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

Jesus the Radical Itinerant?

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    Well, the Dunn Seminar is over and it is time to move on. Does anyone have any thoughts on the implications for Crossan s BOC? Do you think it exposed any weak
    Message 1 of 9 , May 11, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, the Dunn Seminar is over and it is time to move on. Does anyone have
      any thoughts on the implications for Crossan's BOC? Do you think it exposed
      any weak points of Crossan's thesis? Or do you think Crossan's thesis is
      stronger?

      Meanwhile, I've been taking a look at BOC Part VIII, on Teachers &
      Householders. Appropriately, it begins with a quote from Gerd Thiessen, and
      the quote begins with the statement that "The transmission of Jesus sayings
      in the early Christian community is a *sociological* problem..." Thus,
      Crossan and Dunn converge. Dunn said that community control was the issue,
      and here is Crossan taking a look at how community control might have
      worked. The quote from Thiessen also mentions the "radicalism of the
      itinerants..." Has it already dawned on you, as it is finally dawning on
      me, that Crossan has bought into Thiessen's radical itinerancy hypothesis
      as the core of his explanatory paradigm for those silent years between the
      Crucifixion and Paul's letters?

      You won't find itinerant radicals or radical itinerants in Crossan's index,
      so let me assist you in showing how Crossan builds this thesis:

      The first place Crossan brings up the subject that I know of is back on pp.
      278-282 in the chapter on ethical eschatology. There again the subject is
      introduced by a quote from Thiessen, and from the same collection of essays
      (Social Reality and the Early Christians). This lays the groundwork for
      developing the hypothesis.

      The topic is next introduced on p. 305 in a quote from Stephen J.
      Patterson's book on the Gospel of Thomas, so Thiessen is not the only one
      with this idea. Again, the subject is eschatology.

      Then again, as reported above, on p. 353 (and 354) in the introduction to
      Part VIII.

      It comes up again on the first page (p. 363) of Chapter 20, the chapter in
      which Crossan and Dunn significantly overlap, it seems to me. And then
      again, on page 381.

      Somewhere in these pages, although I can't find the exact reference,
      Crossan opines that Jesus himself was the original Type for the radical
      itinerants.

      The problem confronted by the Didache, artfully presented by Crossan, is
      how to distinguish between the divinely inspired radical itinerant, and
      those who were false prophets?

      I wonder if the tradition of radical itinerant prophets continued right on
      down to the Montanists, who gave the early Church a bad case of the fidgets
      before they decided that the Montanists were all heretics, and that the age
      of prophecy had ceased.

      Bob
    • Loren Rosson
      ... Bob, Good questions. I hope they will elicit further discussion. For now, I’ll comment about that much-abused term “eschatology”, and then
      Message 2 of 9 , May 12, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Bob Schacht wrote:

        > Well, the Dunn Seminar is over and it is time
        > to move on. Does anyone have any thoughts on the
        > implications for Crossan's BOC? Do you think it
        > exposed any weak points of Crossan's thesis? Or
        > do you think Crossan's thesis is stronger?

        Bob,

        Good questions. I hope they will elicit further
        discussion. For now, I�ll comment about that
        much-abused term �eschatology�, and then itinerancy,
        apropos your comments below.

        > The first place Crossan brings up the subject
        > that I know of is back on pp. 278-282 in the
        > chapter on ethical eschatology.

        Ethical eschatology is really an oxymoron. Crossan is
        aware of it, as evidenced in his protest on p 279:

        �[Ethical eschatology] combines, as it were, the
        �eschatology� of �world-negation� from Schweitzer with
        �ethical radicalism� from Theissen. Lest you imagine,
        by the way, that I am inventing some unique theology
        for a unique Jesus, let me assure you that I find
        ethical eschatology in the non-violent resistance to
        structural evil put forward by such diverse peoples as
        Gandhi, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King Jr. If enough
        people lived as they did -- lived in nonviolent
        protest against systematic evil, against the
        normalicies of this world�s discrimination,
        exploitation, and oppression -- the result would be a
        new world we could hardly imagine. That is eschatology
        -- possibly the only real type available to us.�

