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

Re: [XTalk] Where Is Paul in the Gospels?

Expand Messages
  • William E. Arnal
    ... No, Pauline theology is absolutely NOT represented in Q. Quite the contrary. The son of God terminology is not prominent in Q, nor is it used the same
    Message 1 of 20 , Dec 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Ron Price wrote:

      > > Is Pauline theology represented in Q?
      >
      > Yes, it is in Q as normally understood. Jesus is presented as the Son
      > of God in the Temptation story (Matt 4:1-11) and in Jesus' Thanksgiving
      > (Matt 11:25-27).

      No, Pauline theology is absolutely NOT represented in Q.
      Quite the contrary. The "son of God" terminology is not
      prominent in Q, nor is it used the same way as in Paul.
      Otherwise, there's hardly any connection at all. Paul's
      emphasis is on Jesus' salvific death and resurrection. Q
      deals with neither. It does not refer to Jesus as "Christ,"
      and it emphasizes motifs -- such as "son of man" and
      "kingdom of God" that receive little play in Paul. The ONLY
      clear theological overlap between Q and Paul's letters
      occurs in Paul's uncharacteristic appeal to deuteronomistic
      theology in 1 Thess 2:13-16 -- and it has been argued that
      this passage isn't authentic anyway!

      Bill
      ________________________________________
      William E. Arnal e-mail: wea1@...
      Religious Studies/Classics New York University
    • Ron Price
      ... Bill, I trust you would agree that Matt 11:25-27 (=Q10:21-22), if not also Matt 4:1-11 (=Q4:1-13), implies a belief in Jesus as the unique Son of God. My
      Message 2 of 20 , Dec 2, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        In reply to Howard's question:

        >> Is Pauline theology represented in Q?

        I wrote:

        >> Yes, it is in Q as normally understood. Jesus is presented as the Son
        >> of God in the Temptation story (Matt 4:1-11) and in Jesus' Thanksgiving
        >> (Matt 11:25-27).

        William Arnal replied:

        >No, Pauline theology is absolutely NOT represented in Q.

        Bill,

        I trust you would agree that Matt 11:25-27 (=Q10:21-22), if not also
        Matt 4:1-11 (=Q4:1-13), implies a belief in Jesus as the unique Son of
        God. My contention is that this belief originated with Paul. Who else
        amongst the early followers of Jesus had the boldness and the vision to
        cast aside Jewish inhibitions and invent such a breathtaking concept?
        But if Paul invented it, then clearly your "Q" contains Pauline
        theology.

        Ron Price

        Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

        e-mail: ron.price@...

        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
      • Brian McCarthy
        Ron, How bold/daring was Paul s concept of Jesus as son of God in view of a) the fact that in Paul Jesus is always raised from the dead by God, he does not
        Message 3 of 20 , Dec 2, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Ron,

          How bold/daring was Paul's concept of Jesus as son of God in view of

          a) the fact that in Paul Jesus is always raised from the dead by God, he
          does not rise of his own divine power

          b) I Cor 15:28, where the son will be subjected to God, so that "God may be
          all in all"

          Brian McCarthy
          Madison WI

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Ron Price" <ron.price@...>
          To: <crosstalk2@egroups.com>
          Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 3:28 AM
          Subject: Re: [XTalk] Where Is Paul in the Gospels?


          > In reply to Howard's question:
          >
          > >> Is Pauline theology represented in Q?
          >
          > I wrote:
          >
          > >> Yes, it is in Q as normally understood. Jesus is presented as the Son
          > >> of God in the Temptation story (Matt 4:1-11) and in Jesus' Thanksgiving
          > >> (Matt 11:25-27).
          >
          > William Arnal replied:
          >
          > >No, Pauline theology is absolutely NOT represented in Q.
          >
          > Bill,
          >
          > I trust you would agree that Matt 11:25-27 (=Q10:21-22), if not also
          > Matt 4:1-11 (=Q4:1-13), implies a belief in Jesus as the unique Son of
          > God. My contention is that this belief originated with Paul. Who else
          > amongst the early followers of Jesus had the boldness and the vision to
          > cast aside Jewish inhibitions and invent such a breathtaking concept?
          > But if Paul invented it, then clearly your "Q" contains Pauline
          > theology.
          >
          > Ron Price
          >
          > Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
          >
          > e-mail: ron.price@...
          >
          > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
          >
          >
          >
          > The XTalk Home Page is http://www.xtalk.org
          >
          > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
          >
          > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
          >
          > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Bob Schacht
          ... Well, the obvious answer to your question is: Peter. (You did say who, not what author? ), which is in the triple tradition (Mark 8:27-30). ... If
          Message 4 of 20 , Dec 2, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            At 09:28 AM 12/2/00 +0000, you wrote:
            >In reply to Howard's question:
            >
            > >> Is Pauline theology represented in Q?
            >
            >I wrote:
            >
            > >> Yes, it is in Q as normally understood. Jesus is presented as the Son
            > >> of God in the Temptation story (Matt 4:1-11) and in Jesus' Thanksgiving
            > >> (Matt 11:25-27).
            >
            >William Arnal replied:
            >
            > >No, Pauline theology is absolutely NOT represented in Q.
            >
            > Bill,
            >
            > I trust you would agree that Matt 11:25-27 (=Q10:21-22), if not also
            >Matt 4:1-11 (=Q4:1-13), implies a belief in Jesus as the unique Son of
            >God. My contention is that this belief originated with Paul. Who else
            >amongst the early followers of Jesus had the boldness and the vision to
            >cast aside Jewish inhibitions and invent such a breathtaking concept?

            Well, the obvious answer to your question is: "Peter." (You did say "who,"
            not "what author?"), which is in the triple tradition (Mark 8:27-30).

            >But if Paul invented it, then clearly your "Q" contains Pauline
            >theology.

            If Paul invented it, why does no one credit him with this insight? Mark is
            arguably as early a source as Q.
            Bob


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • William E. Arnal
            ... Not entirely, no. Especially in the temptation, I think the designation is pretty generic. In Q 10:21-22, it seems to me, the point is much sharper, but
            Message 5 of 20 , Dec 2, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Ron Price wrote:

              > I trust you would agree that Matt 11:25-27 (=Q10:21-22), if not also
              > Matt 4:1-11 (=Q4:1-13), implies a belief in Jesus as the unique Son of
              > God.

              Not entirely, no. Especially in the temptation, I think the
              designation is pretty generic. In Q 10:21-22, it seems to
              me, the point is much sharper, but refers to Jesus' unique
              role as a consuit of knowledge and revelation rather than
              the cluster of ideas that Paul associates with this term.

              > My contention is that this belief originated with Paul.

              Well, that's your contention, but you have to demonstrate
              it. You can't appeal to this unsubstantiated contention as
              a (rather question-begging and circular) way of showing Q to
              be dependent on Pauline theology.

              > Who else
              > amongst the early followers of Jesus had the boldness and the vision to
              > cast aside Jewish inhibitions and invent such a breathtaking concept?

