Peter Kirby wrote :
> It has often been noted that the reconstructed Q and the Gospel of Thomas do
> not have anything to say about the atoning nature of the death of Jesus and
> his subsequent resurrection. Rather, the focus is on the sayings of Jesus
> in these works. Assuming the existence of Q and an early date for Thomas,
> which is certainly an issue itself, this has led some to theorize that the
> earliest Jesus movement did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus but
> rather remembered him as a wisdom sage and that the idea of a saving death
> and resurrection developed as the church attracted Hellenistic constituents.
> This is the basic theory presented by Burton Mack and others.
> Against this conclusion, Jenkins proposes a different theory to explain the
> silence of Q & Thomas on the death or resurrection of Jesus. I would like
> to know what the list members think of his proposal, and so I will quote it,
> although I hope I have not gone too far beyond fair use.
in "L'evangile de Marc - Sa prehistoire", M.E. Boismard
leads a proto-Mark reconstruction without any death or
resurrection. Institution of Eucharity is absent to.
For such a strange lack, He proposes an explanation parallel
to Jenkin's view : the story of Cena, crucifixion and resurection
was said every week in the liturgy of the community. It was not
usefull to write it. First gospel writers were more interested
in saving the less repeated traditions about Jesus.