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

(Fwd) Re: Thomasine independence 1

Expand Messages
  • Stevan Davies
    Forwarded message: From: Self To: crosstalk Subject: Re: Thomasine independence 1 Reply-to: miser17@epix.net Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 30, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Forwarded message:
      From: Self </S Davies>
      To: crosstalk
      Subject: Re: Thomasine independence 1
      Reply-to: miser17@...
      Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 19:42:37

      > From: "Mark Goodacre"
      > Steve commented on Holding's arguments:
      >
      > > That the "genre" of the "sayings list" was somehow a
      > > threat to the orthodox doesn't seem sound to me. But the simple
      > > logic that lists preceded narratives has a lot going for it. It's
      > > especially strong if you accept the Q theory (as Holding seems to)
      > > so that you do have an example of a presynoptic sayings list. There
      > > is no counterexample of a separate list drawn from the synoptics.
      >
      > Even if one accepts the Q theory, Q is not a sayings list. There is
      > simply too much narrative sequence (especially from Q3 to
      > Q7 where Luke is paralleling the non-Markan aspects of Matthew's
      > narrative sequence) for it to be like Thomas in this respect. This
      > is a problem that is not commonly perceived, but it is a problem that
      > is not going to go away.

      Yes it is. The question is the old one of how much similarity allows
      categorization? There never are easy answers. The NHC texts
      Sentences of Sextus and Teachings of Silvanus seem the same,
      but the one has short things and the other longer things. Two
      genres? Proverbs contains texts of how many genres? One?
      Fifteen? and so forth. Yet ALL of those texts lack ANY narrative
      elements whatsoever. No little dialogues or "they showed him
      a coin" or anything. What puts Thomas and Q into the same
      category IS that they have narrative elements, not that the one
      does and the other doesn't. So, if you like, they aren't sayings
      collections but some slightly different thing called "sayings
      collections with a little narrative." If you say "but Q has a little
      more...." so what? Human thought works with generalizations
      (e.g. words) and the fine cutting and slicing that concludes that
      this text differs from that text and so by virtue of the fact that
      they are not identical, they are not the same... this isn't useful.

      As for the laws of sayings-transmissions I can't really argue
      generalities with you. What's needed is a study of how Thomas
      variants are and are not like other second century Patristic
      variants. I don't think this has been done... but I hope to be
      shown wrong. How Thomas is like Gnostic variants is a frequently
      advanced thesis shown wrong by me frequently, if only by just
      pointing to the original texts supposedly similar and saying "read
      them, they haven't any commonalities at all."
      Honestogod I don't think most who discuss the Gnosticism of
      Thomas have ever read a Gnostic text in their lives.

      How's the World Cup going in you Europeans' opinions? We had
      a huge spate of anti-Iranian TV propaganda before that game to
      the point where I, at least, rooted for the Iranians throughout.

      Steve
      Stevan Davies
      Professor of Religious Studies
      College Misericordia, Dallas, Pennsylvania, USA
      The Gospel of Thomas Homepage
      http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.