              Well, that's the question at hand. One could answer it,
              "well, based on the evidence we have, Q." Frankly, I don't
              see in the term the same boldness, casting aside of Jewish
              inhibitions, and so forth, and the fact is, it's just a
              TERM, not an idea in and of itself. Q and Paul use it
              differently, and since Q a) does not use it the way Paul
              does, or accord it the same centrality, and b) does not show
              contact with the range of other theological ideas typical of
              Paul, and c) has its own distinctive theology that
              apparently owes nothing, conceptually, to Paul, it would
              seem that Q, far from needed to be recast to fit your thesis
              that Paul invented "son of God," actually disproves that
              thesis (though not the thesis that Paul invested this term
              with his own peculiar sense).

              Bill
              ________________________________________
              William E. Arnal e-mail: wea1@...
              Religious Studies/Classics New York University
            • Ron Price
              ... Brian, I didn t claim that Paul had made Jesus on a level with God. But the claim regarding a special father/son relationship made for Jesus repeatedly in
              Message 6 of 20 , Dec 3, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Brian McCarthy wrote:

                >How bold/daring was Paul's concept of Jesus as son of God in view of
                >
                >a) the fact that in Paul Jesus is always raised from the dead by God, he
                >does not rise of his own divine power
                >
                >b) I Cor 15:28, where the son will be subjected to God, so that "God may be
                >all in all"

                Brian,
                I didn't claim that Paul had made Jesus on a level with God.
                But the claim regarding a special father/son relationship made for
                Jesus repeatedly in Paul's letters would surely have offended orthodox
                Jews because it could have been interpreted, as later Christians
                certainly did interpret it, as a claim to divinity.

                Jeffrey Gibson wrote:

                > ....... the application of the
                >title Son to Jesus in Q is ....... a way of claiming that Jesus is a
                >recapitulation of "one" who long before Jesus had been designated Son.

                Jeffrey,
                There is a world of difference between designating the nation of
                Israel as God's Son and designating a historical human being as such.
                The latter might be regarded as blasphemy.

                In reply to my comment:

                >> [the belief in Jesus as Son of God] originated with Paul. Who else
                >>amongst the early followers of Jesus had the boldness and the vision to
                >>cast aside Jewish inhibitions and invent such a breathtaking concept?

                Bob Schacht wrote:

                >Well, the obvious answer to your question is: "Peter." (You did say "who,"
                >not "what author?"), which is in the triple tradition (Mark 8:27-30).

                Bob,
                Yes I did say "who". But the application of redaction criticism to
                Mark leads me to believe that the author's main purpose in penning Mark
                8:29 was to point out that Peter (contrast the centurion in Mark 15:39)
                never got beyond seeing Jesus as the Messiah.

                >If Paul invented [the concept of Jesus as the Son of God], why does no
                one credit him with this insight?

                Au_Mark was writing an account of the life of Jesus. Paul never met
                Jesus. So you can hardly expect Mark's gospel to have credited Paul with
                this insight. Anyway Au_Mark was so keen to portray Jesus as the Son of
                God that he was prepared to read the title back into the life of Jesus
                (Mark 1:11; 15:39 etc.). Later gospel writers were probably unaware of
                the origin of the attribution.

                William Arnal wrote:

                > In Q 10:21-22, it seems to
                >me, the point is much sharper, but refers to Jesus' unique
                >role as a consuit of knowledge and revelation rather than
                >the cluster of ideas that Paul associates with this term.

                In such a short passage one could hardly expect to see the whole
                cluster of ideas that Paul associates with "Son of God". But the phrase
                itself provides an undeniable link.

                >> Who else
                >> amongst the early followers of Jesus had the boldness and the vision to
                >> cast aside Jewish inhibitions and invent such a breathtaking concept?

                >Well, that's the question at hand. One could answer it,
                >"well, based on the evidence we have, Q."

                Since when was Q a person? Presumably you mean the author of this
                hypothetical document. But if he/she had introduced the term, he/she
                would surely have made a better job of advertising it than
                in the two quite disparate pericopae: the Temptation and the
                Thanksgiving.

                > Frankly, I don't
                >see in the term the same boldness, casting aside of Jewish
                >inhibitions, and so forth, and the fact is, it's just a
                >TERM, not an idea in and of itself.

                So I suppose you would say "God" is just a term and not an idea in and
                of itself.
                You're on shaky ground here. "the Son of God" is both a phrase/term
                and a theological concept.

                > Q and Paul use it differently, and since Q a) does not use
                > it the way Paul does .......

                The fact that two pericopae in the double tradition use the phrase
                "Son of God" in a way which is atypical of Paul does not prove that Paul
                was not the originator of the phrase as applied to Jesus.
                Note that Paul referred to Jesus as God's Son in 1 Thess over 20 years
                before the next certain reference in Mark, and before the earliest
                proposed date for the hypothetical Q.

                > ....... it would
                >seem that Q, far from needed to be recast to fit your thesis
                >that Paul invented "son of God," .......

                There's a whole raft of reasons why Q should be recast and theology
                plays only a minor role in them. They come under three broad headings:
                (1) Au_Luke must have known Matthew (Luke 1:1; Mattheanisms in Luke;
                etc.)
                (2) The Q which arises from the 2SH is incoherent and quite incredible
                as a real document because of the ridiculous way it mixes narratives and
                sayings, some of which are not even sayings of Jesus. (I've studied the
                structures of the NT documents and even James, which is the least well
                structured, is vastly more coherent than the Q of the 2SH.)
                (3) It points to a Greek original and thus fails to explain Papias' TA
                LOGIA.

                >Q ....... actually disproves that thesis [that Paul was
                > the originator of the term "Son of God" as applied to Jesus].

                But a mere hyothesis (especially a dubious one, see above) can't prove
                or disprove anything.

                Russ Conte wrote:

                >the advocates of 7Q5's authenticity claim
                >it is a passage from Mark 6:52-53. Of more interest, 7Q5 is dated by its
                >advocates to approximately 50.

                Russ,
                There is a clear Sitz im Leben for Mark ca. 70 CE. Either the
                advocates of 7Q5's authenticity or else its dating must be wrong.

                Ron Price

                Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                e-mail: ron.price@...

                Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
              • William E. Arnal
                ... Gotta love this reasoning: it s not there, but it really is. Come on. The question is, is Paul s theology reflected in Q? And the answer is: no. The term,
                Message 7 of 20 , Dec 3, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Ron Price wrote:

                  > > In Q 10:21-22, it seems to
                  > >me, the point is much sharper, but refers to Jesus' unique
                  > >role as a consuit of knowledge and revelation rather than
                  > >the cluster of ideas that Paul associates with this term.
                  >
                  > In such a short passage one could hardly expect to see the whole
                  > cluster of ideas that Paul associates with "Son of God". But the phrase
                  > itself provides an undeniable link.