        First of all, we shouldn�t be redefining terminology
        on the basis of what seems relevant or most available
        to us as people living in the modern/postmodern age.
        The issue here is the historical Jesus who walked
        first-century Palestine, not the �historical Jesus�
        who must be interpreted �then-as-now�, or whatever
        postmodern �Jesus� just happens to suit us.
        Judeo-Christian eschatology is, and has always been,
        about the end of the world as we know it, death,
        divine judgment, etc. I certainly agree that Jesus
        fought nonviolently against systematic oppression --
        and, in fact, that his opposition to tyranny was the
        crux of his prophetic protest -- but there�s no
        justification in thinking of this, in and of itself,
        as �eschatological�.

        This is what I was getting at in my post on the
        parables, when I mentioned that we should distinguish
        the few �Kingdom of God� parables (The Mustard Seed,
        The Leaven, The Sower, The Seed Growing Slowly) -- or
        eschatological parables -- from the vast bulk of the
        stories, which I see as �non- Kingdom of God� parables
        (The Laborers in the Vineyard, The Talents, The Shrewd
        Manager, The Good Samaritan, The Pharisee and the Toll
        Collector, The Prodigal Son, The Friend at Midnight,
        The Unjust Judge, The Unmerciful Servant, The Leased
        Vineyard, The Rich Man and Lazarus) -- or
        non-eschatological parables. It makes sense to look
        for this distinction. Jesus� vision may have centered
        on the Kingdom of God, but that doesn�t mean he talked
        about the Kingdom directly, all the time, in each and
        every story, saying, or aphorism. Of course, it�s very
        difficult to determine which parables are
        eschatological, and which ones are not.

        > The topic is next introduced on p. 305 in a
        > quote from Stephen J. Patterson's book on the
        > Gospel of Thomas, so Thiessen is not the only one
        > with this idea. Again, the subject is eschatology.

        The Patterson-quote which Bob cites reads as follows:

        �Wandering radicalism does not proclaim the (future)
        coming of the Kingdom, it brings it directly to the
        front door. With the knock of the itinerant radical,
        the old world has already passed away, and the Kingdom
        of God has arrived.� (The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus,
        p 211)

        Patterson, like Crossan, drives a false wedge between
        future and realized eschatology. There is no reason
        why a wandering itinerant COULD NOT have proclaimed
        the future coming of the Kingdom, while at the same
        time bringing a part of it to the front door of those
        peasants being cured and exorcised. To be sure, Jesus
        broke with the Baptist�s particular vision -- by
        feasting instead of fasting -- believing that the
        Kingdom was already breaking into the present age
        through his own ministry of healing
        (Mt.12:28/Lk.11:20). So he waited no longer, and
        enjoyed indiscriminate table-fellowship with outcasts
        (Mt.11:18-19a/Lk.7:33-34). But this was in
        anticipation of the Kingdom�s full disclosure in the
        future (Mt.8:11-12/Lk.13:28-29). I can�t imagine a
        first-century Galilean prophet advancing the
        preposterous claim that Yahweh�s Kingdom was fully
        present in a world where the Caesars and Caiaphases
        still stomped everyone else under their heels. The
        classical prophets would have rolled in their graves.

        > Somewhere in these pages, although I can't find
        > the exact reference, Crossan opines that
        > Jesus himself was the original Type for the
        > radical itinerants.

        This may well be true. Scholars who work closely with
        anthropology -- like those in the Context Group --
        have built on Theissen�s general thesis and argued
        that Jesus and his itinerant followers were
        establishing a �fictive kinship network�, or a
        �surrogate family�, in opposition to the standard
        village-based biological kinship networks. This
        network helped accomodate many of those who bore the
        brunt of economic hardships of the first century,
        since peasant families were often broken up anyway
        (only one son could inherit the smallholding; other
        sons had to find work on the open market as day
        laborers; daughters were married or sent away to
        become prostitutes or slaves). Jesus does seem to have
        been the first �type� of prophet to try something like
        this, welcoming into his surrogate family the outcasts
        from any clan or tribe, and going itinerant with the
        whole network.

