On 28 Oct 98 at 19:05, Stevan Davies wrote:
> The reliance of JSem on "protos" does bother me.
> In fact though, what the JSem has done, whether
> it knows it or not (maybe it does) is to establish a "proto" that then
> will lead to the discovery of the other "protos." Putting this
> CONCLUSION as a PREMISE is not an impressive move.
I am interested by these comments. What do you mean by "the other "protos""?
Is the point that the Jesus Seminar establishes, say, that Q1 and Thomas1 are
more reliable sources, subsequently using them, partially at least, as a
plumb-line for judging authentic material in the secondary and tertiary strands
> > I suspect too that Q continues to remain popular because it seems to have
> > something to offer everyone. As (I think) Jeff Peterson pointed out
> > recently, there are conservatives who are keen on Q because it can be used
> > to give us an early anchor into authentic Jesus material, while there are
> > less conservative scholars who are keen on Q because it offers us a witness
> > to a non-Passion oriented "trajectory" in early Christianity.
> I've no clue what "conservative" means here. But not important. Since
> I assume we can agree that Jesus did not have a Passion-oriented
> perspective, then that aspect of Q doesn't give us new information
> that common-sense didn't already give us about the HJ.
By "conservative" I meant scholars of an evangelical bent who may be interested
in Q because of the early witness it might give us to reliable Jesus material.
I am thinking of scholars like Craig Blomberg who believe in Q but who are
sceptical about the historical value of, say, Thomas. With regard to the
matter of a Passion-oriented perspective, I was thinking more of the question
of "trajectories" within early Christianity than about Jesus' mindset.
Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham
Recommended New Testament Web Resources:
World Without Q: