saying should be 111
>rather than 11.
>
>Also,  Mike has asked the question about how Arnal classified the sayings
>not listed above.  It's been over a year since I read Arnal's paper, so I
>don't know how trustworthy my recollections about it are.  In any event, to
>the best of my recollection, he didn't classify them.  So, to the best of my
>recollection, he made decisions only about the above listed sayings and left
>the rest in an ambiguous situation.

Thanks for the clarification.

>I would like to add two points.  First, April DeConick has written a paper
>that I consider a "must read" for those doing research on the question of
>whether there are layers of tradition in GThomas.  It is, "The Original
>Gospel of Thomas" (Vigiliae Christianae, LVI: 2, 2002, pp.167-199).

Is this online anywhere?
>
>Second, your "misstakes" is a mis-take!

thanks:)!

Gordon

Hi Gordon et al.:

>Good to hear from you!  So you survived the winter freeze:)!

And it was a BAD winter this year, for any number of reasons.

>s April's
>work available online?  Can you easily send me your "rigorous work?"

The answer to both questions is, probably not. I am not aware of April's
article being on-line, nor my own. I know that sometime within the last
couple years, someone had wanted to post my HTR piece on their website, so I
wrote to HTR about the copyright, and never got a response. I forget who
wanted to do this, and don't know whether they went ahead with it anyway. I
doubt it.

>To another matter, I'd like to hear your thoughts about the date and sitz
>of
>early Thomas.  Do you conceive it, like you conceive Q1, "very early" (as
>from you "Jesus and the Village Scribes" work)?

Well, since I'm no longer convinced I was right, it's hard to say. But yes,
my inclination was to regard the foundational layer as quite early. And I am
STILL inclined to date the complete Thomas, i.e., Thomas as we more or less
have it, as very early -- i.e., 40s to 60s or thereabouts. I have yet to be
convinced by any of the arguments placing Thomas late-ish.

cheers,
Bill
______________________
William Arnal
University of Regina

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://\
hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 11:03:04 -0600, William Arnal wrote:
> The answer to both questions is, probably not. I am not aware of
> April's article being on-line, nor my own. I know that sometime
> within the last couple years, someone had wanted to post my HTR
> piece on their website, so I wrote to HTR about the copyright, and
> never got a response. I forget who wanted to do this, and don't
> know whether they went ahead with it anyway. I doubt it.

Hello,

I am the person who contacted you about posting the HTR article on the web.  I
am still interested in doing so (on the http://www.christianorigins.com/ web
site).  Perhaps you could ask HTR again?  It would be a great boon to all to
have the article available on the web.

--
Peter Kirby (Student at Fullerton College, CA)
Web Site: http://www.peterkirby.com/

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Arnal"

> >Is April's
> >work available online?  Can you easily send me your "rigorous work?"
>
> The answer to both questions is, probably not. I am not aware of April's
> article being on-line, nor my own. I know that sometime within the last
> couple years, someone had wanted to post my HTR piece on their website, so
I
> wrote to HTR about the copyright, and never got a response. I forget who
> wanted to do this, and don't know whether they went ahead with it anyway.
I
> doubt it.

April's article is not online for free.  It is available as a download for a
charge from Brill's website for the Vigiliae Christianae publication.  The
website is at:
http://lysander.ingentaselect.com/vl=2184547/cl=16/nw=1/rpsv/cw/brill/00426032/c\
ontp1.htm
and her article is under "Volume 56, Number 2 2003."

Wade

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [GTh] Crosstalk Discussions


> This is notice that I've uploaded a spreadsheet for Gordon's
stratification
> scheme to our Files section (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/files)-
> together with a slightly emended version of his text (#68 was shown twice,
> with different shadings).
>
I'd like to thank Gordon for his work and then comment on it.

After reading through the Crosstalk discussion the basis for the
three layers seems the following.
Layer 1 is mainly the material in Thomas that goes back to the
Historical Jesus/Very Early Church
Layer 2 is mainly the material that goes back to the Church of
AD 70 and before
Layer 3 is mainly the substantially Post AD 70 material.

