(Note: This is the fifth in a series of five posts)

V UNIT 3--MT 11:11//LK 7:28//TH 46

A. The Text of Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28

Next, let us turn to an analysis of unit 3,  MT 11:11//LK 7:28//TH 46.

We will begin with Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28, which reads:
Line 1
Mt 11:11a Truly, I say to you, there has not arisen among [those] born of
women greater that John the Baptist,
Lk 7:28a I say to you, among those born of women, no one is greater than
John
Line 2
Mt 11:11b but the least in the Kingdom of the Heavens is greater than him..
Lk 7:28b But the least in the Kingdom of God is greater than him.

B. The Perspectives of the 2DH and the FH

Mt 11:11 and Lk 7:28 are so closely parallel that a literary relationship
between them is necessitated.

According to the 2DH, the nature of the literary relationship is that both
Mt 11:11 and Lk 7:28 are based on Q 7:28.

According to the FH, the nature of the literary relationship is that first
Matthew wrote Mt 11:11 and then Luke based Lk 7:28 on Mt 11:11.

Which explanation is more likely to be correct?

C. The Least in the Kingdom of God

Well, one of the striking features of Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28 is a reference to
the least in the Kingdom:
Mt 11:11b but the least (mikroteros) in the Kingdom of the Heavens is
greater than him..
Lk 7:28b But the least (mikroteros) in the Kingdom of God is greater than
him.

This feature is Matthean.  This is because, while a different Greek word is
used, the same concept of the least in the Kingdom is found in a uniquely
Matthean passage, i.e., Mt 5:19, "Therefore, whoever breaks one of these
least (alachistwn) commandments and teaches this to men, he will be called
least (alachistos) in the Kingdom of the Heavens."

This is, thus, an indication that Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28 originated with Matthew
rather than with the author of Q.

D. A Thematic Progression Only in Mt

1 Introduction

There is another indication that Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28 originated with Matthew
rather than with the author of Q.  That is, there appears to be a thematic
development in Mt 11:10-11//Lk 7:27-28 that that continues into Mt 11:12 but
not into Lk 7:29.

2. The Significance of the Quotation Apparently Being Ex 23:20a-b

As pointed out in Section IV, the quotation in Mt 11:10//Lk 7:27
appears to be Ex 23:20a-b rather than Mal 3:1.  This is very significant
because this radically effects how this quotation is to be interpreted.

If the quote is of Mal 3:1, then the speaker is God and the one being spoken
to is Jesus and the angel/messenger is John--presumably as Elijah come
again.  So, in Q and the History of Early Christianity (p. 133), Christopher
M. Tuckett states, "Unlike the MT of Mal 3:1, the text quoted in Q 7:27 has
the speaker (presumably God) speaking about a messenger (John) directing his
words to someone else (presumably for Q, Jesus).  (In Mal 3:1 God says that
he will send his messenger ahead of himself; in Q God says 'I will send my
messenger before *you* to prepare *your* way',)  Thus John is the expected
Elijah who will prepare the way for *Jesus*.  Hence, in v. 27 there is an
emphatically positive statement about John's status, coupled with an implied
corollary that John's significance is only to be seen relation to that of
Jesus."

However, the situation is quite different if the quote is of Ex 23:20a-b.

Here is LXX Ex 23:20:
And, behold, I send my angel/messenger before your face, that he may keep
you in the way, that he may bring you into the land which I have prepared
for you.

In the context, the "you" are the people of God (see Ex 23:22b, "You shall
be to me a peculiar people above all the nations".).  In particular, they
are the Israelites who have left Egypt and are now in the wilderness.

In the context, the land which God has prepared for them is Palestine.

In the context, the identity of the angel/messenger is not clear.  If it is
an angel, then it is a divine being.  If it is a messenger, then it is
Moses--who led the people of God to the Promised Land.

The writers of the DSS apparently took the angel/messenger to be Moses.  So,
regarding a slightly later incident related in Ex 24:18a ("And Moses went
into the midst of the cloud"), it is stated in 4Q377, "And Moses the man of
God (was) with God in the cloud and the cloud covered him.  For...when he
was hallowed and out of His mouth he spoke like an angel.  For who is a
messenger like him?"

In Exodus II, Philo first identifies this angel/messenger as being the
Logos.  So, regarding Ex 23:20-21, he states (13), "Of necessity was the
Logos appointed as judge and mediator who is called 'angel'."

However, soon thereafter (16), he speaks of this angel/messenger being a
prophet, stating, "What is the meaning of the words (in Ex. 23:22), 'If
hearing thou wilt hear My voice and thou wilt do all that I say to thee, I
shall be an enemy to thine enemies and I will oppose those who oppose thee'?
Because some men do not hearken when hearing or, rather, pretend not to have
heard, He has specified in this passage, 'If hearing ye will hear My voice,'
(which), it must be supposed, refers to the angel mentioned a little while
ago.  For the prophet of Him who speaks is properly an angel."

Although the translator continues to translate the underlying word as
"angel", I think the meaning of it has shifted here to "messenger", with the
idea being that this messenger is Moses.  The reason I think this way is
that Philo believed Moses to be "the prophet of Him".  See, for example,
Moses II (257-258), where Philo states, "All these myraids were persuaded by
Moses to sing with hearts in accord with the same song, telling of those
mighty and marvellous works which I have recorded just above.  And the
prophet, rejoicing at this, seeing the people also overjoyed, and himself no
longer able to contain his delight, led off the song, and his hearers massed
in two choirs sang with him the story of these same deeds.  It was thus that
Moses began and opened his work as a prophet possessed by God's Spirit."

Further, Philo frequently interpreted passages on two levels--the literal
level and the inner meaning level.  So, I think we have a case, in Exodus
II, where Philo is interpeting Ex 23:20 on both of these two levels: with
the angel/messenger being the messenger Moses on the literal level and being
an angel, i.e., the Logos, on the level of its inner meaning.

In any event, it appears that there was some differences of opinion over
whether this angel/messenger was a divine angel or a human messenger.  When
he was taken to be a human messenger, he was taken to be Moses.  Judging by
what Philo states in Exodus II (16),  as this messenger, Moses was believed
to have acted as a prophet.

So, to summarize, in terms of first century CE Jewish thought, it apparently
was understood that, in the original context of Ex 23:20:
(1) the speaker is God
(2) "you" are the people of God who are in the wilderness
(3) the land prepared for the people of God is Palestine
(4) the angel/messenger is a divine being if an angel, but Moses (likely in
the role of being a prophet) if a messenger.

4. How Intepreted in the New Context of c. 30 CE

In Mt 11:10//Lk 7:27, I suggest, it is further understood that history
is repeating itself in that Ex 23:20 is applicable anew in a new context.
In this new context, the "you" are the new people of God, i.e., those who
are in the wilderness to see John (Mt 11:7//Lk 7:24).  As for John, he is
the new messenger and, like the original messenger (i.e., Moses), he acts in
the role of a prophet (Mt 11:9-10//Lk 11:26-27).

As for the new land that is prepared for the new people of God,  it is the
Kingdom--as is made clear in the ensuing Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28:
Line 1
Mt 11:11a Truly, I say to you, there has not arisen among [those] born of
women greater that John the Baptist,
Lk 7:28a I say to you, among those born of women, no one is greater than
John
Line 2
Mt 11:11b but the least in the Kingdom of the Heavens is greater than him..
Lk 7:28b But the least in the Kingdom of God is greater than him.

Here, the stress is on John being a second Moses the prophet.  Because of
this, even the previously incomparable Moses (e.g., note the previously
cited 4Q377, "For who is a messenger like him?") now has someone on par with
him--a someone about whom it can, therefore, be said, there is no one born
of a woman higher than himself.

Further, as the original messenger,  Moses the prophet, led the original
people of God (i.e., those in the wilderness because they have fled from
Egypt) to the original land prepared for them (i.e., Palestine), but did not
enter into it himself, so, now, the new messenger, who is the new Moses the
prophet (i.e., John), leads the new people of God (i.e., those in the
wilderness because they want to see him) to the new land prepared for them
(i.e., the Kingdom), but has not entered into it himself--which is why even
the least in the Kingdom is greater than he.

Therefore, in Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28, John is given the exalted role of being a
prophet like unto Moses.  As such, he is being viewed as being the fulfiller
of  Deuteronomy 18:18-19, which is thusly cited in 4Q175 (4-5):
The Lord spoke to Moses saying:..."I will raise up for them a Prophet like
unto you from among their brethren.  I will put words into his mouth and he
shall tell them all that I command him.  And I will require a reckoning of
whoever will not listen to the words which the Prophet shall speak in my
Name."

This relates back to the preceding Mt 11:9//Lk 7:26:
Mt 11:9 But what did you go out to see?  A prophet?  Yes, I tell you--and
one greater than a prophet.
Lk 7:26  But who did you go out to see?  A prophet?  Yes, I say to you--and
more than a prophet

In this case, then they can be roughly paraphrased::
But who did you go out to see?  A prophet?  Yes, the prophet Elijah come
again.  Yet he is more than just a prophet--for he is also *the* Prophet,
i.e., the Prophet like unto Moses.

Compare John 1:21, where some priests and Levites from Jerusalem are
questioning John the Baptist:
And they asked him, "What, then?  Are you Elijah?"  And he says, "I am not!"
"Are you the Prophet?"  And he answered, "No!"

Here, it appears, John the Evangelist is polemicizing against the viewpoint
that John the Baptist was Elijah come again and/or the Prophet--the Prophet
like unto Moses.  This polemicizing would not have been done by John the
Evangelist unless he was aware that there those who believed John the
Baptist to be Elijah and/or the Prophet like unto Moses.

To summarize, the idea in Mt 11:10-11/Lk 7:27-28 appears to be on how
salvation history has, in a significant sense, repeated itself.  First, and
this is on the implicit level of the narrative, there was the time of the
first Exodus.  Then the people of God (i.e., those who had left Egypt) in
the wilderness were led by the prophet Moses to the Promised Land (i.e.,
Palestine), but he did not enter into it himself.  Second, and this is on
the explicit level of the narrative, there was the time for the second
Exodus..  Then the people of God in the wilderness (i.e., those who came to
see John) were led by this prophet like unto Moses to the Promised Land
(i.e., the Kingdom), but he did not enter into it himself.

4. The Thematic Development Continues in Mt 11:12 But Not in Lk 7:29

  There is a progression of this theme in Mt 11:12, "And from the days of
John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of the Heavens is forcibly entered
and violent men sieze it."

Thus,  as at the time of the Exodus, the people of God (i.e., those who left
Egypt) forcibly entered the Promised Land (i.e., Palestine) and violently
siezed it, so, now, the people of God (i.e., those who came to see John)
forcibly enter the Promised Land (i.e., the Kingdom) and violently seize it.

However, this theme is abandoned in Lk 7:29, "And all the people and the tax
collectors, having listened, justified God, having been baptized with the
baptism of John."

This situation is readily explicable under the hypothesis that this is a
theme which was created and developed by Matthew in Mt 11:10-12..  If so,
then Luke 7:27-28 is based on Mt 11:10-11, but Luke 7:29 is a Lukan
substitute for Mt 11:12.

E. The Argument for Mt 11:7-15 being a Matthean Creation

1 Linkages of Mt 3:1-4 to Mt 11:7-15
.
Indeed, there is evidence that not just Mt 11:11-12 is a Matthean creation,
but, beyond it, all of Mt 11:7-15 as well.

What I am referring to are these linkages of Mt 3:1-4 to Mt 11:7-15

1. Mt 3:1
Mt 3:1a Now in those days comes John the Baptist preaching in the
*wilderness*
Mt 11:7b What did you go out into the *wilderness* to see?

