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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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.