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

Re: Thomasine dating

Expand Messages
  • y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
    On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Stevan Davies wrote: Yuri wrote: ... Steve, I can see that quite a few posters already got involved in this debate about the resurrection.
    Message 1 of 7 , Jul 1, 1998
      On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Stevan Davies wrote:
      Yuri wrote:


      > > Good question, and here's the answer. He should care because great many
      > > Christians care very much about the resurrection.
      > This is "canonical bias". The resurrection oriented Christians who
      > wrote NT stuff are a dangerous source for the inference that all
      > Christians were that way. Even on Crosstalk you have Mahlon's
      > notion of Jesus' importance (cynicish sage) and Davies' notions
      > of what Xianity mainly got started from (spirit experience) neither
      > of which have anything to do with the resurrection... this is not to
      > say that the resurrection was thought important by some, but to say
      > that the resurrection didn't have to be particularly important to
      > others. I'll say again: "people appearing to others after death is
      > NOT unusual in the ancient world or anywhere else and so the claim
      > that Jesus did so could NOT have been the main deal for his cult."


      > > It is my opinion that the earliest Christian origins post-Easter were
      > > centred around the idea of the Resurrection of the Lord. Without this,
      > > Christianity would have not even been a blip on the radar screen to us now
      > > -- one more tiny cult, one of hundreds of thousands, vanished without a
      > > trace in the mists of history... I see those first visions of Peter, or
      > > whoever it was who had visions first, as the original Big Bang from which
      > > the post-Easter movement developed onwards.
      > Paul would agree, Mark too. Certainly not John. Nor Q or Thomas.
      > > Well, the question is obviously, Do you really want to claim that GTh
      > > dates from before 30, i.e. pre-Easter? Because this is the only way the
      > > reference to the resurrection could be omitted in a natural way.
      > Q seems to have managed it well enough. But, anyhow, suppose I
      > simply theorize that these are the sayings of the living Jesus, i.e.
      > not dead yet, and the compiler of Thomas had the simpleminded
      > intelligence to think that before he died Jesus didn't spend much
      > time chatting about his demise. No big deal. Paul, for example,
      > doesn't give us instances of Jesus speaking about his crucifixion
      > while he's alive even though he might have done. I'm prone to think
      > that the first person who thought Jesus did that sort of thing was
      > Mark.
      > > Here's what I consider GTh to be. I think it was, along with Q, the public
      > > catechesis/teachings of the young movement. The private teachings would
      > > have been secret, and would have included the liturgical stuff, the
      > > material underlying basic Christian rituals. This is the stuff that was
      > > gradually incorporated into pMk, SecMk, and Mk (in that order) and later
      > > became non-secret.


      I can see that quite a few posters already got involved in this debate
      about the resurrection. But clarity about basic assumptions and
      terminology has been somewhat lacking, or so it seems. What are we really
      debating here? Let me try to clarify the historical background a little in
      order to bring some focus to this debate.

      It is very clear that already very early on, ca. 50 CE, there were those
      Christians who denied the resurrection, and those who believed in it. This
      is evident from Paul's writings.

      But already here the question must be asked, What kind of a resurrection?
      Did the deniers deny the materialistic view of resurrection (i.e. bodily
      resurrection), or the spiritual one? We don't know, but probably
      materialistic. I would think that the earliest general belief would have
      been in the non-materialistic resurrection.

      So these are the complexities here, but let's leave this aside for a

      Now, to remind, our main question is, Was resurrection the central event
      for earliest Christians? Obviously it was the central event for some, but
      perhaps not for all? Maybe not, but what about the Jerusalem core of
      believers, the earliest Ebionites, including James and Peter? I certainly
      think that for them the resurrection, and the associated Second Coming of
      the Lord, were central. It is also my belief that Paul was with them
      theologically, at least in his early years as a preacher.

      So if you'd wish to maintain that there were some Christians who did not
      subscribe to this view, probably they were elsewhere. Perhaps in Galilee?
      So, in other words, for you to maintain that for some Christians the
      resurrection was not central, you'd have to postulate multiple centres for
      earliest Christianity.

      A while back we discussed various ideas about such multiple centres.
      Morton Smith believed that there may have been as many as three discrete
      centres from early on. According to Smith, post-Easter, different
      followers of Jesus may have started different traditions about Jesus. Some
      of his earliest followers were probably (1) Hellenistic Jews, and they may
      well have seen Jesus as a sort of a legal teacher or philosopher. Others,
      (2) also most likely believing Jews (Aramaic-speaking?), saw him as a
      Messiah, and yet others (3) as primarily a miracle worker. Smith suggests
      that the latter were probably gentiles or Hellenists.

      So the first two groups Smith suggested were believing Jews, and the third
      possibly Gentile-centred. The #2 were probably strict legalists, and
      sticklers for the Law. It is the #3 that may have been centred in Galilee?
      The #1 were probably oriented towards the Greek philosophy, and thus would
      have been the closest to the Cynic mode.

      Since it is my opinion that Adoptionism was the central feature of the
      earliest Jerusalem Christianity (i.e. Jesus was believed to have been
      adopted by God as his Son), from the point of view of Christology, the Son
      of God would have been the earliest title of Jesus post-Easter. This title
      would also have fit well with the group #3. But the title Messiah/Christ
      would have been also applied pretty early by group #2, and perhaps by #1.

      So these are the various possibilities. Now, how would the GTh fit into
      any of these groups. What would be the GTh community? Probably #1, since
      #1 probably wouldn't have been so interested in the resurrection? GTh fits
      very well with the early Jerusalem Church. It specifically honours James.

      Is it possible that #1 and #2 were originally united and then split into
      two rival groups? Myself, I would tend to incline to this view. And so in
      this case all of the earliest Jerusalem Christians would have been
      interested in the resurrection, but later some of them may have lost their

      Is it possible that there were some pre-Easter followers of Jesus (let's
      call them Group X, or would it have been simply our old group #3) who
      never cared about the resurrection post-Easter? I guess so. But then, they
      had nothing to do in Jerusalem, a centre of the Jewish Temple cult, the
      place that was apparently quite marginal to the Historical Jesus'

      But would it have been possible for this Group X to have been merrily
      unaware of the circumstances of Jesus' ignoble death? Did they try to
      carry on spreading the pre-Easter teachings of the Master as if nothing
      happened? Or were they rather trying to keep performing some miracles in
      the imitation of the Master, as Morton Smith would have probably guessed,
      as if the death on the Cross never happened? All this I doubt. The death
      of their Master would have affected them in some way surely.

      I don't think GTh would have been the product of such a Group X, anyway
      you define it. I don't think this is that kind of a document. But this is
      what you are apparently seeking to maintain?



      Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto


      The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
      equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.