Comment: here Mt 3:1 links to the other passages through the word
"wilderness"

2. Mt 3:2
Mt 3:2  saying, 'Repent, for has come near *the Kingdom of the Heavens*.
Mt 11:11b but the least in *the Kingdom of the Heavens* is greater than
him..
Mt 11:12a And from the days of John the Baptist until now, *the Kingdom of
the Heavens* is forcibly entered

Comment: here Mt 3:2 links to the other passages through the phrase *the
Kingdom of the Heavens*

3. Mt 3:3
Mt 3:3a For this is the one spoken [of] through Isaiah the *prophet*
Mt 11:9 But what did you go out to see?  A *prophet*?  Yes, I tell you--and
one greater than a *prophet*
Mt 11:13a "For all the *prophets* and the Law prophecied until John

Comment: here Mt 3:3 links to the other passages through the word
"prophet(s)".  Note that, while Matthew has the order of (1) the Law and (2)
the prophets in 5:17 and 22:40, he reverses the order to (1) the prophets
and (2) the Law in 11:13a in order to lay stress on the word "prophets".

Mt 3:4a Now John, himself, had his clothing from [the] hairs of a camel and
a leather belt around his waist,
Mt 11:8a But what did you go out to see?  A man dressed in soft clothes?
Mt 11:14a And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah

Comment: here Mt 3:4 links to the other passages through the description of
the clothing of John.  Since this clothing is rough, it links to Mt
11:8a--where the questions are rhetorical and are based on the understanding
that John wore rough clothing.  Since this clothing is also the clothing of
Elijah in II (IV) Kings 1:8, this links it to Mt 11:14a--where John is said
to be Elijah

Here is the schema of the linkages of Mt 3:1-4 to Mt 11:7-15:
Mt 3:1-4   Mt 11:7-11  Mt 11:12-15
3:1          11:7            ---
3:2          11:10-11    11:12
3:3          11:9           11:13
3:4          11:8           11:14-15

When one omits the first linkage of Mt 3:1 to Mt 11:7, then, where:
A = a passage which links to Mt 3:2
B = a passage which links to Mt 3:3
C = a passage which links to Mt 3:4
this mirror symmetrical schema results:
11:8         C
11:9         B
11:10-11 A
-------mirror plane-----
11:12       A
11:13       B
11:14-15 C

Further, this mirror symmetrical schema directly relates to the Prophetology
(is there such a word?) of John the Baptist in Matthean thought:
1. The two A units (11:10-11, 11:12 regard John as *the* Prophet, i.e., the
prophet like unto Moses. 11:10 is the citation of Ex 23:20 and 11:11 and
11:12 develop the scenario of the new Exodus to the new Promised Land of the
Kingdom, with this prophet like unto Moses, like the prophet Moses earlier,
leading the people of God to the Promised Land, but not entering himself.
2. The two C units (11:8 and 11:14-15) regard John as Elijah the Prophet.
This is explicit in 11:14-15.  This is implicit in 11:8, which links to Mt
3:4 which, in turn, links to II(IV) Kings 1:8.
3. The two B units (11:9 and 11:13) have linkage with each other and with
3:3 through the word "prophet(s)".  The word is singular in 11:9 since we
are dealing with one person, i.e., John the Baptist.  The word is plural in
11:13 because he embodies, in himself, two awaited prophets, i.e., Elijah
the Prophet come again and the Prephet like unto Moses

So, it appears, Mt 11:7-15 is a Matthean creation, rooted in Mt 3:1-4, in
which Matthew outlines his Prophetology of John the Baptist.  As a result,
it appears, it supports the FH.

Conversely, under the 2DH, as:
1. Mt 11:7-11//Lk 7:24-28 is based on Q 7:24-28
and as:
2. the classic definition of Q is that it consists of the non-Markan
material common to Mt and Lk
then, as:
3. Mt 11:7-11/Lk 7:24-28 has connectivity with each of the four verses in Mt
3:1-4
it should be the case that:
4. each of the verses in Mt 3:1-4 has a Lukan parallel in Lk 3:1-6.
However, there is no Lukan parallel for either Mt 3:2 or Mt 3:4: meaning
that, it appears, the 2DH cannot explain this situation.

So, it appears,  the sequence for Mt 11:7-11//Lk 7:24-28 is that first
Matthew wrote Mt 11:7-11 and then Luke based Lk 7:24-28 on Mt 11:7-11.

F Concluding Remarks on Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28

It appears that Lk 7:28 is based on Mt 11:11.  The concept of the least in
the Kingdom appears to be Matthean--which suggests that Matthew wrote Mt
11:11 and Luke based Lk 7:28 on Mt 11:11.  There is a thematic development
in Mt 11:10-12 that is also found in Lk 7:27-28, but is prematurely ended in
Lk 7:29 and this situation appears to reflect Luke basing Lk 7:27-28 on Mt
11:10-11, but substituting what he writes in Lk 7:29 for what he saw in Mt
11:12.  Third, Mt 11:11 is a part of a larger unit, i.e.,  Mt 11:7-15, that
appears to have been written by Matthew and this suggests that first Mt
wrote Mt 11:11 and then Luke based Lk 7:28 on Mt 11:11.

As a result, when just analyzing  Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28, so that Th 46 is not
taken into account, the FH appears to be clearly superior to the 2DH

G. Mt 11:11//Lk 7:24-26Th 46

1. The Texts

Next, let us turn to Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28//Th 46:
Line 1
Mt 11:11a Truly, I say to you, there has not arisen among [those] born of
women greater that John the Baptist,
Th 46:1 Said Jesus this, From Adam up to John the Baptist, among the
begotten of woman, no one is raised up above John the Baptist so that to
break his eyes.
Lk 7:28a I say to you, among those born of women, no one is greater than
John
Line 2
Mt 11:11b but the least in the Kingdom of the Heavens is greater than him.
Th 46:2 However, I spoke this: He among you who will come to being a little
one, he will know the Kingdom and will be raised above John.
Lk 7:28b But the least in the Kingdom of God is greater than him.

2. The Major Differences

There are at least three major differences between the Synoptic and Th
versions of this saying::
1. Only Th 46 has the phrase "From Adam up to John the Baptist"
2. Only Th 46 has the phrase "so that to break his eyes"
3. In Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28, it is the least in the Kingdom who are greater than
John while, in Th 46, it is a little one who knows the Kingdom who is
greater than John..

3. Which Version is Earlier?

a.  The First Two Differences are Ambiguous

As respects the first two major differences, it appears that either Matthew
and Luke shorten the saying by omitting two phrases found in Th 46 or else
Thomas lengthens the saying by adding two phrases not found in Mt 11:11//Lk
7:28, but there doesn't appear to be a clear indication as to which
alternative is preferable.

b. But the Third Favors the MTH

As respects the third major difference, though, there appears to be a clear
indication that Th 46 is earlier than Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28.

In both Mt 11:11a//Lk 7:28a and Th 46:1, the stress is on the idea that no
one born of a woman is greater than John.

What one would expect, then, in Mt 11:11b//Lk 7:28b and Th 46:2, is a stress
on the idea that anyone reborn not of a woman is greater than John.

Indeed, this appears to be the case in Th 46:2, where the one greater than
John is a "little one" who "knows" the Kingdom.  This relates to Th 22:1,
where Jesus states, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter
the Kingdom."

As a result, the "little one" is an infant in the sense of being someone who
has just been reborn not of a woman and such a babe knows the Kingdom
because such a babe has entered into the Kingdom.

Compare John 3:3, where Jesus says, "Amen.  Amen.  I say to you, unless
someone is born again, he is not able to enter the Kingdom of God."

However, this is not the case in Mt 11:11b//Lk 7:26b, where the one greater
than John is one who is least in the Kingdom.

As a result, it appears, the Th 46 version of the saying reflects an
original contrast between one born of a woman and one reborn not of a woman,
while Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28 represents a later stage in the development of the
saying that lacks this original contrast.

This is in accord with the MTH--according to which Mt 11:11 is based on Th
46 and with Luke basing Lk 7:28 on Mt 11:11.

Indeed, there is a reason why one might expect Matthew to have changed
the Thomasine idea of one greater than John being a little one knowing the
Kingdom into the idea of one greater than John being one who is least in the
Kingdom.  That is, as pointed out above, it appears that the concept of the
least in the Kingdom was pleasing to Matthew.

So, as respects the last major difference between the Synoptic version of
the saying and the Th version of the saying, it  indicates that Th 46
belongs to an earlier stage of development for the saying than does Mt
11:11, and this indication is strengthened by the observation that Matthew
had motivation to alter Th 46:2 into what we see in Mt 11:11b.  As a result,
it appears most likely that Mt 11:11 is based on Th 46.

d. The Baptist

Still, an argment can be made that, rather, Th 46 is based on Mt 11:11.

For example, in Studies in The Gospel of Thomas (p. 62), R. McL Wilson
states the following as respects Th 46, "Grant and Freeman plausibly suggest
that the opening words are modelled on the following verse in Matthew (xi.
12), in which case Thomas has re-written the saying."

The argument here is that this phrase in the first part of Mt 11:12:
And from the days of John the Baptist until now
is the inspiration for this phrase in the first part of Th 46:
From Adam up to John the Baptist.

Indeed, there appears to be some sort of literary relationship here: for
each is a temporal phrase in which "John the Baptist" is a key element.

But, if there be a literary relationship here, which is earlier and which is
later?  Is it the case that the temporal phrase in Th 46 is based on the
temporal phrase in Mt 11:12, or is it the case that the temporal phrase in
Mt 11:12 is based on the temporal phrase in Th 46?

On the basis of a five step argument, I think it most likely that the
temporal phrase in Mt 11:12 is based on the temporal phrase in Th 46.

First, this rule apparently applies:
When using Mk as a source, Matthew uses the appositive of "the Baptist" for
John only when Mark does.

I have found three examples of where Matthew uses this appositive for John
when utilizing Mk as a source and, in each case, an appositive occurs in Mk
as well.  They are Mt 3:1//Mk 1:4, Mt 14:2//Mk 6:14, and Mt 14:8//Mk 6:25.

Second, the expectation, then, is that Matthew will use this appositive of
"the Baptist" elsewhere in Mt only when it appears in a source he is using.

Third, as far as I can tell, there are two examples of where he uses this
appositive elsewhere in his gospel:
1. Mt 11:11
2. Mt 11:12.

Fourth, the inference is that he uses the appositive of "the Baptist" in
these two verses because he sees it in a non-Markan source he is using.

Fifth, the application of the inference is this:
1. As:
  a. Mt 11:11 has a parallel in Th 46
and as:
  b. Th 46 has this appositive
it is the case that:
  c. Matthew used Th 46 as a source in writing Mt 11:11
and:
2. As:
  a. in Mt 11:12, the appositive occurs in a temporal phrase
and as:
b. the appositive also occurs in a related temporal phrase in Th 46
it is the case that:
c. the temporal phrase in Th 46 is the inspiration for the temporal phrase
in Mt 11:12.

As a result, it appears, Matthew used Th 46 as a source for Mt 11:11 and the
first part of Mt 11:12.

In support of this conclusion, it is the case that the appositive of "the
Baptist" is quite necessary in Th 46 because it is the first and only
mention of this John in Th.

However, the appositive of "the Baptist" for John is quite unnecesary in Mt
11:11 because, just a few verses earlier (i.e., in Mt 11:7) Matthew simply
calls him John.