                  Gotta love this reasoning: it's not there, but it really is.
                  Come on. The question is, is Paul's theology reflected in Q?
                  And the answer is: no. The term, "son of God" comes up, but
                  it means something different, and lacks distinctively
                  Pauline traits. I should note that people are always trying
                  this, "just because it isn't there doesn't mean it isn't
                  there" approach to Q, but it just doesn't work: Q's theology
                  is reconstructed not simply in terms of what it lacks, but
                  what it HAS. The two "son of God" passages, as I explained
                  in my earlier post, do in fact convey their own sets of
                  ideas and associations. Those sets of ideas and associations
                  are DIFFERENT from Paul's. Moreover, one must wonder about
                  the character of this alleged influence if it was, on the
                  one hand, sufficient to make Q adopt a "Pauline" title in a
                  couple pericopes, but insufficient to cause Q to USE those
                  references in a Pauline fashion, or edevlop any other aspect
                  of Pauline theology. Seems to me there is an a priori here:
                  Paul invented the title, therefore every instance of the
                  title must represent Pauline influence, regardless of the
                  evidence.

                  > Since when was Q a person? Presumably you mean the author of this
                  > hypothetical document. But if he/she had introduced the term, he/she
                  > would surely have made a better job of advertising it than
                  > in the two quite disparate pericopae: the Temptation and the
                  > Thanksgiving.

                  So you're arguing that the LACK of importance of this term
                  in Q is evidence that Q is Pauline in its theology??? Weird.
                  Anyway, one could make the same (incorrect) argument about a
                  host of other terms in Q: "son of man", "the coming one,"
                  "the day," and so on. And one could make similar points
                  about other texts. In fact, as I said in my last post, Q
                  DOES develop these pericopae sufficiently that the content
                  of "son of God" is fairly well specified.

                  > So I suppose you would say "God" is just a term and not an idea in and
                  > of itself.

                  That's correct.

                  > You're on shaky ground here. "the Son of God" is both a phrase/term
                  > and a theological concept.

                  Not an invariable one. It means what you make it mean. As
                  does "God."

                  > The fact that two pericopae in the double tradition use the phrase
                  > "Son of God" in a way which is atypical of Paul does not prove that Paul
                  > was not the originator of the phrase as applied to Jesus.

                  Well, it sure doesn't prove he WAS thje originator! And, in
                  fact, if it can be shown that there was no Pauline influence
                  on Q, or that this material in Q predates Paul, well then,
                  yeah, it DOES prove that Paul wasn't the originator of the
                  title. But "proof" aside, what is lacking in your hypothesis
                  is plausibility. Is it PLAUSIBLE that a document showing no
                  Pauline influence and apparently lacking any literary
                  connection with his extant writings and deriving from a
                  locale far outside of his sphere of influence, when it
                  contains a phrase that Paul uses, but uses it in a diferent
                  way, derived that phrase (and apparently that phrase only)
                  from Paul? Well, no.

                  > Note that Paul referred to Jesus as God's Son in 1 Thess over 20 years
                  > before the next certain reference in Mark, and before the earliest
                  > proposed date for the hypothetical Q.

                  You clearly aren't up on Q scholarship. A number of folks
                  have proposed dates for Q prior to 1 Thess. And NO ONE, I
                  think, has proposed a Galilean sphere of Pauline influence,
                  so unless we imagine Xianity unified from the start, the
                  absolute date of Q vis a vis may not even be relevant.

                  > There's a whole raft of reasons why Q should be recast and theology
                  > plays only a minor role in them. They come under three broad headings:
                  > (1) Au_Luke must have known Matthew (Luke 1:1; Mattheanisms in Luke;
                  > etc.)

                  Why Luke 1:1 can't refer to Q and Mark, rather than Matthew
                  and Mark, or any other number of now-lost sources (including
                  "L") is beyond me. As for Mattheanisms in Luke, there is a
                  growing literature on this, and the question is far from
                  settled.

                  > (2) The Q which arises from the 2SH is incoherent and quite incredible
                  > as a real document because of the ridiculous way it mixes narratives and
                  > sayings, some of which are not even sayings of Jesus. (I've studied the
                  > structures of the NT documents and even James, which is the least well
                  > structured, is vastly more coherent than the Q of the 2SH.)

                  This is foolishness. Read some of the literature on Q before
                  airing such patently false conclusions.

                  > (3) It points to a Greek original and thus fails to explain Papias' TA
                  > LOGIA.

                  Right. The explanation for Papias has little to do with Q.
                  Is there some Aramaic document flaoting around that I
                  haven't heard about? Otherwise, Papias is in fact either
                  incorrectly referring to an EXTANT Greek document, or is
                  correctly referring to a text we no longer have, either in
                  MS form or, like Q, as a reconstruction.

                  > But a mere hyothesis (especially a dubious one, see above) can't prove
                  > or disprove anything.

                  I am longer going to reply to any assertions that "Q is
                  hypothetical." There's nothing to say to this beyond what
                  I've already said.

                  Bill
                  ________________________________________
                  William E. Arnal e-mail: wea1@...
                  Religious Studies/Classics New York University
                • Ron Price
                  ... Bill, But the fact is that *if* Paul was the first to apply the label Son of God to Jesus, then those two pericopae contain Pauline theology. (Appying
                  Message 8 of 20 , Dec 4, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    William Arnal wrote:
                    > The question is, is Paul's theology reflected in Q?
                    >And the answer is: no. The term, "son of God" comes up, but
                    >it means something different, and lacks distinctively
                    >Pauline traits.

                    Bill,
                    But the fact is that *if* Paul was the first to apply the label "Son
                    of God" to Jesus, then those two pericopae contain Pauline theology.
                    (Appying the label says something about God, namely that Jesus was his
                    Son. It can therefore be classed as theology, even if its meaning is
                    open to differing interpretations.)

                    > ....... Moreover, one must wonder about
                    >the character of this alleged influence if it was, on the
                    >one hand, sufficient to make Q adopt a "Pauline" title in a
                    >couple pericopes, but insufficient to cause Q to USE those
                    >references in a Pauline fashion .......

                    But here you have totally missed my point. I am saying that Q as
                    derived from the 2SH never existed. Therefore any argument based on what
                    Q did or did not do is irrelevant here. The actual sayings source
                    (which I label "sQ") contained about two-thirds of the "Q" sayings. The
                    two pericopae referring to Jesus as God's Son are among several
                    pericopae which were not in sQ. They were copied by Au_Luke from
                    Matthew.

                    >> But if he/she had introduced the term, he/she
                    >> would surely have made a better job of advertising it than
                    >> in the two quite disparate pericopae: the Temptation and the
                    >> Thanksgiving.

                    > ....... one could make the same (incorrect) argument about a
                    >host of other terms in Q: "son of man" .......

                    You may be right. But the sQ description of the coming of the son of
                    man in the sky, reminiscent of Daniel 7:13, arguably conveys the essence
                    of what the author meant by "son of man" without the need for further
                    explanation.