        > The problem confronted by the Didache, artfully
        > presented by Crossan, is how to distinguish between
        > the divinely inspired radical itinerant, and
        > those who were false prophets?

        Pay your money and take your choice, I guess!

        Loren Rosson III
        Nashua NH
        rossoiii@...


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
        http://auctions.yahoo.com/
      • David C. Hindley
        Bob, ... right on down to the Montanists, who gave the early Church a bad case of the fidgets before they decided that the Montanists were all heretics, and
        Message 3 of 9 , May 12, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Bob,

          You asked the question:

          >>I wonder if the tradition of radical itinerant prophets continued
          right on down to the Montanists, who gave the early Church a bad case
          of the fidgets before they decided that the Montanists were all
          heretics, and that the age of prophecy had ceased.<<

          When I last looked into Montanists (admittedly, at least 15 years ago)
          I came away with the impression that they were more of a "revival"
          movement than a continuation of an unbroken tradition.

          By "revival" I mean that they re-emphasized concepts (prophesy,
          glossolalia, paraclete, etc.) that they already found in authoritative
          documents (i.e., books later included in the canon), but interpreted
          them according to the popular perceptions of that time (late 2nd
          century CE). For instance, 1 Cor. 12 reports glossolalia in connection
          with prophesy, as well as considers apostles, prophets, teachers and
          miracle workers as formal functionaries in the congregations; Acts
          2:3ff presents the idea that glossolalia was a proof of the activity
          of the holy spirit (although the author of Acts seems to know nothing
          of the Paraclete of John); and John 14:16,26, 15:26 & 16:7 can be
          interpreted as indicating the holy spirit is "personified" in the form
          of a future/prophesied "Paraclete")

          One thing I seem to remember about the movement, unless my brain has
          short circuited (very possible), was that there did not appear to be
          itinerant prophets in the movement. There was Montanus and his two
          prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla, and others who followed them,
          who assumed roles as fixed leaders. As you know, Montanus claimed to
          be "the" Paraclete predicted by John 14:16-17, which would fill the
          place of Jesus and "16 ... be with you for ever, 17 even the Spirit of
          truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor
          knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you."

          Where Priscilla and Maximilla, and later Montanist leaders Ammia and
          Quadratus, fall into this, I am not sure. Eusebius quotes the church
          writer Miltiades "For the apostle [presumably John] thought it
          necessary that the prophetic gift should continue in all the Church
          until the final coming. But they cannot show it, though this is the
          fourteenth year since the death of Maximilla." (H.E. V.xvii) As a
          result, "prophets" appear to have been formal positions of leadership
          in the early movement, not itinerant individuals, and they alone
          exercised a formal prophetic function. If Montanist congregations
          recognized prophesy as a local phenomenon, as I think possible due to
          their emphasis on glossolalia which 1 Cor. connects with prophesy, I
          would think it would be on the level of "interpreting" glossolalia.

          Regards,

          Dave Hindley
          Cleveland, Ohio, USA
        • Bob Schacht
          ... If you look at Crossan s analysis of the Didache, I don t believe that there was any requirement that the itinerant radicals be certified as continuing an
          Message 4 of 9 , May 12, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            At 10:28 AM 5/12/01 -0400, David C. Hindley wrote:
            >Bob,
            >
            >You asked the question:
            >
            > >>I wonder if the tradition of radical itinerant prophets continued
            >right on down to the Montanists, who gave the early Church a bad case
            >of the fidgets before they decided that the Montanists were all
            >heretics, and that the age of prophecy had ceased.<<
            >
            >When I last looked into Montanists (admittedly, at least 15 years ago)
            >I came away with the impression that they were more of a "revival"
            >movement than a continuation of an unbroken tradition.

            If you look at Crossan's analysis of the Didache, I don't believe that
            there was any requirement that the itinerant radicals be certified as
            continuing an unbroken tradition. That was the key requirement for
            Apostles, but not for prophets, as I understand it.