Further, as this appositive does not occur in Lk 7:28, it cannot be
plausibly argued that it occurred in Q 7:28 (Indeed, the IQP does not have
this appositive in Q 7:28)

So, what is anomalous is the appearance of the appositive of "the Baptist"
in Mt 11:11--where it is neither needed nor to be expected.

The most plausible explanation for this situation: Matthew saw this
appositive in Th 46 (where it is needed) and mechanically copied it in Mt
11:11 (where it is not needed).

The bottom line: the evidence appears to indicate that Mt 11:11 is based on
Th 46.  This is inconsistent with the 2DH and the FH--both of which presume
that either Th 46 is based on Mt 11:11 or else Th 46 and Mt 11:11 are
independent of each other.  This is, however, consistent with the
MTH--according to which Matthew used Th as a source in writing his gospel.

4. Deliberate Design?

a. A Pattern

Note that, when:
A = a passage with a parallel in Th
B = a passage without a parallel in Th
it is the case that, in Mt 11:7-11, we have this pattern:
Mt 11:7-9     A
Mt 11:10      B
Mt 11:11      A

b. The Pattern Repeated

  This pattern is repeated in Matt 11:27-30.

It begins with Mt 11:27a ("All things were given to me by my Father."),
which has a parallel in Th 61:3b ("I was given some of the things of my
Father.").

It closes with Mt. 11:28-30 ("Come to me all the ones becoming weary and
being burdened and I will give rest to you.  Take up my yoke upon you and
learn from me, for I am humble and lowly in heart, and you will find rest
for your souls.  For my yoke is easy and the load of it is light."), which
has a parallel in Th 90 ("Jesus said, 'Come unto me, for My yoke is easy and
My lordship is mild, and you will find repose for yourself.").

In-between is a passage without a parallel in Th.

So, here, we have the same A-B-A pattern:
Mt 11:27a     A
Mt 11:27b     B
Mt 11:28-30  A

c. Coincidence or Deliberate Design?

  Is it coincidence that we find the same A-B-A pattern in Mt 11:7-11 and Mt
11:27-30?  Or, is it due to deliberate design--with, in this case, the
author of these two passages using Th as the source for the "A" units?

d. It Appears to be Deliberate Design

IMO, it is very unlikely that this is due to coincidence because Mt 11:7-30
is a monologue of Jesus to the crowds, interrupted only twice with asides by
the author:
1.  Mt 11:20, "Then he began to reproach the cities in which were performed
the majority of his miracles because they did not repent."
2. Mt 11:25, "At that time, having answered, Jesus said,...".

As a result, these two structurally identical units are not randomly placed
but, rather, appear precisely at the beginning and the close of a monologue
by Jesus.

Therefore, they appear to be deliberately placed: and if they have been
deliberately placed then, almost certainly, they have been deliberately
designed as well--with the author basing all the "A" passages on passages
from Th.

e. But, Who, Then, is the Author of Mt 11:7-30?

Who, though, is the author of the monologue of Jesus in Mt 11:7-30?  Is it
the creation of Matthew?  Or, is it Matthew's version of a monologue of
Jesus created by the author of Q?  The answers to these questions are not
self-evident because almost all of Mt 11:7-30 has parallels in Lk and, so,
might come from Q.

f. A Way to Determine the Answers

A way to answering these questions might lie in this line schema for Mk
6:7-11//Mt 8:37-10:16//Lk 10:1-12:

Line 1 Mt 9:37-38
Mt: Then he says to his disciples, ' Indeed, the harvest great, but the
workers few.  Therefore, ask the Lord of the harvest, so that he may send
out workers into his harvest.'
Line 2 Mk 6:7//Lk 10:1//Mt 10:1
Mk And he summons the Twelve and he began to send them out two by two.  And
he was giving to them authority over the unclean spirits
Lk And after these things, the Lord appointed seventy-two others and he
sent them, two by two, before his face into every city and place where he
was about to come
Mt And, summoning his twelve disciples, he gave to them authority [over]
unclean spirits (so as to cast them out) and to heal every disease and every
illness.
Line 3 Lk 10:2-3//Mt 10:2-8
Lk And he was saying to them, 'Indeed, the harvest is plentiful, but the
workers few.  Therefore, ask the Lord of the Harvest that he might send out
workers into his harvest.  Go!  Behold, I send you as lambs in the midst of
wolves.
Mt  Now, of the twelve apostles, the names are these.  First, Simon, the one
called Peter, and Andrew, his brother, and James the [son} of Zebedee and
John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas, and Matthew, the tax
collector; James the [son] of Alphaeus and Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaean,
and Judas Iscariot--the one also betraying him.  Jesus sent out these
twelve, commanding them, saying, 'Do not go into the way of the Gentiles and
do not enter into a Samaritan city.  But go, instead, to the lost sheep of
the house of Israel--and, going, preach: saying, 'The Kingdom of the Heavens
is near!'  Heal the ailing, raise the dead, clease the lepers, cast out
demons.  Freely you received, freely give.'
Line 4 Mk 6:8-9//Lk 10:4//Mt 10:9-10a
Mk And he gave orders to them that they should take nothing with them on the
road except a walking stick: not bread, nor a knapsack, nor coppers in the
belt (but having had sandals tied on) and do not dress (with) two shirts
Lk Do not carry a purse, nor a beggar's bag, nor sandals, and greet no one
along the way
Mt Do not acquire gold nor silver nor copper in your belts--nor a knapsack
for the road, nor two shirts, nor sandals nor a staff.
Line 5 Lk 10:5-7a//Mt 10:10b
Lk And into what house you enter, first say, Peace to this house, and if
there is a son of peace, upon him your peace will rest: otherwise, on you it
will return.   And in the same house remain: eating and drinking the things
with them--for worthy is the worker of his work.
Mt  For worthy is the worker of his food.
Line 6 Mk 6:10//Lk 10:7b//Mt 10:11
Mk And he was saying to them, 'Wherever you enter into a house, stay there
until you leave from there.
Lk Do not move from house to house.
Mt  And into whichever city or village you enter, inquire who in it is
worthy and there remain until you leave.
Line 7 Lk 10:8-9//Mt 10:12-13
Lk And into whichever city you enter and they receive you, eat the things
being set before you and heal the ones in it who are sick and say to them,
Has come near to you the Kingdom of God.
Mt And, entering into the house, greet it.  And, if indeed the house is
worthy, let come youir peace upon it.  But if it is not worthy, let your
peace return to you.
Line 8 Mk 6:11//Lk 10:10-11a//Mt 10:14
Mk And whatever place does not welcome you, nor listen to you, going out
from there, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony to them.
Lk And into what ever city you enter and they do not receive you, having
gone out into its streets, say, Even the dust of your city, having clinging
to us, to our feet, we shake off [against] you.
Mt And whoever does not receive you, nor listen to your words, going out
outside of the house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Line 9 Lk 10:11b-12//Mt 10:15-16a
Lk But know this: that has come near the Kingdom of God.  I say to you that
for Sodom in that day it will be more bearable than with that city.
Mt  Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and
Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that city.  Behold, I send you as
sheep in the midst of wolves.
Line 10 Mt 10:16b
Mt Therefore be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

There are a number of remarkable features to this line schema.

For the purposes of the present discussion, though, only one of these
remarkable feautres is relevant, i.e., the remarkable feature that both the
first line and the last line of Mt 9:37-10:16 have parallels in Th.

For the first line:
Then he says to his disciples, "Indeed, the harvest great, but the workers
few.  Therefore, ask the Lord of the harvest, so that he may send out
workers into his harvest."
the parallel is Th 73
Jesus said, "The harvest is great but the laborers are few.  Beseech the
Lord, therefore, to send out laborers to the harvest."
For the last line:
Therefore be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
the parallel is Th 39:3:
You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.

Further, while:
(1) the Matthean first line has a parallel in the Lukan version of line 4
and, so, might come from Q
it is the case that:
(2) the Matthean last line has no parallel anwhere in Lk and, therefore,
apparently does not come from Q.

Therefore, this design of having Mt 9:37-10:16 begin and end with a passage
that has a parallel in Th appears to be a design created by Matthew rather
than by the author of Q.

This favors the hypothesis that Mt 11:7-30, which both begins and ends with
a passage that has a parallel in Th, is the creation of Matthew rather than
the creation of the author of Q.

g. Concluding Remarks on A Pattern

Where:
A = a passage with a parallel in Th
B = a passage without a parallel in Th
both Mt 11:7-11 and Mt 11:27-30 have an A-B-A pattern.

Further, this appears to be by deliberate design because they open and close
a monologue of Jesus.  As a result, it appears, the author of Mt 11:7-30
based the "A" passages on passages in Th.

Finally, it appears, the author of Mt 11:7-30 is Matthew rather than the
author of Q.

So, it appears, Matthew created Mt 11:7-30 and used Th as one of his sources
in writing it.

In particular, it appears, Matthew based Mt 11:7-9, Mt 11:11, Mt 11:27a, and
Mt 11:28-30 on passages from Th.

5. Concluding Remarks on Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28//Th 46

It appears that Lk 7:28 is based on Mt 11:11.  The concept of the least in
the Kingdom appears to be Matthean--which suggests that Matthew wrote Mt
11:11 and Luke based Lk 7:28 on Mt 11:11.  There is a thematic development
in Mt 11:10-12 that is also found in Lk 7:27-28, but is prematurely ended in
Lk 7:29 and this situation appears to reflect Luke basing Lk 7:27-28 on Mt
11:10-11, but substituting what he writes in Lk 7:29 for what he saw in Mt
11:12.  Third, Mt 11:11 is a part of a larger unit, i.e.,  Mt 11:7-15, that
appears to have been written by Matthew and this suggests that first Mt
wrote Mt 11:11 and then Luke based Lk 7:28 on Mt 11:11.

As a result, when just analyzing  Mt 11:11//Lk 7:28, so that Th 46 is not
taken into account, the FH appears to be clearly superior to the 2DH.

It also appears that Mt 11:11 is based on Th 46.  It appears that Th 46 is
closer to the original meaning of the saying.  The appositive of  "John the
Baptist" also indicates that Mt 11:11 is based on Th 46.  So does the the
apparent deliberate design of Mt 11:7-40.

As a result, when also taking Th 46 into account, the MTH appears to be
superior to both the FH and the 2DH.

VI CONCLUSION

This concludes the examination of Mt 11:7-11//Lk 7:24-28//Mk 1:2//Th 46, 78.

There is considerable evidence to support the 2DH, so it is a viable
hypothesis.  However, some of the evidence does bring into question its
validity.

Further, it appears that the overall weight of the evidence::
1. supports the FH over the 2DH where the discussion of the Synoptic
material does not take into account any Th parallels,
2. supports the MTH over both the 2DH and the FH where the discussion of the
Synoptic material does take into account any Th parallels.

As a result, since the MTH becomes the FH whenever there are no parallel
passages in Th, the cumulative weight of the evidence provided by Mt
11:7-11//Lk 7:24-28//Mk 1:2//Th 46, 78 apparently provides the beginning of
making a credible case for the validity of the 2DH.

Frank McCoy
Maplewood, MN USA 55109

Well, Hello!, Frank.

Delighted to see you on this list. Thanks for that lucid presentation
in Part 1 of the competing theories of Gospel origins, including your
own. I will most definitely read and try to follow yoy in the
remaining parts of your posts.

You have omitted, quite properly, what I might immodestly claim as
The McCann Hypothesis, for it has never been tossed into the
scholarly arena for consideration, save only such vetting as it might
have received on the gthomas group.