My difficulty is that these layers can be taken in 2 ways, either
i/ in a Form Critical way in which we are talking of the dates of
the origin of the sayings considered as isolated sayings
or ii/ in a Source or Redacton Critical way in which we are talking
of the dates and composition of various hypothetical documents.
If taken in sense i/ This seems valid in principle, (I agree some of
the sayings go back to the very earliest chrch some are well after
AD 70 some come inbetween), and although I would question
some of the details, Gordon's assignations of sayings to layers seems
mostly plausible.
However, from the general nature of Gordon's discussion and specific
suggestions about changes in order of sayings between Layers 1
and 2,  it seems clear that the layers are to be taken as Source
documents for Thomas or Redactions of Thomas and I have
problems with this.

It is unlikely IMHO  that there ever was a pre-70 document
attributed to Thomas, containing mainly the material which is in
our Thomas and goes back to the earliest church, and arranging
this material in a way similar to our Thomas. I think it more likely
that the selection and ordering of this material into a document
attributed to Thomas is later than AD 70, although the individual
sayings in the original form of this document may well be much earlier.

Nor am I convinced that all the early material in Thomas was
present  in early versions of Thomas and that the last stage in
the redaction of Thomas was the addition of gnosticizing material.
It seems likely IMO  that the last 10 sayings of our Thomas has
had gnosticizing material added at a very late stage, (maybe mid
2nd century). However most of the gnosticizing material in
Thomas may have been present in much earlier forms of the
document and some very early material, (eg the parables in
sayings 63-65 which IMHO interrupt the flow of Thomas's
themes), may have been added at a late stage, under the influence
of the canonical synoptic gospels.

Gordon, I may be misunderstanding what you are saying in
which case I apologize and would appreciate clarification.
Otherwise it would help if you went into more detail about how
you distinguish evidence for the date of origin of a saying from
evidence for the date at which a saying was incorporated in a
document.

Andrew Criddle

Hi again Peter:

>I am the person who contacted you about posting the HTR article on the web.
>  I am still >interested in doing so (on the
>http://www.christianorigins.com/ web site).  Perhaps you could ask >HTR
>again?  It would be a great boon to all to have the article available on
>the web.

Sorry that I forgot who had asked me about this. That page is pretty
impressive. Have YOU tried to contact them? The last time I tried they just
completely ignored me. Maybe if you e-mail them and say, "I'm gonna post
this on my page," more or less just declaratively, they'll be inclined to
tell you why you CAN'T. And that gives us a starting point. What do you
think?

I just realized that I'm posting this to the whole group, so I'd better
actually say something about Thomas. So . . . I find myself rather shocked
at the late datings of this text, and the confidence with which they are
proposed. This is especially true of using the year 70 -- as is typical of
NT scholarship in general -- as a kind of boundry point by which to classify
all materials: they're either pre-70 (good, authentic) or post-70 (dubious,
reinterpretive, etc.). This is especially funny with Thomas since the text
makes no clear reference to the Jewish War at all! So it's sorta like
classifying atomic and subatomic physics texts according to whether they
pre-date or post-date the Chinese revolution. I mean, come on! Let's not get
so caught up in the standard rhetorics of our discourse that we abandon all
sense of the actual data!

cheers,
Bill
______________________
William Arnal
University of Regina

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://\
hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

Bill,

>>Sorry that I forgot who had asked me about this. That page is pretty
impressive. Have YOU tried to contact them? The last time I tried they just
completely ignored me. Maybe if you e-mail them and say, "I'm gonna post
this on my page," more or less just declaratively, they'll be inclined to
tell you why you CAN'T. And that gives us a starting point. What do you
think?<<

Peter might check with Prof. Mark Goodacre, who I believe has had similar
experiences with periodical publishers with regard to one of his own
articles. Whether it was Goodacre or not, the solution that was used was to
make a formal request, followed by a reasonable period for a reply (few
months). The was followed by an approach similar to what you proposed. The
difference was that it was declared that they intended to post the article
(having already obtained the author's permission) if the publisher *did not*
object.

Unfortunately I do not know if this approach worked (the publisher may well
have been aroused from complacency and said "no"). While I doubt that
posting an article will deprive the journal of much if any revenue (they've
already sold as many library copies of the subject issue as they are likely
to have), publishers seem to just hate setting precedents.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for your note.  This is a most busy week for me, but I do want to
get to your post. I'll see how the week goes re: time to think this through
and write a decent reply.  But I will get back to you.
Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC