Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Synoptic-L] Re: Synoptic problem, Marcion, and Klinghardt

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    Dave, That s about it. I don t think there ever was a pre-Gospel Sayings List; Thomas (at its beginning, perhaps James ) is the earliest, and even that is
    Message 1 of 52 , Oct 12, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Dave,

      That's about it. I don't think there ever was a pre-Gospel Sayings List;
      "Thomas" (at its beginning, perhaps "James") is the earliest, and even that
      is post-Markan. The sayings collections, as far as I can judge from extant
      material, are derivative anthologies, not primary documents. On claimed or
      conjectural texts I have no comment. Your ??? I would call Luke A, and your
      "Luke" is now my Luke B. To complete my picture of Luke-Acts:

      Mark (accretional, 30-45)
      Luke A (rewritten Mark plus new material, pre-70)
      Matthew (from Mark and Luke A, with new material, still pre-70)
      Luke B (rewritten in light of Matthew plus further new material, post-70)
      Acts I (added at the same time as Luke B
      Luke C = Acts II (these additions post-80)

      gThos does not seem to know gJohn, or did I miss something? It would be
      interesting to know if gThos is aware of (and anthologizing from) Luke C as
      well as Luke B. I haven't checked this. If not, then we would have,
      chronologically, more or less the following picture:

      Execution of Jesus (30)
      Mark (accretional, 30-45)
      Execution of James Zebedee, 44
      Leadership of conservative James the Brother at Jerusalem, c46
      Confrontation between "some from James" and Paul in Galatia
      Gnostic / Spirit tendencies in Pauline churches, 50's
      Death of Paul, c60
      James = Thos 1-12, perhaps c60)
      Luke A (rewritten Mark plus James plus new material, pre-70)
      Matthew (from Mark and Luke A, with new material, still pre-70)
      Luke B (rewritten in light of Matthew plus further new material, post-70)
      Acts I (added at the same time as Luke B)
      Colossians (post-Paul; extending Gnostic tendencies in Pauline churches)
      Thomas (extending James; drawing on Luke B and Matthew, less on Mark)
      Luke C = Acts II (these additions post-80)
      Ephesians (knows Acts II, perhaps c85)
      John (c90)
      1 Peter (in two layers, x and c93)
      1 Clement (knows Ephesians and 1 Peter, c96)

      Colossians (not long after Paul's death; probably written by the editor of
      the first Pauline corpus) and Ephesians (after Colossians, and also after
      Acts II) continue the Gnostic strain in the Pauline churches. Other
      post-Pauline literature (Pastorals, 2 Thess, Hebrews) is from different
      sources, and has different purposes.

      I have not included the probability that gJohn was written in at least three
      strata.

      Those who would compress this schedule by making Mark post-70 need to
      present a convincing alternative to the above picture, including all its
      components. It seems to me that there is good evidence, starting from the
      Oxford Committee's close look at literary directionality and awareness, for
      each step. Refutations welcome as always.

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • E Bruce Brooks
      Dave, That s about it. I don t think there ever was a pre-Gospel Sayings List; Thomas (at its beginning, perhaps James ) is the earliest, and even that is
      Message 52 of 52 , Oct 12, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Dave,

        That's about it. I don't think there ever was a pre-Gospel Sayings List;
        "Thomas" (at its beginning, perhaps "James") is the earliest, and even that
        is post-Markan. The sayings collections, as far as I can judge from extant
        material, are derivative anthologies, not primary documents. On claimed or
        conjectural texts I have no comment. Your ??? I would call Luke A, and your
        "Luke" is now my Luke B. To complete my picture of Luke-Acts:

        Mark (accretional, 30-45)
        Luke A (rewritten Mark plus new material, pre-70)
        Matthew (from Mark and Luke A, with new material, still pre-70)
        Luke B (rewritten in light of Matthew plus further new material, post-70)
        Acts I (added at the same time as Luke B
        Luke C = Acts II (these additions post-80)

        gThos does not seem to know gJohn, or did I miss something? It would be
        interesting to know if gThos is aware of (and anthologizing from) Luke C as
        well as Luke B. I haven't checked this. If not, then we would have,
        chronologically, more or less the following picture:

        Execution of Jesus (30)
        Mark (accretional, 30-45)
        Execution of James Zebedee, 44
        Leadership of conservative James the Brother at Jerusalem, c46
        Confrontation between "some from James" and Paul in Galatia
        Gnostic / Spirit tendencies in Pauline churches, 50's
        Death of Paul, c60
        James = Thos 1-12, perhaps c60)
        Luke A (rewritten Mark plus James plus new material, pre-70)
        Matthew (from Mark and Luke A, with new material, still pre-70)
        Luke B (rewritten in light of Matthew plus further new material, post-70)
        Acts I (added at the same time as Luke B)
        Colossians (post-Paul; extending Gnostic tendencies in Pauline churches)
        Thomas (extending James; drawing on Luke B and Matthew, less on Mark)
        Luke C = Acts II (these additions post-80)
        Ephesians (knows Acts II, perhaps c85)
        John (c90)
        1 Peter (in two layers, x and c93)
        1 Clement (knows Ephesians and 1 Peter, c96)

        Colossians (not long after Paul's death; probably written by the editor of
        the first Pauline corpus) and Ephesians (after Colossians, and also after
        Acts II) continue the Gnostic strain in the Pauline churches. Other
        post-Pauline literature (Pastorals, 2 Thess, Hebrews) is from different
        sources, and has different purposes.

        I have not included the probability that gJohn was written in at least three
        strata.

        Those who would compress this schedule by making Mark post-70 need to
        present a convincing alternative to the above picture, including all its
        components. It seems to me that there is good evidence, starting from the
        Oxford Committee's close look at literary directionality and awareness, for
        each step. Refutations welcome as always.

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.