            >... For instance, 1 Cor. 12 reports glossolalia in connection
            >with prophesy, as well as considers apostles, prophets, teachers and
            >miracle workers as formal functionaries in the congregations;

            Are you sure that "formal functionaries" is not an anachronism? Perhaps in
            mature (i.e., long established congregations.) Again, the Didache is
            interesting in this regard.

            > Acts 2:3ff presents the idea that glossolalia was a proof of the activity
            >of the holy spirit (although the author of Acts seems to know nothing
            >of the Paraclete of John); and John 14:16,26, 15:26 & 16:7 can be
            >interpreted as indicating the holy spirit is "personified" in the form
            >of a future/prophesied "Paraclete")

            This apparently represents a different tradition of certifying the activity
            of the holy spirit than is found in the Didache.

            >One thing I seem to remember about the movement, was that there did not
            >appear to be itinerant prophets in the movement.

            One of the things interesting about the Didache, at least in Crossan's
            analysis in BOC, is that it captures the process by which itinerant
            radicals settled down to become permanent residents of the congregation.

            >There was Montanus and his two prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla, and
            >others who followed them, who assumed roles as fixed leaders. As you know,
            >Montanus claimed to be "the" Paraclete predicted by John 14:16-17...
            >
            >Where Priscilla and Maximilla, and later Montanist leaders Ammia and
            >Quadratus, fall into this, I am not sure. Eusebius quotes the church
            >writer Miltiades "For the apostle [presumably John] thought it
            >necessary that the prophetic gift should continue in all the Church
            >until the final coming. But they cannot show it, though this is the
            >fourteenth year since the death of Maximilla." (H.E. V.xvii) As a
            >result, "prophets" appear to have been formal positions of leadership
            >in the early movement, not itinerant individuals, and they alone
            >exercised a formal prophetic function.

            Well, there's early, and then there's earliest. What you are seeing may be
            early, but not earliest. Formalization of leadership positions generally
            comes after the initial stages of almost any movement, and I see no reason
            to make an exception here. The Didache again is instructive. There was no
            formal office to which itinerant radicals were elected or appointed.
            Instead, there were criteria, such as those you cite from Acts and John,
            for discerning whether someone *was* a prophet (or whatever). Likewise,
            there were no search committees appointed to fill this kind of office when
            vacated. Basically, the discernment process was of the sort, "If it quacks
            like a duck, and swims like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it is
            probably a duck-- unless, of course, it also barks like a dog, in which
            case it can't be a duck."

            Bob


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David C. Hindley
            Bob, FWIW, it appears that Yahoo!Groups did not send out e-mail versions of two individial posts made earlier today by Loren Rosson and myself under your
            Message 5 of 9 , May 12, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Bob,

              FWIW, it appears that Yahoo!Groups did not send out e-mail versions of
              two individial posts made earlier today by Loren Rosson and myself
              under your original subject heading (Re: Jesus the Radical
              Itinerant?). Luckily, you seem to have backquoted most of my post, so
              hopefully those interested will be able to follow.

              >>Well, there's early, and then there's earliest. What you are seeing
              may be early, but not earliest.<<

              True, but your question was whether Montanism continued "the tradition
              of radical itinerant prophets" and I only pointed out that Montanus
              (can't get any earlier than that when speaking of Montanists as a
              movement) and his two prophetesses, plus perhaps a couple later
              leaders, seemed to be in absolute control of their movement. I'm not
              questioning the existence of itinerant prophets, although I am not
              absolutely convinced of it either, only that Montanism does not seem
              to have a connection to it, unless you are linking ecstasy with
              itinerancy.

              Miltiades' complaints were that Montanists prophesized during states
              of ecstasy *and* that 14 years after the last prophetess died, there
              had been no others to take her place. Of course, he was contrasting
              the lack of continued Montanist ecstatic prophesy with Jesus' prophesy
              as found in John 14:16,26, 15:26 & 16:7, which seems to predict that
              the Paraclete, when it came, would remain to the end of time. However,
              I cannot seem to figure out how this author can simultaneously state
              that Montanist leaders Ammia and Quadratus, who are represented as
              existing later than Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla, also prophesied
              in ecstasy, *and also* state that such prophesy ceased with the death
              of Montanus' last prophetess Maximilla fourteen years prior. The story
              is a bit confused (perhaps including some of Eusebius' own input), so
              I cannot trust it too far, but it does suggest that this was a
              movement with fixed leadership, and that these leaders were also *the*
              prophets, and that after the demise of the founders there were no
              other ecstatic prophets among them.