In that Hypothesis, the two or even four source theories are left
intact, the Book of Q is not a chimera, and all three of Q, Mark and
Thomas borrow from a common source earlier to all three of them which
I presently call Papais's Matthew Hebrew Sayings Collection. In
Thomas, for instance, all sayings with Synoptic/Q counterparts are
from that source.

An existing defect in that hypothesis is that it cannot fully account
for all those Thomas sayings with NO synoptic/Q parallels- what I
call "The Spooky Stuff". Some of these sayings are very likely from
the Matthean Logia Collection (Papias' s collection) , but it is
impossible to tell if that is true or not, since we don't have a
copy. I was left to conclude that Thomas, either the Apostle Thomas
or Jude-Thomas, Jesus brother had supplied them.

If your, or any other Scholarly hypothesis, has an answer that
addresses the origins of these "spooky" sayings of Thomas in an
inclusive and all encompassing way with those sayings of Synoptic/Q
origin, I would be most eager to read it.

Am I to take it that I will find that here?

Eccentric, Frank? I don't think so. Maybe just a tad long-winded?
(grin). I've always enjoyed your work, and I'll just bet that this
stuff is sterling, if not gold.

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron McCann" <ronmccann1@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [GTh] Part I ofThe Synoptic Gospel Problem and Thomas


> Well, Hello!, Frank.
>
> Delighted to see you on this list. Thanks for that lucid presentation
> in Part 1 of the competing theories of Gospel origins, including your
> own. I will most definitely read and try to follow yoy in the
> remaining parts of your posts.
>
> You have omitted, quite properly, what I might immodestly claim as
> The McCann Hypothesis, for it has never been tossed into the
> scholarly arena for consideration, save only such vetting as it might
> have received on the gthomas group.
>
> In that Hypothesis, the two or even four source theories are left
> intact, the Book of Q is not a chimera, and all three of Q, Mark and
> Thomas borrow from a common source earlier to all three of them which
> I presently call Papais's Matthew Hebrew Sayings Collection. In
> Thomas, for instance, all sayings with Synoptic/Q counterparts are
> from that source.

Hi Tom!

There's a hypothesis that has some similarities to the one you are
proposing.  This is Brian E. Wilson's Logia Translation Hypothesis (LTH).  .

According to it, the apostle named Matthew made a written collection of
Aramaic logia.  They were translated into Greek and then used by Mark, a
different Matthew, and Luke in writing their gospels.  He posits that the
Greek logia document was very large.

One big difference is that the McCann Hypothesis (MH) has Matthew's work
being a source for GTh, GMk, and  Q, while the LTH has Matthew's work being
a source for GMt, GMk, and GLk.

Another big difference is that MH appears to take Matthew's collection to be
a collection of sayings, while the LTH takes it to be a collection of
reports--meaning that it contained considerable narrative material.

The difference, here, lies in how to translate the word "logia".  Can it
mean "sayings"?  Or, is it only Greek word "logoi" that can mean "sayings"?
Ron, P Oxy. 654, which includes the Greek version of the incipit for GTh,
has "logoi" rather than "logia" for "sayings".   Perhaps, then, it is a
mistake to think that Matthew's collection of logia was a collection of
sayings?  Ron, have you considered the idea that, if it ever existed, it
might have included much more than just sayings?

Information about LTH is found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/brenda.wilson99/
.
Ron, are you familiar with the LTH?   Why do you think that the MH is more
likely to be correct than it?

Regards,

Frank McCoy
Maplewood, MN USA 55109

At 10:17 AM 10/14/05, Frank, in response to my last post, wrote:-

>Hi Tom! (Make that "Ron")
>
>There's a hypothesis that has some similarities to the one you are
>proposing.  This is Brian E. Wilson's Logia Translation Hypothesis (LTH).

This has me very excited. Thank you for the cite.

>  .
>
>According to it, the apostle named Matthew made a written collection of
>Aramaic logia.  They were translated into Greek and then used by Mark, a
>different Matthew, and Luke in writing their gospels.  He posits that the
>Greek logia document was very large.

He is sure on the right track here. When I first posited the
existence of a common earlier source drawn upon by Mark, Q and
Thomas, I was hard pressed to find ANY evidence of any such earlier
document. I then found the Papias reference to a Hebrew collection of
the "oracles" of Jesus collected and written down by the Apostle
Matthew. That was almost ten years ago. Just this week, Roger Mott (I
think) of the GospelofThomas group reproduced material from Jerome
confiming the existence of just such a collection, which he himself
(Jerome) had been asked to translate. So what started off as an
unsupported theory ( The sayings from it, as reproduced in Thomas, Q,
and Mark, when compared and closely examined very strongly pointed to
the existence of an earlier common source- but that was the only
support there was for it.) has gained ground, and The Matthean Logia
Collection may yet be accepted by scholars as real.


>One big difference is that the McCann Hypothesis (MH) has Matthew's work
>being a source for GTh, GMk, and  Q, while the LTH has Matthew's work being
>a source for GMt, GMk, and GLk.

Well, ultimately it is a source for GMt,GLk andGMk, but not directly
,except for Mark. Q basically IS GMt,GLK without the Markan material.
I take it his work doesn't cover Thomas. So it seems a good
hypothesis, as far as it goes, but it doen't really cover all the
bases- does it?

I know some people think that the Book of Q is a chimera. But to
invoke some Churchillian words "some chicken, some neck!" If it was a
Chimera, Frank, it could not in a million years have been used to
generate The McCann Document (if you recall it). The fact that that
Document "fell out" when material from the Matthean Logia collection
was struck out of Q 1 really proves that Q is not a Chimera, and
Neither is the Matthean Logia Collection. The Q-Matthean Logia thesi
mutually reinforce each other.


>Another big difference is that MH appears to take Matthew's collection to be
>a collection of sayings, while the LTH takes it to be a collection of
>reports--meaning that it contained considerable narrative material.

In this, this fellow is also correct. Firstly, on a basic sayings
count, even if only sayings are used
in it's reconstuition, it's BIG. It's very large. Just how large we
will never know. When reconstituted (just like Q was) from the
sayings that are doubly or triply attested in Mark, Q and Thomas (The
formula for identifing a Matthean Logia Saying) we get only a
minimalist text but its quite big. The Three likely borrowed more
sayings from it, but we cannot now know that or know for sure what
other sayings in Mark or Q, or Thomas may have been in it.

However, we can say that at least SOME narrative and dialogue
material with those double or triple attestations ALSO appeared in
it. You can apply the Double/Triple Attestation Formula I developed
to Narrative and Dialogue material contained in Mark, Q and Thomas.
In doing so, you identify any such material which also appeared in
the Matthean Logia collection. I haven't chased these down because I
work primarily with individual sayings. Let me give you some examples
( there are others):-
      1) The Beelzebub Controversy- found in Mark 3-20-28 and in Q at QS8
      2) The Temptation of Jesus- found in Mark 1 12-14 (where it is
only a two liner!) and in Q at QS6.
      3) The "Enter Heaven Maimed" story- found in Mark and the "Make
the Hands a hand" saying found in Thomas ( although you have to
"massage" both of these bit to see the parallel.)
      4) The Virgins Enter Bridechamber story- found damaged in
Thomas, and hugely amplified in Matthew, who likely found a simpler
version in Q.

>The difference, here, lies in how to translate the word "logia".  Can it
>mean "sayings"?  Or, is it only Greek word "logoi" that can mean "sayings"?
>Ron, P Oxy. 654, which includes the Greek version of the incipit for GTh,
>has "logoi" rather than "logia" for "sayings".   Perhaps, then, it is a
>mistake to think that Matthew's collection of logia was a collection of
>sayings?

The term Logia was my own, borrowed from Ray Summers who issued one
of the first ever public books containing Thomas. He uses it as a
plural for logion. It seems from what you say, that's wrong. In the
original Papais mention, some have transnlated the mention as Papais
saying "oracles", some "sayings" and some "Logia". As I recall, the
Jerome reference is vager.

>  Ron, have you considered the idea that, if it ever existed, it
>might have included much more than just sayings?

As I just stated, oh, yes, it had more than just sayings in it. It
had some dialogue and narrative material as well- which makes it even Bigger.


>Information about LTH is found here:
>
>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/brenda.wilson99/
>.
>Ron, are you familiar with the LTH?   Why do you think that the MH is more
>likely to be correct than it?

I haven't yet got to it, and no I was not familiar with it.


More comprehensive, maybe? I factor in Q and Thomas. From what you
say, he doesn't- but it seems he is "not far from the Kingdom". I'll
have to get back to you when I've had a look. Thanks again for this
info. I'm quite excited about it.

Ron McCann
Saskatoon, Canada


>Regards,
>
>Frank McCoy
>Maplewood, MN USA 55109
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: "Ron McCann" <ronmccann1@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 5:31 AM
Subject: Re: [GTh] Part I ofThe Synoptic Gospel Problem and Thomas


> At 10:17 AM 10/14/05, Frank, in response to my last post, wrote:-
>
> >Hi Tom! (Make that "Ron")

Hi Ron!

I'm sorry!  Somehow I got a crossed wire in the brain between you and Tom
Saunders.

> >There's a hypothesis that has some similarities to the one you are
> >proposing.  This is Brian E. Wilson's Logia Translation Hypothesis (LTH).

> This has me very excited. Thank you for the cite.

Thank you.  Wilson's hypothesis is very well thought out and I think you
will find his exposition on it quite informative..

> He is sure on the right track here. When I first posited the
> existence of a common earlier source drawn upon by Mark, Q and
> Thomas, I was hard pressed to find ANY evidence of any such earlier
> document. I then found the Papias reference to a Hebrew collection of
> the "oracles" of Jesus collected and written down by the Apostle
> Matthew. That was almost ten years ago. Just this week, Roger Mott (I
> think) of the GospelofThomas group reproduced material from Jerome
> confiming the existence of just such a collection, which he himself
> (Jerome) had been asked to translate. So what started off as an
> unsupported theory ( The sayings from it, as reproduced in Thomas, Q,
> and Mark, when compared and closely examined very strongly pointed to
> the existence of an earlier common source- but that was the only
> support there was for it.) has gained ground, and The Matthean Logia
> Collection may yet be accepted by scholars as real.

Ron, all that Jerome can confirm is that, in his lifetime, there was an
Aramaic (or Hebrew?) sayings gospel which was alleged to have been written
by the apostle Matthew.  Since we do not possess a copy of this Aramaic (or
Hebrew?) sayings gospel, we are in no position to determine whether this
allegation is true or false.  In short, it is pure speculation to conclude
that it had been a genuine work of the apostle Matthew.

> >One big difference is that the McCann Hypothesis (MH) has Matthew's work
> >being a source for GTh, GMk, and  Q, while the LTH has Matthew's work
being
> >a source for GMt, GMk, and GLk.

> Well, ultimately it is a source for GMt,GLk andGMk, but not directly
> ,except for Mark. Q basically IS GMt,GLK without the Markan material.
> I take it his work doesn't cover Thomas. So it seems a good
> hypothesis, as far as it goes, but it doen't really cover all the
> bases- does it?

The classic definition of Q is that it consists of the non-Markan material
found in *both* GMt and GLk.  I am aware that Q advocates, in order to
maintain the viability of the Q hypothesis, have been forced to loosen this
classic definition.   However, I am not aware of any Q scholar who has
loosened it to the point of defining Q to be GMt and GLk without the Markan
material.  So, Ron, I think you need to tighten your definition of Q above.