                    > Is it PLAUSIBLE that a document showing no
                    >Pauline influence and apparently lacking any literary
                    >connection with his extant writings and deriving from a
                    >locale far outside of his sphere of influence, when it
                    >contains a phrase that Paul uses, but uses it in a diferent
                    >way, derived that phrase (and apparently that phrase only)
                    >from Paul?

                    Here again you've completely missed my point. I am arguing that Q as
                    you understand it never existed. sQ does not refer to Jesus as God's
                    Son. It is entirely plausible that Au_Matt was the first person to put
                    in writing the pericopae Matt 4:1-11 and 11:25-27.

                    >> Note that Paul referred to Jesus as God's Son in 1 Thess over 20 years
                    >> before the next certain reference in Mark, and before the earliest
                    >> proposed date for the hypothetical Q.

                    >You clearly aren't up on Q scholarship.

                    You have several advantages over me here. O.K. I see now that Q is
                    dated by some nowadays as early as 40 CE. Even so, a hypothetical
                    document taking the earliest date attributed by scholars is not very
                    convincing. This is especially so since I note from Schnelle (_The
                    History and Theology of the New Testament Writings_, ET SCM, London,
                    1998, p.186) that the arguments for an early date depend among other
                    things on:
                    (1) the genuineness of 1 Thess 2:14-16, which text I see from an earlier
                    posting in this thread you regard as questionable (and here I agree with
                    you)
                    (2) positive references to Gentiles in Q. But all the clear positive
                    references to Gentiles are in pericopae which were first written down in
                    Matthew according to my hypothesis. They were not in sQ.
                    Anyway it can hardly be doubted that 1 Thess has the earliest certain
                    reference to Jesus as God's Son.

                    > And NO ONE, I
                    >think, has proposed a Galilean sphere of Pauline influence

                    I don't disagree. But again you underestimate the radical nature of
                    the 3SH. When a third of the sayings material is removed from Q in a
                    distinctly non-random manner and allocated to Au_Matt, one has to look
                    afresh at the question of its original location, just as one has to look
                    afresh at the question of its original language.

                    >Why Luke 1:1 can't refer to Q and Mark, rather than Matthew
                    >and Mark

                    Because Q cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as
                    "an account of the events which have taken place among us" (REB).

                    > or any other number of now-lost sources (including
                    >"L")

                    I thought you were a 2SH advocate. Are you saying that Luke had three
                    documentary sources? Surely the idea of "L" as a written source was
                    ditched decades ago.

                    > As for Mattheanisms in Luke, there is a
                    >growing literature on this, and the question is far from
                    >settled.

                    Phew! A response which is not an outright rebuttal!
                    Thanks for this concession that at least a *part* of my argument is
                    plausible.

                    >> (2) The Q which arises from the 2SH is incoherent and quite incredible
                    >> as a real document because of the ridiculous way it mixes narratives and
                    >> sayings, some of which are not even sayings of Jesus. (I've studied the
                    >> structures of the NT documents and even James, which is the least well
                    >> structured, is vastly more coherent than the Q of the 2SH.)

                    >This is foolishness.

                    But now you've replaced logical argument with invective, which is not
                    helpful.
                    The incoherence of Q is manifest from the fact that most Q scholars
                    attempt to split it into the supposedly different layers Q1, Q2 and Q3.
                    Since when did anyone split James into layers?

                    > Read some of the literature on Q before
                    >airing such patently false conclusions.

                    A.M.Farrer wrote of the supposed author of Q: "What is hard to believe
                    is that he should supply the exordium, while omitting the conclusion,
                    that he should set in train the only story of unique importance, and
                    break it off."

                    The critique of the coherence of Q is patently false is it? So
                    presumably you think Farrer was foolish as well.

                    However if some of that literature addresses Farrer's comment I would
                    be grateful for a specific reference.

                    >> (3) It points to a Greek original and thus fails to explain Papias' TA
                    >> LOGIA.

                    >Right. The explanation for Papias has little to do with Q.

                    You would say that, because the 2SH has difficulty explaining Papias'
                    statement. So, for that matter, does the FH.

                    Ron Price

                    Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                    e-mail: ron.price@...

                    Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                  • William E. Arnal
                    ... Well, no, those two pericopae contain terminology that originated with Paul. And that s only IF Paul was the first to apply the term to Jesus, and IF other
                    Message 9 of 20 , Dec 4, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Ron Price wrote:

                      > But the fact is that *if* Paul was the first to apply the label "Son
                      > of God" to Jesus, then those two pericopae contain Pauline theology.

                      Well, no, those two pericopae contain terminology that
                      originated with Paul. And that's only IF Paul was the first
                      to apply the term to Jesus, and IF other occurances didn't
                      just come up on their own (which is certainly possible). The
                      meaning of the term differs, so even if the Q author
                      encountered Paul and said to himself, "gee, that's a cool
                      term," he hasn't in fact adopted the theology that Paul uses
                      that term to convey. So, once again, Q lacks Pauline
                      theology.

                      > (Appying the label says something about God, namely that Jesus was his
                      > Son. It can therefore be classed as theology, even if its meaning is
                      > open to differing interpretations.)

                      Of course the term, in its various uses, says something
                      about God (and Jesus). But it can say different things,
                      depending on how it's used. And so its mere use does not
                      indicate identical or even similar ideas. Look, e.g., at
                      Luke's application of the term to ADAM, of all people!

                      > > ....... Moreover, one must wonder about
                      > >the character of this alleged influence if it was, on the
                      > >one hand, sufficient to make Q adopt a "Pauline" title in a
                      > >couple pericopes, but insufficient to cause Q to USE those
                      > >references in a Pauline fashion .......
                      >
                      > But here you have totally missed my point. I am saying that Q as
                      > derived from the 2SH never existed. Therefore any argument based on what
                      > Q did or did not do is irrelevant here. The actual sayings source
                      > (which I label "sQ") contained about two-thirds of the "Q" sayings. The
                      > two pericopae referring to Jesus as God's Son are among several
                      > pericopae which were not in sQ. They were copied by Au_Luke from
                      > Matthew.

                      Actually, you have missed my point, in the above, insofar as
                      I was saying that these two pericopae do NOT convey Pauline
                      ideas re. son of god. Yes, I could make the further point
                      that Q elsewhere lacks Pauline concepts, but in fact I was
                      saying that these stories/sayings lack Pauline concepts.
                      This is as true in their Matthean incarnations as within the
                      context of Q.

                      In addition, I did not in fact miss your point avbout
                      revising the Q hypothesis -- I was just ignoring it. Your
                      claim was that Q, as it is understood, is Pauline in its
                      theology. I was countering that claim.

                      > You may be right. But the sQ description of the coming of the son of
                      > man in the sky, reminiscent of Daniel 7:13, arguably conveys the essence
                      > of what the author meant by "son of man" without the need for further
                      > explanation.

