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

10519Re: [GTh] Authorship and Dating GTh

Expand Messages
  • Mike Grondin
    Mar 4 12:13 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      [Ron McCann, emphasis mine]:
      So what's wrong with assuming a basic original Thomas was incorporated into a new Greek expanded edition/ revision/redaction  of the Sayings of Jesus created circa 90-110 CE that also eclectically borrowed from the Matthean/Lukan Gospels along with other then-extant works. Must
      we assume a Matthean/Lukan dependence? Don't see it.
      Hi Ron,
      I think 'assume' is the wrong word here, since it's surely wrong to assume either
      of the views you mention. If one thinks that Mark Goodacre (or someone else) has
      presented a good case that some Greek GThom sayings mimic textual mannerisms
      typical of Matt or Luke, but not typical of GThom itself in general, that isn't an
      assumption, but rather a judgement about the strength of a case. As to your own (?)
      view, I wouldn't go as far as Bruce Brooks, in suggesting that it would be necessary to
      jettison all synoptic-related material in order to find a hypothetical original GThom (isn't
      that rather like jettisoning everything commonplace in order to find the authentic Jesus?),
      but I do agree that such a view can't be assumed, either. You may, of course, subscribe
      to the results of attempts by DeConick or others to do this sort of thing, but of course
      they themselves had to justify their views via the justification of their methodologies.
      Mike Grondin
    • Show all 29 messages in this topic