In any event, your point is well taken.  Brian E. Wilson's hypothesis fails
to take into account GTh, and the same goes for the Two Document Hypothesis
and the Farrer Hypothesis.  Just why the vastly overwhelming majority of
scholars agree that GTh can safely be ignored in trying to solve the
Synoptic problem is something I just can't fathom and I think they are
making a SERIOUS judgment error here.

> I know some people think that the Book of Q is a chimera. But to
> invoke some Churchillian words "some chicken, some neck!" If it was a
> Chimera, Frank, it could not in a million years have been used to
> generate The McCann Document (if you recall it). The fact that that
> Document "fell out" when material from the Matthean Logia collection
> was struck out of Q 1 really proves that Q is not a Chimera, and
> Neither is the Matthean Logia Collection. The Q-Matthean Logia thesi
> mutually reinforce each other.

Ron, I've forgotten how this works.  Which version of the postulated first
stratum of Q do you accept?   Can you cite the author and book in which its
text is found?  How can you tell what parts of this postulated Q 1 come from
the Matthean Logia collection and what parts come from the McCann Document?
Thanks.

> >The difference, here, lies in how to translate the word "logia".  Can it
> >mean "sayings"?  Or, is it only Greek word "logoi" that can mean
"sayings"?
> >Ron, P Oxy. 654, which includes the Greek version of the incipit for GTh,
> >has "logoi" rather than "logia" for "sayings".   Perhaps, then, it is a
> >mistake to think that Matthew's collection of logia was a collection of
> >sayings?

> The term Logia was my own, borrowed from Ray Summers who issued one
> of the first ever public books containing Thomas. He uses it as a
> plural for logion. It seems from what you say, that's wrong. In the
> original Papais mention, some have transnlated the mention as Papais
> saying "oracles", some "sayings" and some "Logia". As I recall, the
> Jerome reference is vager.

You're referring to Ray Summers, The Secret Sayings of the Living
Jesus--which was published in 1968.

On pp. 16-17, he states, "This collection of sayings (logia) is similar
to the collection of sayings (logia) set up by source criticism two
generations ago as a working hypothesis to explain the 272 verses presented
*in common* in Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark.  The collection, known
as 'Logia,' or 'Quelle' (the German word for 'source') or simply 'Q,' was
posited as the second major written document used by Matthew and Luke,...".

As far as I am aware, both the idea that "logia" means "sayings" and the
usage of "Logia"  as an alternate title of the postulated Q have long been
abandoned in scholarly circles.

So, Ron, as far as I can tell, the position of Summers is out of date and
untenable.
.
In any event, you are working with two separate hypotheses:
(1) a document existed which was used as a source by Thomas and Mark and the
author of Q
and:
(2) this document was originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew by the apostle
named Matthew.

The second hypothesis has some serious weaknesses--none is fatal, but they
are serious enough to raise major doubts about its credibility.  Perhaps,
then, Ron, you are better off sticking only with the first hypothesis.  Just
a thought..

Regards,

Frank McCoy
Maplewood, MN USA 55109

Hi Frank,

Thanks for the response. It's very helpful. I have not yet had a
chance to get into Brian Wilson's. LTH, nor have I had a chance to
get to Parts 2-4 of your material. Forgive me, but I'm stuggling just
to keep up with the daily volumes on the GospelofThomas general list,
and am busy there presenting what is turning into a magnus opus
exegesis of the Creation Story in the first chapter of Genesis. Now,
on to your comments, criticisms and cautions.

At 05:28 PM 10/18/05, You wrote :



> > At 10:17 AM 10/14/05, Frank, in response to my (Ron's) last post, wrote:-
> >
> > >Hi Tom! (Make that "Ron")
>
>Hi Ron!
>
>I'm sorry!  Somehow I got a crossed wire in the brain between you and Tom
>Saunders.

Not to worry, you addressed me as Ron in the rest of your E-mail. (grin).

You further responded with:-

> > >There's a hypothesis that has some similarities to the one you are
> > >proposing.  This is Brian E. Wilson's Logia Translation Hypothesis (LTH).

I had responded:-

> > This has me very excited. Thank you for the cite.

You replied:-

>Thank you.  Wilson's hypothesis is very well thought out and I think you
>will find his exposition on it quite informative..

I responded:-

> > He is sure on the right track here. When I first posited the
> > existence of a common earlier source drawn upon by Mark, Q and
> > Thomas, I was hard pressed to find ANY evidence of any such earlier
> > document. I then found the Papias reference to a Hebrew collection of
> > the "oracles" of Jesus collected and written down by the Apostle
> > Matthew. That was almost ten years ago. Just this week, Roger Mott (I
> > think) of the GospelofThomas group reproduced material from Jerome
> > confiming the existence of just such a collection, which he himself
> > (Jerome) had been asked to translate. So what started off as an
> > unsupported theory ( The sayings from it, as reproduced in Thomas, Q,
> > and Mark, when compared and closely examined very strongly pointed to
> > the existence of an earlier common source- but that was the only
> > support there was for it.) has gained ground, and The Matthean Logia
> > Collection may yet be accepted by scholars as real.

Today you replied:-


>Ron, all that Jerome can confirm is that, in his lifetime, there was an
>Aramaic (or Hebrew?) sayings gospel which was alleged to have been written
>by the apostle Matthew.  Since we do not possess a copy of this Aramaic (or
>Hebrew?) sayings gospel, we are in no position to determine whether this
>allegation is true or false.  In short, it is pure speculation to conclude
>that it had been a genuine work of the apostle Matthew.

True. Thank you. The Papais description of the Collection he had
heard about, and the description of the one that Jerome had in hand,
were both referred to as "collections" of Jesus's sayings, both  were
written in a tongue other than Greeks- namely Hebrew or Aramaic, were
both allegedly penned by the Apostle Matthew, (who Jerome mistakenly
thought was the same guy who had written the Gospel of Matthew) and
both express the difficulty other translators had or would have in
translating and reading the collection. In Jerome's case, it is
written in Hebrew supposedly to protect it from uninitiated or
profane Greek eyes. (So we have yet another "Secret" "gospel", which
when added to the Secret "Gospel" of Thomas and the alledged "Secret
Gospel of Mark, makes three now., none of them still extant.). I
don't think I am going too far out on a limb in suggesting that
Papias's Hebrew Matthew Sayings Collection, and Jerome's Hebrew
Matthew Sayings Collection are one and the same. True, I can't prove
that collection is the same as the early collection I say existed
(The Matthean Logia Collection) and from which Mark, Thomas and
Q  each drew in writing their "gospels".  But just how many earlier
non-extant sayings collections could there have been circulating at
this early date? I submit, it's a reasonable assumption, by occam's
razor, that these are three are one and the same.

You had previously written:-


>One big difference is that the McCann Hypothesis (MH) has Matthew's
>work (the collection- not the gospel) being a source for GTh, GMk,
>and  Q, while the LTH has Matthew's work (the collection- not the
>Gospel)  being a source for GMt, GMk, and GLk. (bracketed material mine-R)

I had replied:-


>  Well, ultimately it (the Matthean Logia Collection) is a source
> for GMt,GLk andGMk, but not directly ,except for Mark. Q basically
> IS GMt,GLK without the Markan material.
>  I take it his (Wilson's) work doesn't cover Thomas. So it seems a good
>hypothesis, as far as it goes, but it doen't really cover all the
>  bases- does it?

You replied:-


>The classic definition of Q is that it consists of the non-Markan material
>found in *both* GMt and GLk.

Right

>   I am aware that Q advocates, in order to
>maintain the viability of the Q hypothesis, have been forced to loosen this
>classic definition.

More or less true, and sometimes they made a mistake in doing so. But
forced? They have included  in some unique-to-Luke alone sayings, in
creating their expanded "Complete" book of Q, and  also allowed in
some Matthew-Luke parallel sayings which HAVE Markan parallels, but
they feel there are reasons why these should appear in the greater or
expanded Complete Book of Q. Where I did once object strongly to
this, and felt it was a cheat, I have grudgingly come round to their
view that at least SOME of these anomalies might properly belong in
Q. I cannot say that I think, in doing this, they were trying to
"maintain the viability" the Q- Hypothesis. For me, it initially
undermined my belief in their scholarly integrity, at first, and made
me wonder if the Q-Hypothesis might not be a crock. I am still not
happy with some of those Luke-alone inclusions, which I think might
just as easily come from "Special" Luke, but I can live with it as a
working document.

>   However, I am not aware of any Q scholar who has
>loosened it to the point of defining Q to be GMt and GLk without the Markan
>material.  So, Ron, I think you need to tighten your definition of Q above.

Correct again, I misspoke. I was imprecise. What I intended to say
was that those "sayings" of Jesus that Luke and Matthew each have a
version of, and which clearly did not come from Mark ARE for all
intents and purposes. Q. (Only one of the two versions of the saying
can be chosen of course.) These type of sayings form very nearlly all
of the Book of Q, and certainly "core" Q.- also known as "minimalist"
Q. Sorry about that.


>In any event, your point is well taken.  Brian E. Wilson's hypothesis fails
>to take into account GTh, and the same goes for the Two Document Hypothesis
>and the Farrer Hypothesis.

Thank you for telling me that. I believed I had asked you expressly
if any or them did. This answers my question. It's too bad really. I
wonder if Wilson wouldn't be keen on giving it a run. It'll support
his contention, (if that is what it is) that there was indeed a
"Matthean Logia Collection "that functioned directly or indirectly as
a "supersource" or "primary source" for all the "collections"
and  Synoptic Gospels.

>  Just why the vastly overwhelming majority of
>scholars agree that GTh can safely be ignored in trying to solve the
>Synoptic problem is something I just can't fathom and I think they are
>making a SERIOUS judgment error here.

Agreed, and afortiori, their conclusions about the nature of the
Historical Jesus, and what Jesus "really" said. I think that both the
Matthean Logia Collection and the McCann document should be factored
into this assessment along with Thomas. My view is that both the MLC
and the MD predate ALL existings Gospels or Sayings Collections
including Thomas. This both of the two (MLC and MD are pre 60 CE stuff, imho.

I had further written


> > I know some people think that the Book of Q is a chimera. But to
> > invoke some Churchillian words "some chicken, some neck!" If it was a
> > Chimera, Frank, it could not in a million years have been used to
> > generate The McCann Document (if you recall it). The fact that that
> > Document "fell out" when material from the Matthean Logia collection
> > was struck out of Q 1 really proves that Q is not a Chimera, and
> > neither is the Matthean Logia Collection. The Q-Matthean Logia thesi
> > mutually reinforce each other.


You replied:-


>Ron, I've forgotten how this works.  Which version of the postulated first
>stratum of Q do you accept?   Can you cite the author and book in which its
>text is found?

I used the Q-1 strata of sayings from Burton Mack's "The Lost Gospel-
The Book of Q & Christian Origins., HarperSanFrancisco (1993). I
undertand this is now on the net and I can dig out the cite for you.

>  How can you tell what parts of this postulated Q 1 come from
>the Matthean Logia collection and what parts come from the McCann Document?
>Thanks.

Your, Welcome. Matthean Logia Collection sayings are identified by
whether or not they have a double or triple attestation in Mark, Q
and Thomas. These are struck out of Q, What's left is ' What ELSE"
the Q-1 author/compiler used in creating Q-1. Namely, the McCann
document, which falls out in a proper continuous readable sequence
when those remaining sayings are just joined one after the other..
There are some errors in the Q-1 document which should be corrected
first. The quickest and simplest way to see The McCann Document
emerge is to just strike out any saying in it with a parallel to a
Thomas saying. It then needs to be cleaned up a bit (by eliminating
sayings wrongly included by the Q scholars in the Q-1 stratum) , then
checking to see which of the Matthew or Luke versions fits best. So
Q-1, as is the whole Book of Q, is not free of errors.