                      As does son of god, even if only in the pericopes in which
                      it appears. As I keep saying, these units do in themselves
                      specify the content of "son of god," and moreover do so in
                      way that has little in common with Paul's usage. By the way,
                      what about my other example, "the Coming One"?

                      > Here again you've completely missed my point. I am arguing that Q as
                      > you understand it never existed. sQ does not refer to Jesus as God's
                      > Son. It is entirely plausible that Au_Matt was the first person to put
                      > in writing the pericopae Matt 4:1-11 and 11:25-27.

                      Well, it would be plausible if I thought there were any
                      convincing grounds for rejecting Q as normally conceived,
                      but since I DON'T, then it is not plausible at all that
                      Matthew formulated these two units.

                      > You have several advantages over me here. O.K. I see now that Q is
                      > dated by some nowadays as early as 40 CE. Even so, a hypothetical
                      > document taking the earliest date attributed by scholars is not very
                      > convincing. This is especially so since I note from Schnelle (_The
                      > History and Theology of the New Testament Writings_, ET SCM, London,
                      > 1998, p.186) that the arguments for an early date depend among other
                      > things on:
                      > (1) the genuineness of 1 Thess 2:14-16, which text I see from an earlier
                      > posting in this thread you regard as questionable (and here I agree with
                      > you)

                      Just a clarification here: I actually DON'T regard Pauline
                      authorship of 1 Thess 2:13-16 to be doubtful; I was merely
                      recognizing that a l0ots of folks DO. In fact, I was
                      thoroughly convinced by John Hurd's arguments ("Paul
                      Ahead of his Time," Peter Richardson, ed., _Anti-Judaism in
                      Early Christianity_, or something like that; against
                      Pearson) that this unit is original to 1 Thess. But that's
                      another matter.

                      In any case, you're partly right here: at least SOME early
                      datings of Q depend on a linkage with 1 Thess 2:13-16
                      (including my own!), but not all. Theissen dates Q to the
                      40s CE on very different grounds. Moreover, since there's
                      nothing about Q that compels a late date (in spite of the
                      efforts of Luhrmann, and even more dramatically, Hoffmann
                      and Myllykoski), an early dating doesn't DEPEND on 1 Thess
                      -- it just may appeal to it. You know what I mean? In other
                      words, even if 1 Thess 2:13-16 could be proven to be an
                      interpolation, or could be proven to have no bearing on Q,
                      that would not require a late date for Q -- it would just
                      knock out one particular argument for dating Q in the 40s.

                      > (2) positive references to Gentiles in Q. But all the clear positive
                      > references to Gentiles are in pericopae which were first written down in
                      > Matthew according to my hypothesis. They were not in sQ.

                      Whoa! This I don't get. How do Q's supposed positive
                      references to Gentiles in any way support an EARLY date for
                      Q??? For Luhrmann, they were an indication of its lateness!

                      In any case, this comment of yours makes me think that a
                      methodological point is in order. It APPEARS to me (correct
                      me if I'm wrong) that you want to take units away from Q on
                      the grounds of this or that theological peculiarity. That
                      is, you want to dump the temptation, and the "I thank you,
                      Father," saying, because of the "son of God" concept, and
                      you also want to dump the stuff that makes (apparently)
                      positive reference to Gentiles. To my mind, this sort of
                      method always dissolves into special pleading. It starts by
                      assuming a particular chronology of ideas, then looks for
                      those ideas in the sources, makes allegedly early ideas an
                      indication of early sources, and late ideas an indication of
                      late sources, and then uses the dates of these sources to
                      show the provenance and chronology of the ideas! That's no
                      good at all: anyone can "refute" it by coming up with a
                      counter-chronology and making the same kind of application.
                      The only real control we have on our reconstructions is the
                      literary evidence, and so our hypotheses need to depend on
                      that evidence. The grounds for positing Q rest with Luke not
                      knowing Matthew. Without that claim, there's no reason to
                      hypothesize Q at all, since we may as well attribute all of
                      the double tradition to Luke's use of Matthew. There are no
                      literary reasons, either, for excluding the temptation, or
                      the positive references to Gentiles, or the like, from a
                      hypothetical Q -- they are used by Luke in much the same
                      way as he uses other double tradition material, and resemble
                      the Matthean texts no more nor less than is usual for the
                      double tradition.

                      > Anyway it can hardly be doubted that 1 Thess has the earliest certain
                      > reference to Jesus as God's Son.

                      Eariest certain reference, sure. But not certainly earliest.

                      > I don't disagree. But again you underestimate the radical nature of
                      > the 3SH. When a third of the sayings material is removed from Q in a
                      > distinctly non-random manner and allocated to Au_Matt, one has to look
                      > afresh at the question of its original location, just as one has to look
                      > afresh at the question of its original language.

                      Okay, "in a distinctively non-random manner" makes it sound
                      like you DO have literary, as opposed to
                      tradition-historical, grounds for your revision of Q. If so,
                      I'd like to know what they are.

                      > Because Q cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as
                      > "an account of the events which have taken place among us" (REB).

                      Of course it can. Are you saying that this description of
                      sources is so constrictive that it can only include the
                      narrative gospel genre.

                      > > or any other number of now-lost sources (including
                      > >"L")
                      >
                      > I thought you were a 2SH advocate. Are you saying that Luke had three
                      > documentary sources? Surely the idea of "L" as a written source was
                      > ditched decades ago.

                      Uh, the 2SH does not, to my knowledge, insist that there
                      were ONLY two sources; only that the main shared sources for
                      Matthew and Luke were Mark and Q. I am increasingly
                      convinced that Luke had Thomas, or at least Thomas
                      traditions, as a source (see the article by Gregory Riley in
                      HTR 88, I think). And he clearly had SOME source for all
                      those parables he includes in his travel narrative. Whether
                      this was a single written text or not, I have no idea. Lots
                      of people, by the way, still buy "L" -- I'm just not sure
                      I'm one of them.

                      > > As for Mattheanisms in Luke, there is a
                      > >growing literature on this, and the question is far from
                      > >settled.
                      >
                      > Phew! A response which is not an outright rebuttal!
                      > Thanks for this concession that at least a *part* of my argument is
                      > plausible.

                      Well, I'm pretty much forced to concede that there are
                      people out there -- intelligent people, first-rate scholars
                      (are your ears burning, Mark?) -- who take the position that
                      Luke used Matthew. So I have to concede that this is
                      something that's being discussed these days. I happen to
                      think Mark, and the view he defends, is WRONG, but it is
                      current. However, I would not for a moment concede that
                      Mattheanisms in Luke have actually been ESTABLISHED.

                      > But now you've replaced logical argument with invective, which is not
                      > helpful.
                      > The incoherence of Q is manifest from the fact that most Q scholars
                      > attempt to split it into the supposedly different layers Q1, Q2 and Q3.
                      > Since when did anyone split James into layers?