              Are you perhaps suggesting that Montanism represented the end of a
              development curve that started with ecstatic itinerant prophets of the
              kind represented in the Didache (although perhaps originating in an
              earlier period than when the Didache was composed)? I do realize that
              Crossan thinks that the Didache as we have it shows evidence of
              layered traditions, and do need to look into the authorities the cites
              that led him to this opinion. My last serious look at secondary
              literature about the Didache was about as long ago as my less formal
              look at Montanism. You may be onto something, then. How well does the
              idea of a Didache layered as Crossan supposes resonate with the
              consensus? I may want to hit the library.

              Regards,

              Dave Hindley
              Cleveland, Ohio, USA
            • Bob Schacht
              ... Well, I was mainly trying to run Crossan s idea of radical itinerants up the XTalk flagpole to see if anyone saluted it. I introduced the Montanists into
              Message 6 of 9 , May 12, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                At 05:05 PM 5/12/01 -0400, David C. Hindley wrote:
                >Bob,
                >
                >...Are you perhaps suggesting

                Well, I was mainly trying to run Crossan's idea of radical itinerants up
                the XTalk flagpole to see if anyone saluted it. I introduced the Montanists
                into the discussion as a logical(?) extension of Crossan's argument.

                > that Montanism represented the end of a
                >development curve that started with ecstatic itinerant prophets of the
                >kind represented in the Didache (although perhaps originating in an
                >earlier period than when the Didache was composed)?

                Even earlier-- with Jesus himself, which I think Crossan is arguing--
                except for the "ecstatic" part, which might be defended on the basis of
                Davies' Jesus the Healer. But if the whole bit with the Montanists is not
                an appropriate extension, let's just drop it and write it off as one of my
                errant fantasies. I'd rather focus on whether the
                Thiessen-Patterson-Crossan "radical itinerant" hypothesis helps us
                understand the evolution of early Christianity before Paul's letters.

                >I do realize that Crossan thinks that the Didache as we have it shows
                >evidence of layered traditions, and do need to look into the authorities
                >the cites that led him to this opinion.

                You might start with Crossan's BOC, pp. 383-387.

                > My last serious look at secondary literature about the Didache was about
                > as long ago as my less formal look at Montanism.

                There has been a substantial amount of work published on the Didache in
                recent years.

                >You may be onto something, then. How well does the idea of a Didache
                >layered as Crossan supposes resonate with the consensus? I may want to hit
                >the library.

                Crossan argues, I believe, that except for one short passage, the Didache
                is independent of the Synoptic Gospels, and one can argue that the one
                short passage was a late insertion into an earlier text. I think that this
                idea will soon achieve an acceptance equal to the acceptance of GThomas as
                early and independent (i.e., a substantial minority viewpoint.)

                Bob


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • David C. Hindley
                ... itinerant hypothesis helps us understand the evolution of early Christianity before Paul s letters. You might start with Crossan s BOC, pp.
                Message 7 of 9 , May 13, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bob writes:

                  >>I'd rather focus on whether the Thiessen-Patterson-Crossan "radical
                  itinerant" hypothesis helps us understand the evolution of early
                  Christianity before Paul's letters.<< [snip] >>You might start with
                  Crossan's BOC, pp. 383-387.<<

                  I'm reviewing it as we speak. While I had Michael Holmes' 1992
                  revised/2nd edition of Lightfoot & Harmer's _The Apostolic Fathers_,
                  the introductions and bibliography have little to say about
                  interpretations. Helmut Koester's _Ancient Christian Gospels_ gives it
                  a short treatment as well.