I recently posted a more polished version of the McCann Document to
the general Gospel of Thomas group, which I can forward to the list
or directly to you if you want another peek. Remarkably,  with all
the errors the scholars extracting Q-1 made in constituting Q 1,
according to you who personally checked this (I had never done so),
every saying in the Document had earned a pink or red rating from the
Jesus Seminar. Do you remember our discussion now?

You next wrote:-


> > >The difference, here, lies in how to translate the word "logia".  Can it
> > >mean "sayings"?  Or, is it only Greek word "logoi" that can mean
> >>"sayings"? Ron, P Oxy. 654, which includes the Greek version of
> the incipit for GTh,
> > >has "logoi" rather than "logia" for "sayings".   Perhaps, then, it is a
> > >mistake to think that Matthew's collection of logia was a collection of
> > >sayings?

I had replied:-


> > The term Logia was my own, borrowed from Ray Summers who issued one
> > of the first ever public books containing Thomas. He uses it as a
> > plural for logion. It seems from what you say, that's wrong. In the
> > original Papais mention, some have translated the mention as Papais
> > saying "oracles", some "sayings" and some "Logia". As I recall, the
> > Jerome reference is vager.

You wrote:-


>You're referring to Ray Summers, The Secret Sayings of the Living
>Jesus--which was published in 1968.
>
>On pp. 16-17, he states, "This collection of sayings (logia) is similar
>to the collection of sayings (logia) set up by source criticism two
>generations ago as a working hypothesis to explain the 272 verses presented
>*in common* in Matthew and Luke but absent from Mark.  The collection, known
>as 'Logia,' or 'Quelle' (the German word for 'source') or simply 'Q,' was
>posited as the second major written document used by Matthew and Luke,...".

Thanks for the quotation. I never noticed that business  about
"Logia" referring to the Book of Q. What would you propose I call it
then? I wanted to distinguish it in the reader's mind from Matthew's
GOSPEL. and identify it as a sayings collection, like Thomas or Q.

>As far as I am aware, both the idea that "logia" means "sayings" and the
>usage of "Logia"  as an alternate title of the postulated Q have long been
>abandoned in scholarly circles.

Well perhaps I shouldn't use it then. I was unaware it was a term
that used to be an alternative title for the Book of Q. My book by
Ray Summer was destroyed in a housefire along with most of my other
books and early work several years back. Did you notice he
accidentally omitted some of the sayings?


>So, Ron, as far as I can tell, the position of Summers is out of date and
>untenable.

What?-The idea that Thomas as a document resembles the Q-collection
because they are both collections, not Gospels? How is that out of
date or untenable? I'm confused. What he says about those 277 verses
of Q is "minimalist" Q, and remains correct today. Are you saying
it's untenable or out of date because the Whole Book of Q is now much
longer than "minimalist Q, to-day?The only thing I see "dated" is the
use of the word "Logia" as another title for the Book of Q.

>.
>In any event, you are working with two separate hypotheses:
>(1) a document existed which was used as a source by Thomas and Mark and the
>author of Q
>and:
>(2) this document was originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew by the apostle
>named Matthew.

Correct, again.

You then wrote:-


>The second hypothesis has some serious weaknesses--none is fatal, but they
>are serious enough to raise major doubts about its credibility.  Perhaps,
>then, Ron, you are better off sticking only with the first hypothesis.  Just
>a thought..

Perhaps. Future experience may bear that out.
There clearly is no question the identification of the Matthean Logia
Collection with the Hebrew Matthew Collection of Papais and the
Hebrew Matthew of Collection of Jerone is weak for now ,and needs
more support, but I think I'll keep advancing the second hypothesis
just the same, in order to obtain further "hits". I fully expect that
somewhere in some museum, the vatican or some university library is a
mouldering document or pieces of a document wrongly labled " A
Collection of Jesus Sayings extracted from Matthew's Gospel,
Converted into Hebrew (or Aramaic.")  just waiting to be discovered
again, that will prove to be a copy of the Mattthew Logia Collection.
I think it's just a matter of time before further "proof" turns up.

Thanks Frank, I'll look forward to some suggestions from you as to
what I should call this thing in the interim.

Ron McCann
Saskatoon, Canada

May to be interest - to be released Feb. 2006.

Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity
The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas
Edited by Jon Ma. Asgeirsson, April D. DeConick and Risto Uro
. February 2006
. ISBN 90 04 14779 9
. Hardback (320 pp. with Greek, Coptic, Hebrew texts)
. List price EUR 95.- / US$ 128.-
. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 59

Best wishes,
Jacob Knee
(Cam, Glos.)

Should probably add, if you hadn't guessed from the 'libraries only' price,
that it's to be published by Brill.

-----Original Message-----
From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Jacob Knee
Sent: 31 October 2005 16:28
To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [GTh]

May to be interest - to be released Feb. 2006.

Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity
The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas
Edited by Jon Ma. Asgeirsson, April D. DeConick and Risto Uro
. February 2006
. ISBN 90 04 14779 9
. Hardback (320 pp. with Greek, Coptic, Hebrew texts)
. List price EUR 95.- / US$ 128.-
. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 59

Best wishes,
Jacob Knee
(Cam, Glos.)

Does anyone know anything about April DeConick's book on
    the "Kernel Text" in GoTh?
        Dave Renfro

--- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, David Renfro <brain32771@y...> wrote:
>
>      Does anyone know anything about April DeConick's book on
>    the "Kernel Text" in GoTh?
>        Dave Renfro
>

The book has just come off the printing press and should be
available for sale anytime (maybe even now).  I know T&T clark will
have a couple of display copies at SBL where it is getting reviewed
in a couple of weeks.

April provided me the table of contents, so here it is (excuse the
formating problems, if you will):

"I'm copying the table of contents for the Thomas book.  The second
volume will come out next summer.  It will be called The Original
Gospel of Thomas in Translation, with a commentary and new English
translation of the complete Gospel.

RECOVERING THE ORIGINAL GOSPEL OF THOMAS
A History of the Gospel and Its Growth
by April D. DeConick

CONTENTS

Preface

PART ONE                MAPPING A METHODOLOGY



Chapter 1
The "New" Traditionsgeschichtliche Approach


         1.1     The Historical Contexture of Traditions

         1.2     The Referential Horizon of Traditions

         1.3     The Communal Nature of Traditions

         1.4     The Responsive Nature of Traditions

         1.5     The Shift of Traditions

         1.6     Streams of Traditions

         1.7     Transmission of Traditions


Chapter 2
The Enigmatic Gospel of
Thomas


         2.1     Previously Proposed Compositional Models

                 2.1.1   Literate Model

                 2.1.2   Oral-Literate Model

                 2.1.3   Redaction Model

         2.2     The Rolling Corpus Model

                 2.2.1   Oral Consciousness

                 2.2.2   Multivalency

                 2.2.3   Structure



Chapter 3
The Rolling Gospel of
Thomas



         3.1     Principle of Development

                 3.1.1   Development of Discourses

                         3.1.1.1   Question and Answer Units

                         3.1.1.2   Dialogues

                 3.1.2   Formation of Interpretative Clauses

                         3.1.2.1   Sayings with Interpretative Clauses

                 3.1.3   Coherence to Characteristic Vocabulary

                         3.1.3.1   Characteristic Vocabulary

                         3.1.3.2   Sayings that Cohere to
Characteristic Vocabulary

                 3.1.4   Coherence to Characteristic Themes

                         3.1.4.1   Characteristic Themes

                         3.1.4.2   Sayings that Cohere to
Characteristic Themes

                 3.1.5   Anachronisms

                         3.1.5.1 Anachronistic Sayings

         3.2     Principle of Responsiveness

                 3.2.1   Sayings that are Responsive to Christian
Experiences

                 3.2.2   Responses Reflecting General Christian
Experiences

                         3.2.2.1   Death of the Eyewitnesses

                         3.2.2.2   The Delay of the Eschaton

                         3.2.2.3   Accommodation of Gentile Converts

                 3.2.3   Responses Reflecting Particular Community
Experiences

         3.3     Principle of Constituency

                 3.3.1   Shifts in Composition

                 3.3.2   Shifts in Hermeneutics

         3.4     A Rolling Corpus

                 3.4.1   Chart: Gradual Accrual of Logia

                 3.4.2   Chart: Sayings by Attribution


PART TWO                RECOVERING THE KERNEL

Chapter 4               An Early Christian Speech
Gospel



         4.1     Five Kernel Speeches

                 4.1.1   Speech One: Eschatological Urgency

                 4.1.2   Speech Two: Eschatological Challenges of
Discipleship

                 4.1.3   Speech Three: Exclusive Commitment to Jesus

                 4.1.4   Speech Four: The Selection of the Worthy Few

                 4.1.5   Speech Five: The Imminent Kingdom of God

         4.2     The Prophet-Orator

                 4.2.1   The Prophet in Conservative Christian Judaism

                 4.2.2   The Prophet in Ebionism



Chapter 5               The Imminent
Apocalypse



         5.1 Apocalyptic Expectations in the Kernel Sayings

                 5.1.1   The Eschatological and Mystical Dimensions
of Apocalyptic

                 5.1.2   Unprecedented Chaos

                 5.1.3   Reversal of World Order

                 5.1.4   Destruction of the Temple

                 5.1.5   Final Judgment

                         5.1.5.1   Selection of the Few

                         5.1.5.2   Harvest Motif

                         5.1.5.3   Messianic Banquet

                         5.1.5.4   Fire of Retribution

         5.2     The Son of Man Tradition

         5.3     The Origin of the Kernel Gospel



PART THREE              ASSESSING THE ACCRETIONS



Chapter 6
The Collapse of the Apocalypse



6.1     An Apocalyptic Memory Crisis

6.2     A Reconfiguration of Apocalyptic Expectations

         6.2.1   Accretions that Reconfigured Expectations

6.3     The Hermeneutical Shift



Chapter 7
The Restoration of Eden

         7.1     Sexuality in Second Temple Judaism

         7.2     Sexuality in Earliest Christianity

         7.3     Encratism and the Role of Eschatology

         7.4     Encratism and the Role of Protology

         7.5     The Origin of Thomas' Encratism



Chapter 8
A Mystical
Revival

         8.1     The Jewish Mystical Story

                 8.1.1   The Heavenly Man of Light

                 8.1.2   The Radiant Image and Its Loss

                 8.1.3   The Restoration of the Lost Image

         8.2     The Hermetic Story

                 8.2.1   The Fallen Soul

                 8.2.2   The Recovery of the Soul



Chapter 9
The Immanent Apocalypse



         9.1     Thomas' Mysticism

                 9.1.1   The Image of God and the Divine Double

                 9.1.2   The Fallen Condition of the Soul

                 9.1.3 The Path of Liberation

                 9.1.4 The Mystical Praxis

         9.1     The Origin of Thomas' Mysticism

                 9.2.1   Alexandrian Christian Mysticism

                 9.2.2   The Adaptation of the Kernel



  Chapter 10
Thomas and Christian Origins


10.1 The Gospel of Thomas Rediscovered

10.2 Implications for the Study of Christian Origins

10.3 Final Remark



Bibliography

I am very eager to get this book as it will be very helpful for my research,
so I have been checking fairly regularly on the web.  The T & T Clark
website says it will be available in December and will cost $130 US (ouch -
that's $175 Australian by the time I get it posted here).  Amazon is
offering it for less (how do they do that?)  See
http://www.tandtclarkinternational.com/(01iavp45hqhlqs55l5l5js34)/BookDetail
.aspx?BookID=12360

The website says the commentary and translation will be available in June
06.  Same price.  See
http://www.tandtclarkinternational.com/(01iavp45hqhlqs55l5l5js34)/BookDetail
.aspx?BookID=13136

Judy

--
" Let us forever remember that the sense for the sacred is as vital to us as
the light of the sun." - Abraham Joshua Heschel, 1944

Rev Judy Redman
Uniting Church Chaplain
University of New England
Armidale 2351
ph:  +61 2 6773 3739
fax: +61 2 6773 3749
web:  http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
email:  jredman@...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Renfro
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 November 2005 3:44 AM
> To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [GTh]
>
>
>      Does anyone know anything about April DeConick's book on
>    the "Kernel Text" in GoTh?
>        Dave Renfro
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

Don't forget that T and T Clark International do a 50% scholars discount if
you ask. Order via email and ask for the discount.