                      How about Didache? How about 1 Enoch? Moreover, this
                      argument shows a complete lack of awareness of the GROUNDS
                      on which Q is stratified (which has nothing to do with
                      incoherence). Invective, yes, because I'm tired of hearing
                      this particular argument, which has no basis in fact at all.
                      Kloppenborg -- the same dude who popularized the idea of a
                      stratified Q -- also showed Q's generic comparability with a
                      whole range of Near Eastern and Hellenistic writings. Alan
                      Kirk, more recently, has made a similar and perhaps even
                      more thorough case. A familiarity with the literature that
                      you're trying to refute would help shore up your arguments,
                      I think.

                      > A.M.Farrer wrote of the supposed author of Q: "What is hard to believe
                      > is that he should supply the exordium, while omitting the conclusion,
                      > that he should set in train the only story of unique importance, and
                      > break it off."
                      >
                      > The critique of the coherence of Q is patently false is it? So
                      > presumably you think Farrer was foolish as well.

                      Yes, I do.

                      > However if some of that literature addresses Farrer's comment I would
                      > be grateful for a specific reference.

                      As above. See Kloppenborg, _Formation of Q_, and Alan Kirk
                      (it's a Brill volume and now, of course, the title has
                      slipped out of my mind). Hell, even Robinson's old "Logoi
                      Sophon" article adddresses this. I note that Mark Goodacre
                      has tried to revive this weak argument by showing that Q has
                      a narrative skeleton that distinguishes it from, say,
                      Thomas, and so renders it generically incoherent. I didn't
                      find that argument convincing, for reasons that I assume are
                      somewhere in the crosstalk archives, probably from about
                      last year at this time.

                      > You would say that, because the 2SH has difficulty explaining Papias'
                      > statement. So, for that matter, does the FH.

                      Or any other hypothesis. Actually, 2SH has a fine
                      explanation for Papias: he didn't know what he was talking
                      about. Anyway, and once again, as I asked: is there some
                      Aramaic sayings document out there that actually corresponds
                      to this reference? If there isn't, what's your point?

                      Bill
                      ________________________________________
                      William E. Arnal e-mail: wea1@...
                      Religious Studies/Classics New York University
                    • Mark Goodacre
                      ... Whoever has ears to hear, let them burn. I m enjoying your participation in Xtalk and can t but find myself commenting on this and one other remark in one
                      Message 10 of 20 , Dec 5, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 4 Dec 2000, at 16:32, William E. Arnal wrote:

                        > Well, I'm pretty much forced to concede that there are
                        > people out there -- intelligent people, first-rate scholars
                        > (are your ears burning, Mark?) -- who take the position that Luke
                        > used Matthew. So I have to concede that this is something that's
                        > being discussed these days. I happen to think Mark, and the view
                        > he defends, is WRONG, but it is current. However, I would not for
                        > a moment concede that Mattheanisms in Luke have actually been
                        > ESTABLISHED.

                        Whoever has ears to hear, let them burn. I'm enjoying your
                        participation in Xtalk and can't but find myself commenting on
                        this and one other remark in one of your emails. I wonder if it
                        isn't the case that the presence of Mattheanisms in Luke has
                        been established. You can't get more Matthean than
                        "weeping and gnashing of teeth", "o ye of little faith" and
                        "when Jesus had finished these sayings . . .". unless one
                        wants to dispense with any kind of meaningful definition of
                        "Matthean". The difficulty is not whether or not they're present
                        -- that seems to be a given -- the difficulty is what their import
                        is. Partly in response to my critique, Goulder has recently
                        reformulated his linguistic argument in a direct challenge to
                        the IQP's means of reconstructing Q, as you know. I still
                        think that Goulder is overstating his case, but think he is
                        making a very interesting basic point nonetheless, viz. given
                        that on multiple occasions QC (= words common to Matt. and
                        Luke in Q passages) clearly features distinctive Matthean
                        expressions, we cannot assume that on other occasions, in
                        QD (=Q passages where Matt. and Luke differ), Q did not
                        feature distinctive Matthean expressions. In other words,
                        when one reads through reconstructions of Q, one regularly
                        sees statements to this effect: "given the Matthean nature of
                        this expression, it is unlikely that it stood in Q". But given
                        that there are many expressions in Q that are distinctive of
                        Matthew (because of the QC data), this is the kind of
                        assumption we simply can't make, can we?

                        > As above. See Kloppenborg, _Formation of Q_, and Alan Kirk
                        > (it's a Brill volume and now, of course, the title has
                        > slipped out of my mind). Hell, even Robinson's old "Logoi
                        > Sophon" article adddresses this. I note that Mark Goodacre
                        > has tried to revive this weak argument by showing that Q has a
                        > narrative skeleton that distinguishes it from, say, Thomas, and
                        > so renders it generically incoherent. I didn't find that argument
                        > convincing, for reasons that I assume are somewhere in the
                        > crosstalk archives, probably from about last year at this
                        time.

                        Both Robinson and Kloppenborg have indeed seen the extent
                        to which Q is moving in the direction of bios with some striking
                        narrative elements. I grant that this is one possible reading of
                        the evidence to which I was drawing attention, and on which it
                        seems I am in agreement with some Q scholars (and who
                        better than Robinson and Kloppenborg?!) What I was
                        attempting to do was to suggest that the Farrer Theory's
                        reading is a more plausible reading of the evidence because it
                        can deal satisfactorily with the triple tradition narrative material
                        that is taken for granted in Q and because it can satisfactorily
                        explain elements in the narrative structure of Q like Q 7.1,
                        "and when Jesus had finished these sayings . . ." But, as Bill
                        says, we had a good debate about this around this time last
                        year and there's probably nothing fresh that can be added at
                        this juncture.

                        Mark
                        --------------------------------------
                        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                        Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                        University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                        Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                        http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                        Homepage
                        http://www.ntgateway.com
                        The New Testament Gateway
                      • Nichael Cramer
                        ... This is most certainly true. However shouldn t we find it at least a little curious that Paul is so completely, so uttlerly absent from the Gospels? Can
                        Message 11 of 20 , Dec 5, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Ron Price wrote:
                          >Howard wrote:
                          >>Where did Paul disappear to in the Gospels?
                          >
                          >Howard,
                          > The gospels are about the life of Jesus, in which Paul played no part,
                          >so you wouldn't expect him to appear there explicitly.

                          This is most certainly true. However shouldn't we find it
                          at least a little curious that Paul is so completely, so
                          uttlerly absent from the Gospels? Can that absence itself
                          tell us anything interesting?

                          Of course, the Gospels served many roles aside from
                          the simple putative recording of the Life of Jesus.
                          One of the most important of these was establishing
                          the authority and credibility of the early Church.

                          In particular, many of the leaders of the early church
                          --i.e. the leaders who were in place at the time when the
                          Gosples were written-- are clearly being "set up" in the
                          Gospels; James and John being two obvious examples.