                  >>There has been a substantial amount of work published on the Didache
                  in recent years.<<

                  Yes, that is what I would like to concentrate on. Particularly Aaron
                  Milavec's article "The Pastoral Genius of the Didache: An Analytical
                  Translation and Commentary" (in _Christianity_, ed. J. Neusner et al,
                  Scholars Press, 1989); and "Distinguishing True and False Prophets:
                  The Protective Wisdom of the Didache" JECS 2, 1994. These appear to be
                  the primary sources upon which he bases much of his own analysis of
                  the Didache itself.

                  Others mentioned (in the order first cited) were:

                  Henderson, Ian, "Didache and Orality in Synoptic Comparison." JBL III,
                  1992.

                  Rose-Gaier, Deborah, "The Didache: A Community of Equals" Paper
                  presented at the session on "Women and the (Search for the) Historical
                  Jesus," SBL annual meeting. Nov. 25, 1996, New Orleans.

                  Rordorf, Willy and Andre Tuilier, _La dictrine des douze apotres
                  (Didache)_, Sources Chretiennes, 1978.

                  Niederwimmer, Kurt, _Die Didache: Erganzungsreihe zum
                  Kritisch-exegetischen Kommentar uber das neue Testament: Kommentar zu
                  den Apostolischen Vatern_, vol 1, 1989.

                  Theissen, Gerd, _Social Reality and the Early Christians_, tr. by
                  Margeret Kohl, Fortress, 1992 [German 1982].

                  Jones, F. Stanley and Paul A. Mirecki, "Considerations on the Coptic
                  Papyrus of the Didache (British Library Oriental Manuscript 9271)" in
                  _The Didache in Context_, ed. Clayton N. Jefford, Supplements to Novum
                  Testamentum 77, Brill, 1995.

                  Patterson, Stephen, "Didache 11-13: The Legacy of Radical Itinerancy
                  in Early Christianity." In _The Didache in Context_, ed. Clayton N.
                  Jefford, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 77, Brill, 1995.

                  Glover, Richard, "The Didache's Quotations and the Synoptic Gospels."
                  NTS 5, 1958/59.

                  Tuckett, Christopher, "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache." In _The New
                  Testament and Early Christianity_, Louvian Univ. Press, 1989

                  Koester, Helmut, _Synoptische Uberlieferung bei den Apostolischen
                  Vatern_, TU 65, Akademie, 1957.

                  Jefford, Clayton N., _The Sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the
                  Twelve Apostles_, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, Texts and
                  Studies ... 11, Brill, 1989.

                  Audet, Jean Paul, _La Didache: Instructions des apotres_, Etudes
                  Bibliques, Gabalda, 1958.

                  Rordorf, Willy, "Le probleme de la transmission textuelle de Didache
                  1,3b-2,1." In _Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen_, ed. Franz
                  paschke, TU, Akademie, 1981.

                  Rordorf, Willy, "Does the Didache Contain Jesus Tradition
                  Independently of the Synoptic Gospels?" In _Jesus and the Oral Gospel
                  Tradition_, ed. Henry Wansbrough, JSNT Supplemental Series 64,
                  Sheffield/JSOT, 1991 (cited as 1992 in body of text).

                  Draper, Jonathan, "The Jesus Tradition in the Didache." In _The Jesus
                  Tradition Outside the Gospels_, ed. by David Wenham, Gospel
                  Perspectives vol 2, Sheffield/JSOT, 1985. Based on his 1983 Doctoral
                  Dissertation, Cambridge, "A Commentary on the Didache in the Light of
                  the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Documents."

                  Layton, Bentley, "The Sources, date, and Transmission of Didache
                  1.3b-2.1." HTR 61, 1968.

                  Koester, Helmut, _Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and
                  Development_, SCM/Trinity, 1990.

                  Piper, Ronald, _Wisdom in the Q-Tradition: The Aphoristic Teachings of
                  Jesus_, SNTSMS 61, Cambridge U.P., 1989.

                  McKenna, Margaret, "'The Two Ways' In Jewish and Christian Writings of
                  the Greco-Roman Period: A Study in the Form of Repentance Parenesis."
                  Ph.D. dissertation, U. of Penn., University Microfilms International,
                  1981.