Still expensive but not completely ridiculous.

Best wishes,
Jacob Knee
(Cam, Glos.)

-----Original Message-----
From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Judy Redman
Sent: 02 November 2005 04:29
To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [GTh]

I am very eager to get this book as it will be very helpful for my research,
so I have been checking fairly regularly on the web.  The T & T Clark
website says it will be available in December and will cost $130 US (ouch -
that's $175 Australian by the time I get it posted here).  Amazon is
offering it for less (how do they do that?)  See
http://www.tandtclarkinternational.com/(01iavp45hqhlqs55l5l5js34)/BookDetail
.aspx?BookID=12360

The website says the commentary and translation will be available in June
06.  Same price.  See
http://www.tandtclarkinternational.com/(01iavp45hqhlqs55l5l5js34)/BookDetail
.aspx?BookID=13136

Judy

--
" Let us forever remember that the sense for the sacred is as vital to us as
the light of the sun." - Abraham Joshua Heschel, 1944

Rev Judy Redman
Uniting Church Chaplain
University of New England
Armidale 2351
ph:  +61 2 6773 3739
fax: +61 2 6773 3749
web:  http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
email:  jredman@...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Renfro
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 November 2005 3:44 AM
> To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [GTh]
>
>
>      Does anyone know anything about April DeConick's book on
>    the "Kernel Text" in GoTh?
>        Dave Renfro
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
>
>



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

Jacob,

Thanks sooo much for this?  How do I prove that I am a scholar?

Judy

--
" Let us forever remember that the sense for the sacred is as vital to us as
the light of the sun." - Abraham Joshua Heschel, 1944

Rev Judy Redman
Uniting Church Chaplain
University of New England
Armidale 2351
ph:  +61 2 6773 3739
fax: +61 2 6773 3749
web:  http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
email:  jredman@...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jacob Knee
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2005 7:45 PM
> To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [GTh]
>
>
> Don't forget that T and T Clark International do a 50%
> scholars discount if you ask. Order via email and ask for the
> discount.
>
> Still expensive but not completely ridiculous.
>
> Best wishes,
> Jacob Knee
> (Cam, Glos.)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Judy Redman
> Sent: 02 November 2005 04:29
> To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [GTh]
>
> I am very eager to get this book as it will be very helpful
> for my research, so I have been checking fairly regularly on
> the web.  The T & T Clark website says it will be available
> in December and will cost $130 US (ouch - that's $175
> Australian by the time I get it posted here).  Amazon is
> offering it for less (how do they do that?)  See
> http://www.tandtclarkinternational.com/(01iavp45hqhlqs55l5l5js
> 34)/BookDetail
> .aspx?BookID=12360
>
> The website says the commentary and translation will be
> available in June 06.  Same price.  See
> http://www.tandtclarkinternational.com/(01iavp45hqhlqs55l5l5js
> 34)/BookDetail
> .aspx?BookID=13136
>
> Judy
>
> --
> " Let us forever remember that the sense for the sacred is as
> vital to us as the light of the sun." - Abraham Joshua Heschel, 1944
>
> Rev Judy Redman
> Uniting Church Chaplain
> University of New England
> Armidale 2351
> ph:  +61 2 6773 3739
> fax: +61 2 6773 3749
> web:  http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
> email:  jredman@...
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Renfro
> > Sent: Tuesday, 1 November 2005 3:44 AM
> > To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [GTh]
> >
> >
> >      Does anyone know anything about April DeConick's book on
> >    the "Kernel Text" in GoTh?
> >        Dave Renfro
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

Asking is all you have to do - they give it to anyone who asks.

Best wishes,
Jacob



-----Original Message-----
From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Judy Redman
Sent: 02 November 2005 09:36
To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [GTh]

Jacob,

Thanks sooo much for this?  How do I prove that I am a scholar?

Judy

--
" Let us forever remember that the sense for the sacred is as vital to us as
the light of the sun." - Abraham Joshua Heschel, 1944

Rev Judy Redman
Uniting Church Chaplain
University of New England
Armidale 2351
ph:  +61 2 6773 3739
fax: +61 2 6773 3749
web:  http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
email:  jredman@...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jacob Knee
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2005 7:45 PM
> To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [GTh]
>
>
> Don't forget that T and T Clark International do a 50% scholars
> discount if you ask. Order via email and ask for the discount.
>
> Still expensive but not completely ridiculous.
>
> Best wishes,
> Jacob Knee
> (Cam, Glos.)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Judy Redman
> Sent: 02 November 2005 04:29
> To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [GTh]
>
> I am very eager to get this book as it will be very helpful for my
> research, so I have been checking fairly regularly on the web.  The T
> & T Clark website says it will be available in December and will cost
> $130 US (ouch - that's $175 Australian by the time I get it posted
> here).  Amazon is offering it for less (how do they do that?)  See
> http://www.tandtclarkinternational.com/(01iavp45hqhlqs55l5l5js
> 34)/BookDetail
> .aspx?BookID=12360
>
> The website says the commentary and translation will be available in
> June 06.  Same price.  See
> http://www.tandtclarkinternational.com/(01iavp45hqhlqs55l5l5js
> 34)/BookDetail
> .aspx?BookID=13136
>
> Judy
>
> --
> " Let us forever remember that the sense for the sacred is as vital to
> us as the light of the sun." - Abraham Joshua Heschel, 1944
>
> Rev Judy Redman
> Uniting Church Chaplain
> University of New England
> Armidale 2351
> ph:  +61 2 6773 3739
> fax: +61 2 6773 3749
> web:  http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
> email:  jredman@...
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Renfro
> > Sent: Tuesday, 1 November 2005 3:44 AM
> > To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [GTh]
> >
> >
> >      Does anyone know anything about April DeConick's book on
> >    the "Kernel Text" in GoTh?
> >        Dave Renfro
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
>
>



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

Words like "New Traditionsgeschichtliche" don't come cheap.
        D.R.

At 06:02 AM 11/2/05, David R wrote:
>      Words like "New Traditionsgeschichtliche" don't come cheap.
>        D.R.

Lol.
I googled this lady. Seems she is an Associate Professor of Religion
at Westleyn University specializing in ancient biblical studies.
Seems she specializes in ancient mystical teachings both Judaic and
otherwise. Looks like she and  Wade Grenier are, at a minimum, close
friends and members of the same Unitarian Universalist Congregation.
The chapter synopsis seems erudite enough.
I just hope it's not bent too far into the mystical and meditative.
Think I'll wait for some reviews of the book, before I bite.
Bit pricy for me.

Ron






>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
>
>
>
>

Ron McCann wrote:

>I googled this lady. Seems she is an Associate Professor of Religion
>at Westleyn University specializing in ancient biblical studies.
>Seems she specializes in ancient mystical teachings both Judaic and
>otherwise. Looks like she and  Wade Grenier are, at a minimum, close
>friends and members of the same Unitarian Universalist Congregation.

Aw, c'mon. . . . surely we don't need this kind of thing. April deConick is
a credentialled, well-published, and ENORMOUSLY respected expert on the
Gospel of Thomas. Looking into her religious beliefs or association with
other individuals BEFORE reading her work and assessing her conclusions is
inappropriate and quite beside the point. You want to research a scholar,
look first at what they've WRITTEN, not their personal life. I wonder
whether we'd be as quick to personalize the discussion if April weren't a
"lady." If one wants to critique her work, it ought to be on the basis of
the cogency (or lack thereof) of the work itself, the accuracy and strength
of her arguments, and so forth.

>I just hope it's not bent too far into the mystical and meditative.

This assumes that you know in advance exactly how mystical Thomas OUGHT to
be. Why not read the argument, assess how convincing it is, and THEN decide?

And sorry, Ron, if these comments seem a little personal -- I don't intend
them so much as a rebuke to you individually as a response to a *kind* of
approach to scholarship that I am seriously bothered by.

regards,
Bill
______________________
William Arnal
University of Regina

Bill,
Rebuke taken, and well deserved.
Whatever got into me?

Ron
At 06:17 PM 11/2/05, you wrote:

>Ron McCann wrote:
>
> >I googled this lady. Seems she is an Associate Professor of Religion
> >at Westleyn University specializing in ancient biblical studies.
> >Seems she specializes in ancient mystical teachings both Judaic and
> >otherwise. Looks like she and  Wade Grenier are, at a minimum, close
> >friends and members of the same Unitarian Universalist Congregation.
>
>Aw, c'mon. . . . surely we don't need this kind of thing. April deConick is
>a credentialled, well-published, and ENORMOUSLY respected expert on the
>Gospel of Thomas. Looking into her religious beliefs or association with
>other individuals BEFORE reading her work and assessing her conclusions is
>inappropriate and quite beside the point. You want to research a scholar,
>look first at what they've WRITTEN, not their personal life. I wonder
>whether we'd be as quick to personalize the discussion if April weren't a
>"lady." If one wants to critique her work, it ought to be on the basis of
>the cogency (or lack thereof) of the work itself, the accuracy and strength
>of her arguments, and so forth.
>
> >I just hope it's not bent too far into the mystical and meditative.
>
>This assumes that you know in advance exactly how mystical Thomas OUGHT to
>be. Why not read the argument, assess how convincing it is, and THEN decide?
>
>And sorry, Ron, if these comments seem a little personal -- I don't intend
>them so much as a rebuke to you individually as a response to a *kind* of
>approach to scholarship that I am seriously bothered by.
>
>regards,
>Bill
>______________________
>William Arnal
>University of Regina
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
>
>
>
>

At 02:49 PM 11/2/2005 -0600, Ron McCann wrote:
>Looks like she and  Wade Grenier are, at a minimum, close
>friends

I believe that Wade has already said on list that he and
April are married.  As a result, I very much appreciate
whatever information he can provide about her new book.

Stephen Carlson

--
Stephen C. Carlson                             mailto:scarlson@...
Weblog:                                   http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481

David writes:
>
>      Words like "New Traditionsgeschichtliche" don't come cheap.
>        D.R.

Hardcover books for a fairly specialist market like GThos don't come cheap,
unfortunately.  I like reading hardcover books with higher quality paper,
rather than paperbacks with lower quality paper, but I buy my hardcovers
secondhand whenever I can (I love Abe Books!!) and I often decided that I'll
even buy paperbacks secondhand because the information is still the same.

I think you're damned if you do and damned if you don't in this kind of
field.  Use words like "Traditiongeschichtliche" and you get accused of
being elitist, obscure etc.  Write something that is going to be more
readily accessible to the non-specialist reader (like Elaine Pagels' "Beyond
Belief") and you get dismissed as writing "theology lite".