                          It seems not unlikely that by the time the writers of the Gospels
                          were at work Paul would have had some reputation among the
                          various communities. Why was Paul excluded from such a process?
                          Shouldn't we expect him to be afforded at least some small crumb
                          by the writers of the Gospels? Even some phrase, something like
                          "...from Damascus will come a light..." Instead the silence is
                          absolute.

                          To most modern readers of the NT, if there is a second person
                          in Christianity after Jesus that person is Paul. The very
                          least that such an exclusion should tell us is that this view
                          is rather different from that held in and by the early Church.

                          N


                          --
                          Nichael Cramer
                          nichael@...
                          http://www.sover.net/~nichael/
                        • William E. Arnal
                          ... Fair enough. IF by Mattheanisms is meant stylistic features [or other] which are favourites of Matthew and NOT stylistic features that were derived
                          Message 12 of 20 , Dec 6, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Mark Goodacre wrote:

                            > this and one other remark in one of your emails. I wonder if it
                            > isn't the case that the presence of Mattheanisms in Luke has
                            > been established. You can't get more Matthean than
                            > "weeping and gnashing of teeth", "o ye of little faith" and
                            > "when Jesus had finished these sayings . . .". unless one
                            > wants to dispense with any kind of meaningful definition of
                            > "Matthean". The difficulty is not whether or not they're present
                            > -- that seems to be a given -- the difficulty is what their import

                            Fair enough. IF by "Mattheanisms" is meant "stylistic
                            features [or other] which are favourites of Matthew" and NOT
                            "stylistic features that were derived from Matthew." I took
                            the reference to "Mattheanisms", to which I responded, to be
                            an assertion that there WERE in fact places where Luke
                            certainly adopted stylistic [or other] features FROM
                            Matthew. To this, of course, I object. It seems to me that
                            just calling them "Mattheanisms" threatens to beg the
                            question. I would assume that many such instances represent
                            Lukan taking over of Q expressions which are also taken over
                            -- and repeated and amplified -- in Matthew. Does that make
                            sense?

                            > expressions, we cannot assume that on other occasions, in
                            > QD (=Q passages where Matt. and Luke differ), Q did not
                            > feature distinctive Matthean expressions.

                            I think that is probably true. But I think the IQP method is
                            rather complex than this; one can also reason, "if Q read
                            this way [i.e., Matthew's "Matthean" wording], was there any
                            reason for Luke to have changed the material in the
                            direction he did?" If the answer to that is "yes," then the
                            "Matthean" wording SHOULD be (I doubt it is, consistently,
                            but hey, that's life) preferred as original Q; if theanswer
                            is "no," then the grounds for preferring Luke's wording are
                            more than simply that the Matthean wording sounds Matthean.

                            > sees statements to this effect: "given the Matthean nature of
                            > this expression, it is unlikely that it stood in Q". But given
                            > that there are many expressions in Q that are distinctive of
                            > Matthew (because of the QC data), this is the kind of
                            > assumption we simply can't make, can we?

                            Again, true enough, but the Lukan wording will also be a
                            factor -- is it especially Lukan? Did Luke have (apparent)
                            grounds for changing it to reflect the wording he now has?
                            and so on.

                            > Both Robinson and Kloppenborg have indeed seen the extent
                            > to which Q is moving in the direction of bios with some striking
                            > narrative elements.

                            Well, narrative elements and narrative sequence are
                            different things. No one would deny that Q has narrative
                            elements: 7:1-10 is an obvious case in point, as is the
                            frame of every damn chreia in the whole collection.
                            Kloppenborg claims, however, that at its final stage Q was
                            moving in the direction of a *bios* and hence on a line that
                            would eventually converge with the (narrative) gospels. I'm
                            not so sure I agree with this -- the treatment of JBap does
                            NOT strike me as interested in sequence or chronology, and
                            the temptation seems to me to be more a thematic than
                            biographical statement (what I mean is: its point at the
                            start of the document is to establish Jesus' authority as a
                            teacher, rather than to tell the story of how that ministry
                            started).

                            In any case, Kloppenborg has shown, I think, that even with
                            a generic drift towards *bios*, Q falls within the
                            parameters of ancient sapiential literature. Of course, I
                            recognize that the paper you gave last year at the SBL was
                            claiming far more than THIS. And that, we have already
                            discussed.

                            Bill
                            ________________________________________
                            William E. Arnal e-mail: wea1@...
                            Religious Studies/Classics New York University
                          • William E. Arnal
                            ... I can t agree with this assessment of things: what about Luke-Acts? It s definitely NOT as though the author of Luke has no interest in Paul, or wishes to
                            Message 13 of 20 , Dec 6, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Nichael Cramer wrote:

                              > It seems not unlikely that by the time the writers of the Gospels
                              > were at work Paul would have had some reputation among the
                              > various communities. Why was Paul excluded from such a process?
                              > Shouldn't we expect him to be afforded at least some small crumb
                              > by the writers of the Gospels? Even some phrase, something like
                              > "...from Damascus will come a light..." Instead the silence is
                              > absolute.

                              I can't agree with this assessment of things: what about
                              Luke-Acts? It's definitely NOT as though the author of Luke
                              has no interest in Paul, or wishes to suppress his
                              importance. He devotes half or more of his "second volume"
                              to the guy! But does he appear in GLuke? Not at all,not a
                              hint. Since we can't infer disdain, suppression, or
                              ignorance of Paul from his absence in GLuke, I'm not sure we
                              can from the other gospels either.

                              Bill

                              ________________________________________
                              William E. Arnal e-mail: wea1@...
                              Religious Studies/Classics New York University
                            • James Covey
                              Hey CrossTalkers: I m itching to give John Dominic Crossan s _The Birth of Christianity_ another close read-through. Anyone else want to join me? I know I m
                              Message 14 of 20 , Dec 6, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hey CrossTalkers:

                                I'm itching to give John Dominic Crossan's
                                _The Birth of Christianity_ another close
                                read-through. Anyone else want to join me?

                                I know I'm not going to get to it 'til after
                                Christmas, so I'm suggesting that we start
                                in on January 5, and read through at a rate
                                of one Part per week (there's ten Parts)
                                with extra weeks at either end for introductory
                                sections and summary arguments/conclusions.

                                I've set up a moderated list for this purpose
                                on eGroups. I'm an experienced list moderator
                                and I promise to filter out the crap and keep
                                a short leash on the posts-per-day.

                                Come on, you know you want to.

                                BoC-Sem-subscribe@egroups.com

                                James

                                p.s. feel free to post this to other lists
                                you're on, e.g. Synoptic-L, Thomas list...