                  Funk, Francis Xavier, _Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum_, 2
                  volumes, Schoeningh, 1905.

                  Koester, Helmut, "The Historical Jesus and the Historical Situation of
                  the Quest: An Epilogue." In _Studying the Historical Jesus:
                  Evaluations of the State of Current Research_, ed. Bruce D. Chilton
                  and Craig Evans, New Testament Tools and Studies 19, Brill, 1994.

                  King, Karen, "Kingdom in the Gospel of Thomas." Forum 3, 1987.

                  Patterson, Stephen, _The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus_, Polebridge,
                  1993. A "much revised version" of his Ph.D. dissertation, Clarmont,
                  University Microfilms International, 1988.

                  A few of the quotations at the beginnings of sections that I
                  considered "window dressing" have been ignored. While many of these
                  cited works are clearly related to his interpretive strategy and not
                  so much relating to source/redaction criticism of the Didache itself,
                  I think it should give us some idea of Crossan's approach to
                  understanding the Didache.

                  >>Crossan argues, I believe, that except for one short passage, the
                  Didache is independent of the Synoptic Gospels, and one can argue that
                  the one short passage was a late insertion into an earlier text. I
                  think that this idea will soon achieve an acceptance equal to the
                  acceptance of GThomas as early and independent (i.e., a substantial
                  minority viewpoint.)<<

                  Would that be 1:3b-2:1? What then about the conclusion of the Didache
                  (chapter 16)? I do not think Crossan directly dealt with that section
                  in BOC. This collection of maxims clearly seems to be derived from the
                  Synoptic Gospels (although conflated).

                  Regards,

                  Dave Hindley
                  Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                • Bob Schacht
                  ... [nice list of references snipped to save space] ... Yep. ... Yes, he does-- see p. 104, where he compares Luke 12:35 with Didache 16:1, concluding that
                  Message 8 of 9 , May 13, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 12:13 PM 5/13/01 -0400, you wrote:
                    >Bob writes:
                    >
                    > >>I'd rather focus on whether the Thiessen-Patterson-Crossan "radical
                    >itinerant" hypothesis helps us understand the evolution of early
                    >Christianity before Paul's letters.<< [snip] >>You might start with
                    >Crossan's BOC, pp. 383-387.<<
                    >
                    >I'm reviewing it as we speak. ...
                    > >>There has been a substantial amount of work published on the Didache
                    >in recent years.<<
                    >
                    >Yes, that is what I would like to concentrate on.

                    [nice list of references snipped to save space]

                    > >>Crossan argues, I believe, that except for one short passage, the
                    >Didache is independent of the Synoptic Gospels, and one can argue that
                    >the one short passage was a late insertion into an earlier text. I
                    >think that this idea will soon achieve an acceptance equal to the
                    >acceptance of GThomas as early and independent (i.e., a substantial
                    >minority viewpoint.)<<
                    >
                    >Would that be 1:3b-2:1?

                    Yep.

                    >What then about the conclusion of the Didache (chapter 16)?
                    >I do not think Crossan directly dealt with that section in BOC.

                    Yes, he does-- see p. 104, where he compares Luke 12:35 with Didache 16:1,
                    concluding that they drew on a common "oral matrix" rather than one being
                    directly dependent on the other.

                    Bob



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • David C. Hindley
                    Bob, ... Milavec s article The Pastoral Genius of the Didache: An Analytical Translation and Commentary (in _Christianity_, ed. J. Neusner et al, Scholars
                    Message 9 of 9 , May 13, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Bob,

                      I had said:

                      >>Yes, that is what I would like to concentrate on. Particularly Aaron
                      Milavec's article "The Pastoral Genius of the Didache: An Analytical
                      Translation and Commentary" (in _Christianity_, ed. J. Neusner et al,
                      Scholars Press, 1989)<<

                      Unfortunately, if my library search engines are correct, there is not
                      a copy of _Christianity_, (ed. J. Neusner et al, Scholars Press, 1989)
                      to be found in my entire state. It is Brown Studies in Religion 2,
                      FWIW.

                      Could you or another list member provide an ISBN number?

                      Thanks.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.