It's particularly difficult, as Bill suggests, if you happen to be a female
scholar, because if you don't use the technical terms, some people are not
above suggesting that this is because you don't understand them and that
your level of scholarship is pretty low, just like you'd expect of a woman.
OTOH, it is also difficult if you are an intelligent, interested 'lay
person' ie someone who hasn't had formal university education the field but
wants to get beyond "Isn't GThos cool and I just love being a gnostic" and
the books you want to read are sprinkled with unexplained technical terms.
I suspect that if more people had written theology that was accessible to
the intelligent layperson there wouldn't be anywhere near the problem with
Christian fundamentalism that I see today.

I've just spent half an hour trying to work out how to translate
"Traditionsgeschichtliche" neatly but helpfully into English (hampered by
having my theological German dictionary at work, admittedly) and haven't
come up with anything all that wonderful.  I guess Tradition Critical, but I
have never found the term Biblical Criticism or its variants particularly
helpful.  No matter how many times I assure myself that criticism in this
sense means 'careful analytical study of' rather than 'articulating in
minute detail how wrong something is', I still need to do a double take
every time I see the term.

I've found DeConick's other works helpful and scholarly and this table of
contents looks as though it will come up to the same standard.

Judy

--
" Let us forever remember that the sense for the sacred is as vital to us as
the light of the sun." - Abraham Joshua Heschel, 1944

Rev Judy Redman
Uniting Church Chaplain
University of New England
Armidale 2351
ph:  +61 2 6773 3739
fax: +61 2 6773 3749
web:  http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
email:  jredman@...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Renfro
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:03 PM
> To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [GTh]
>
>
>      Words like "New Traditionsgeschichtliche" don't come cheap.
>        D.R.
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

I wish I'd put a Smiley Face behind that post now, ;0).
    This is a tough crowd, y'all make the Gnostic's look like
    Party-animals.
      I've been anticipating this book for months and will eventually
    come off the money for the hard cover; I like books.
      Thanks for the attempted translation, Judy. Note, this is
    "New" traditionsgeschichtliche; not just any traditionsgeschichtliche.
     Was there an "Old" traditiongeschichtliche.
       Answers.com gave me this.
          David Renfro

Re: orion-list War Scroll and Cargo cults
P. von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial: Traditiongeschichtliche Untersuchungen
zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen, ...
orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/ archives/2000b/msg00207.html

NT-genre
For the missionary speech in general see Ulrich Wilckens, Die Missionsrede der
Apostelgeschichte: Form- und traditiongeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 2nd ed. ...
www.cranfordville.com/NT-genre.htm

David writes:

>      Thanks for the attempted translation, Judy. Note, this is
>    "New" traditionsgeschichtliche; not just any
> traditionsgeschichtliche.
>     Was there an "Old" traditiongeschichtliche.

Should this have had a smiley after it too, David? :-)  The problem is that
I am a university chaplain - students ask me about things and I try to find
answers for them.  And much of the thinking around this will be of use when
I write the methodology chapter of my thesis. :-)

In case it shouldn't have had a smiley, looking at the list of sections
under the heading "New" Traditionsgeschichtliche Approach


         1.1     The Historical Contexture of Traditions
         1.2     The Referential Horizon of Traditions
         1.3     The Communal Nature of Traditions
         1.4     The Responsive Nature of Traditions
         1.5     The Shift of Traditions
         1.6     Streams of Traditions
         1.7     Transmission of Traditions

it seems likely that DeConick is proposing that there are some particular
things that need to be taken into account in Traditionsgeschichte that
haven't been looked at so intentionally in the past.  I have no memory of
seeing a list of things that need to be considered that included all these
things.   I'm used to much more general statements such as "Tradition
criticism (including form criticism) studies how information was passed from
one generation to another before it was put in its present form. ...
Tradition criticism attempts to trace the stages by which these traditions
were handed down, the forms they took at those various stages, and the forms
in which they reached the people who committed them to writing."
(http://www.shakinandshinin.org/BiblicalCriticism.html)  So perhaps the new
approach is a more structured and intentional one.

We will have to wait until we get copies of the book and see.

Judy

--
" Let us forever remember that the sense for the sacred is as vital to us as
the light of the sun." - Abraham Joshua Heschel, 1944

Rev Judy Redman
Uniting Church Chaplain
University of New England
Armidale 2351
ph:  +61 2 6773 3739
fax: +61 2 6773 3749
web:  http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
email:  jredman@...



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

Hi all!

By now the question about the translation of traditiongeschichtliche /
traditiongeschichte has probably been settled to everyones satisfaction.
Nevertheless, I¡¦ll call everyone¡¦s attention to a nifty little book
called the Hand Book of Biblical Criticisim, bt Richard N. Soulen
(Atlanta: John Knox, 1976). I¡¦m almost sure it is out of print but it has
a wealth of defintions about obscure words like traditiongeschichtliche,
uberlirferungsgeschicte, and variations thereon.

Here¡¦s a quick test, by the way, on terms defined in the dictionary and
which presumably any one engaged in historical-critical research should
know ļ:

Lasterkatalog/Tugendkatalog
Naturweisheit
Prostaxis
Sich realisierende Eschatologie
Homoioarchton


Rick Hubbard
Humble Maine Woodsman

Judy,
        I ran across a "cool" word recently that seems appropriate to
      the topic; "Euhemerist", (in fact I was called one). Check it out, if
      you don't already know it.
        I like it when a single word covers so much ground.
          Dave Renfro

Spare me the test, what's the skinny? Keep it woods-z.
        D.R.

rhubbard@... wrote:
Hi all!
...
Here's a quick test, by the way, on terms defined in the dictionary and which
presumably any one engaged in historical-critical research should know :

Lasterkatalog/Tugendkatalog
Naturweisheit
Prostaxis
Sich realisierende Eschatologie
Homoioarchton

Rick Hubbard
Humble Maine Woodsman

Seriously, can someone enlighten me as to why German is the preferred
language for special terms in Biblical studies? Is it just because everyone
does it? (Or do they - what about the French?) And - in response to Judy's
lament about an English term whose connotations I feel as well - why not use
'textual analysis' instead of 'text criticism'?

Mike Grondin

Mike,

>>Seriously, can someone enlighten me as to why German is the preferred language
for special terms in Biblical studies?<<

That was where the first really serious (that is, non apologetic)
historical-critical scholarship began to flourish in the late 18th through the
early 20th centuries. There were scholars in England, France, USA, and Russia
too, but they tended to be arguing for and against the merits of the protestant
revolution or the case for or against the key ideas of the followers of Calvin &
Zwingli versus the Lutherans.

Not that a good chunk of these new critics weren't Lutherans, but many were
pretty liberal for their day and some paid the price with lost jobs. I'm not
sure what his religious affiliation was, but even "critic of the critics" Albert
Schweitzer was considered so liberal that he had a heck of a time finding a
missionary organization willing to sponsor his medical practice in Africa.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio USA

Mike says:

> Seriously, can someone enlighten me as to why German is the preferred
> language for special terms in Biblical studies? Is it just
> because everyone
> does it? (Or do they - what about the French?)

The French do it too.  If you put "Traditionsgeschichte" into Google, you'll
get pages in English, French and Italian as well as German. There's also one
in Hebrew, but I don't think it really counts because it's just a
bibliographic entry.

Apart from the historical thing, I think it's also because German, a bit
like Coptic, allows you to put lots of words together into one so German
often provides one word where you need to use quite a few English words.

Geschichte is a case in point.  When I looked it up in my German-German
dictionary (ie like an English dictionary, but in German) it told me that
"Eine Geschichte" can be a history as we use it in English, but it can also
mean "an oral or written text which reports events that actually happened or
things that are invented/imagined that could have happened". So Geschichte
is a nice, neat word that conveys something quite close to what I imagine
everyone on this list understands the various gospels (canonical and
non-canonical) to be.  Tradition is the same in both languages.  Adding an s
to the end makes it genitive, so Traditionsgeschichte is a study of the
passing on/down of oral or written texts which report events that actually
happened or things that are invented/imagined that could have happened.

Of course, there wouldn't be any hang over at all from a time when only
clergy studied the Bible and felt that they had a duty to preserve the Holy
Mystery from misuse by the laity, would there???? :-)


>And - in
> response to Judy's
> lament about an English term whose connotations I feel as
> well - why not use
> 'textual analysis' instead of 'text criticism'?

A good question - one that I asked in class as an undergraduate on a number
of occasions!  Unfortunately, the other is the accepted technical term and I
suspect that it would take quite a number of fairly influential scholars to
change it.

Judy

I think the there is a third edition now in print:

Handbook of Biblical Criticism (3rd Edition/Revised & Expanded)

by Richard N. Soulen, R. Kendall Soulen


Richard Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen have thoroughly revised this
comprehensive guide to the basic terms and concepts of biblical criticism.
Integrating the newest methods and theories of biblical studies, this third
edition contains over 800 terms, phrases, names, explanations of common
abbreviations, notes on major methodologies and exegetical basics,
biographical sketches of key figures in the history of research, analytical
outlines of fundamental critical problems, a list of bibliographic tools,
plus an invaluable Diagram of Biblical Interpretation. Everything a student
needs for a class in biblical interpretation. Richard N. Soulen is a retired
Methodist minister and professor of New Testament at the School of Theology,
Virginia Union University. He is also the editor of Care for the Dying:
Resources of Theology. R. Kendall Soulen is Professor of Systematic Theology
at Wesley Theological Seminary. His publications include The God of Israel
and Christian Theology (Fortress, 1996).

https://www.ppcbooks.com/Details.asp?BookID=0664223141

Best wishes,
Jacob

-----Original Message-----
From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
rhubbard@...
Sent: 04 November 2005 18:56
To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [GTh]

Hi all!

By now the question about the translation of traditiongeschichtliche /
traditiongeschichte has probably been settled to everyones satisfaction.
Nevertheless, I¡¦ll call everyone¡¦s attention to a nifty little book
called the Hand Book of Biblical Criticisim, bt Richard N. Soulen
(Atlanta: John Knox, 1976). I¡¦m almost sure it is out of print but it has
a wealth of defintions about obscure words like traditiongeschichtliche,
uberlirferungsgeschicte, and variations thereon.

Here¡¦s a quick test, by the way, on terms defined in the dictionary and
which presumably any one engaged in historical-critical research should
know ļ:

Lasterkatalog/Tugendkatalog
Naturweisheit
Prostaxis
Sich realisierende Eschatologie
Homoioarchton


Rick Hubbard
Humble Maine Woodsman





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

Hi Judy-

Thanks to you and Dave Hindley for your remarks. Not knowing German and not
being a professional biblical scholar, the usage of special German terms has
bothered me, as perhaps indicating that one is writing primarily for an
academic audience. If the terms are explained, however, it's a different
matter. And then thinking about my own field of logic, I have to admit that
we use a significant number of foreign special terms - Latin, in our case.
('modus ponens', 'modus tollens', 'reductio ad absurdum', and all that.)
It's not entirely the same thing, I think (since Logic is used in all fields
of study), but what seems to be the same is that if one uses the terms
without explaining them, one is probably writing primarily for an audience
highly learned in that area (given that an editor would presumably correct
unintended obfuscation.) There's English special jargon, too, of course
(witness 'X criticism') - especially in what was my own career field of data
processing. My personal preference in writing and discussing has always been
to keep special terms to a minimum - even when the audience is one's
professional colleagues (in my case, the computer programmers I've worked
with.) When one uses special jargon unnecessarily, I tend to assume that
either the speaker is oblivious to the audience, or is trying to impress
them - which has the opposite effect on me.

Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI