Re: [XTalk] pagan intrusion
- Ted, I came across this while tidying up several score of incomplete emails.
My point in sending it to the list is not so much to deal with the
historicity of the Last Supper but to test the waters re what the content of
GThom or the putative Q document implies as the their supposed communities'
on 28/4/01 9:30 AM, Ted Weeden at weedent@... wrote:
> Curiously, if the memorializing of the "Last Supper" was so important to theUntil one knows the rationale behind Thomas or Q isn't it faintly
> earliest Jesus movement and its ritualization so mandated, according to Paul
> (I Cor, 1123-26) as a regular part of the Jesus movement worship, it is
> astounding that there is not a *hint* of the import of the "Last Supper" or
> its observance in the Q tradition or the tradition behind the Gospel of
> Thomas, both of which are our earliest links to whatever sayings tradition
> developed in the 30's to the 50's CE. It is widely recognized that the
> sayings tradition behind Q and Thomas evidences absolutely no interest in
> the death of Jesus, as such, or its meaning. If the "Last Supper" was such
> an integral and central part of the earliest Christians' memory (and
> specifically of the disciples' memory) of Jesus, and was such an
> indispensable and mandated observance (instituted by Jesus himself, a la
> Paul) in the earliest days of the Jesus' movement, how could there be
> communities such as Q and Thomas that ignored completely the "sayings" of
> Jesus from the "Last Supper" in their representation of the Jesus' sayings?
disingenuous to draw these kinds of conclusions from their failing to
mention Jesus' death? The underlying assumption that they represent the sum
total of a given community's understanding of the significance of Jesus'
entire life seems hardly capable of demonstration. For example, Thomas and
Q either ignore or hardly mention Jesus' mighty deeds, but who would
seriously deny that Jesus had a powerful reputation for such things, whether
seen as magic or whatever? The above assessment would be more telling if
Thomas or Q resembled Bioi but they don't. Perhaps too if T and Q mentioned
Jesus' death but without any comment on its significance, but as you note
they completely ignore it. Suppose it was suggested that Jesus' death was
passed over not because they didn't believe that it happened or was
important but simply because it did not contain the kinds of sayings in
which these collections were interested. How could one judge between these
It seems to me that until we know what selection criteria drove "Q" (for
sake of argument; I am somewhat of a Q skeptic) and GT, arguments from their
silences can hardly be telling.
Am I missing something here?