                                --
                                James R. Covey
                                Contributing Writer
                                The Coast "Halifax's Weekly"
                                direct ph: 902.422.8915
                                Coast fax: 902.425.0013
                              • Bob Schacht
                                ... James, Did you ever get around to doing this? With Sukie Curtis s study guide as a stimulus, I have taken the plunge and put it out there in my local world
                                Message 15 of 20 , Jan 18, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  At 05:11 PM 12/6/00 -0400, you wrote:
                                  >Hey CrossTalkers:
                                  >
                                  >I'm itching to give John Dominic Crossan's
                                  >_The Birth of Christianity_ another close
                                  >read-through. Anyone else want to join me?
                                  >
                                  >I know I'm not going to get to it 'til after
                                  >Christmas, so I'm suggesting that we start
                                  >in on January 5, and read through at a rate
                                  >of one Part per week (there's ten Parts)
                                  >with extra weeks at either end for introductory
                                  >sections and summary arguments/conclusions.
                                  >
                                  >I've set up a moderated list for this purpose
                                  >on eGroups. I'm an experienced list moderator
                                  >and I promise to filter out the crap and keep
                                  >a short leash on the posts-per-day.
                                  >
                                  >Come on, you know you want to.

                                  James,
                                  Did you ever get around to doing this? With Sukie Curtis's study guide as a
                                  stimulus, I have taken the plunge and put it out there in my local world to
                                  do a study course on BOC starting February 1 and ending by Easter. I just
                                  started advertising in the past few days, so I guess that means that
                                  there's no turning back now.... :-)

                                  Bob


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • jwest@highland.net
                                  ... yes-- if you set up this list it sounds like a good-- focused idea. i would like to participate- so what is the list address so i can sign up? and feb 1
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Jan 19, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > >I've set up a moderated list for this purpose
                                    > >on eGroups. I'm an experienced list moderator
                                    > >and I promise to filter out the crap and keep
                                    > >a short leash on the posts-per-day.
                                    > >
                                    > >Come on, you know you want to.
                                    >
                                    > James,
                                    > Did you ever get around to doing this? With Sukie Curtis's study guide as a
                                    > stimulus, I have taken the plunge and put it out there in my local world to
                                    > do a study course on BOC starting February 1 and ending by Easter. I just
                                    > started advertising in the past few days, so I guess that means that
                                    > there's no turning back now.... :-)

                                    yes-- if you set up this list it sounds like a good-- focused idea. i would
                                    like to participate- so what is the list address so i can sign up? and feb 1
                                    sounds like a good day to begin.

                                    let me know.

                                    Jim
                                  • Liz Fried
                                    I purchased Sukie s guide, but haven t read it (sorry, Sukie) I haven t read BOC yet either, tho started it. I d like to try the discussion group. I m weighed
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Jan 19, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I purchased Sukie's guide, but haven't read it
                                      (sorry, Sukie)
                                      I haven't read BOC yet either, tho started it.
                                      I'd like to try the discussion group.
                                      I'm weighed down with a bunch of stuff,
                                      and would like to go v e r y v e r y s l o
                                      w l y
                                      liz

                                      > -----Original Message-----
                                      > From: jwest@... [mailto:jwest@...]
                                      > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 10:08 AM
                                      > To: crosstalk2@egroups.com
                                      > Subject: Re: [XTalk] BOC discussion group?
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > > >I've set up a moderated list for this purpose
                                      > > >on eGroups. I'm an experienced list moderator
                                      > > >and I promise to filter out the crap and keep
                                      > > >a short leash on the posts-per-day.
                                      > > >
                                      > > >Come on, you know you want to.
                                      > >
                                      > > James,
                                      > > Did you ever get around to doing this? With Sukie Curtis's
                                      > study guide as a
                                      > > stimulus, I have taken the plunge and put it out there in my
                                      > local world to
                                      > > do a study course on BOC starting February 1 and ending by
                                      > Easter. I just
                                      > > started advertising in the past few days, so I guess that means that
                                      > > there's no turning back now.... :-)
                                      >
                                      > yes-- if you set up this list it sounds like a good-- focused
                                      > idea. i would
                                      > like to participate- so what is the list address so i can sign
                                      > up? and feb 1
                                      > sounds like a good day to begin.
                                      >
                                      > let me know.
                                      >
                                      > Jim
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > The XTalk Home Page is http://www.xtalk.org
                                      >
                                      > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
                                      >
                                      > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                                      >
                                      > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com
                                      >
                                      >
                                    • Secher
                                      Hi! Folks, I would like to be a part of this group. If someone could nail down the URL for joining and the beginning timeframe, as soon as possible, I would be
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Jan 19, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hi! Folks,

                                        I would like to be a part of this group. If someone could nail down the URL for joining
                                        and the beginning timeframe, as soon as possible, I would be more than happy to announce
                                        it on my list and several others are involved with. I think several folks would be willing
                                        to join in.

                                        Will we use Sukie Curtis's guide as a formal "workbook"?( See informational post below.)

                                        Talk to you later, Howard ~&~
                                        Any questions about the Historical Jesus?
                                        http://www.onelist.com/group/HistoricalJesus101
                                        Kindly overlook contextual errors, I use speech recognition software.
                                        ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^

                                        Hello, all,

                                        I've been a silent participant for several months but am briefly coming out of hiding to
                                        mention that, with the help of Gail Dawson, also of the august group, I will very soon
                                        have available copies of a study guide to accompany Crossan's _The Birth of
                                        Christianity_. It consists of summaries of his material (some who have used it say it
                                        helped keep them on track, esp. in the more complicated material) and questions for
                                        reflection and discussion, aimed particularly toward (but hopefull not exclusively toward)
                                        church discussion groups, in that many of the questions reflect the interaction of
                                        Crossan's proposals with "traditional" Christian teaching. A special feature of the guide
                                        includes questions from several real-life book study groups to Crossan and his responses
                                        back, which took place by email in a project I set up last fall. The whole thing is 66
                                        pages long, three-hole punched and shrink-wrapped, for a bargain price of $6 per copy plus
                                        1.75 for shipping.

                                        If you're interested, I'm at sbcurtis@... or if you're ready to send your money
                                        (!), you may do so at:
                                        Sukie Curtis
                                        8 Pine Lane
                                        Cumberland Foreside
                                        Maine 04110.

                                        Sukie Curtis
                                        Cumberland Foreside, Maine






                                        > >I've set up a moderated list for this purpose
                                        > >on eGroups. I'm an experienced list moderator
                                        > >and I promise to filter out the crap and keep
                                        > >a short leash on the posts-per-day.
                                        > >
                                        > >Come on, you know you want to.
                                        >
                                        > James,
                                        > Did you ever get around to doing this? With Sukie Curtis's study guide as a
                                        > stimulus, I have taken the plunge and put it out there in my local world to
                                        > do a study course on BOC starting February 1 and ending by Easter. I just
                                        > started advertising in the past few days, so I guess that means that
                                        > there's no turning back now.... :-)

                                        yes-- if you set up this list it sounds like a good-- focused idea. i would
                                        like to participate- so what is the list address so i can sign up? and feb 1
                                        sounds like a good day to begin.

                                        let me know.

                                        Jim





                                        The XTalk Home Page is http://www.xtalk.org

                                        To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com

                                        To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com

                                        List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.