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

6230Re: [GTh] Crosstalk Discussions

Expand Messages
  • fmmccoy
    Apr 2, 2004
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Gordon Raynal" <scudi1@...>
      To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
      Cc: "Michael Ensley" <mensley@...>
      Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 9:32 AM
      Subject: Re: [GTh] Crosstalk Discussions

      > >In "The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism, Gnosticism, and Sayings
      > >Gospels" (Harvard Theological Review, 88:4, 1995), Bill Arnal postulates
      > >existence of two stratum in GTh. The earlier (see p. 478) is "the
      > >stratum" and it includes GTh 3. 5. 6. 9. 14. 16. 20. 26. 31, 32, 34-36,
      > >45, 47, 54, 55, 57, 63-65, 71, 74, 76, 89, 95-98, 107, 109, and 110. The
      > >later (see p.479) is "the gnostic-leaning stratum" and it includes Gth
      > >13, 15, 18, 21-22, 27-28, 49-50, 51, 60, 61, 83, 84, 101, 105, 108, 11,
      > >114.
      > >
      > >I hope this helps.

      > I appreciate this and do want to look at your work and Bill's in depth.
      > it is Lent/Easter time it will probably be after this season is over, but
      > I'll print this and look at your work in the egroup files later on.
      > Thank you for this help.

      Dear Gordon Raynal:

      I think I made a mistake in the above. In the final sequence of "108, 11,
      and 114", judging by my hand-written notes, the middle saying should be 111
      rather than 11.

      Also, Mike has asked the question about how Arnal classified the sayings
      not listed above. It's been over a year since I read Arnal's paper, so I
      don't know how trustworthy my recollections about it are. In any event, to
      the best of my recollection, he didn't classify them. So, to the best of my
      recollection, he made decisions only about the above listed sayings and left
      the rest in an ambiguous situation.

      > >Incidentally, the fourth post, from which this excerpt comes, is a great
      > >embarrasment to me to this day because, in it, I inadvertently referred
      > >April DeConick as "he". After Tom's recent compliment of me (thank you
      > >Tom, you are way too kind!), remembrance of gross mistakes like this
      > >that I way too frequently make, help to bring me back to reality.

      > I understand... and I hope that groups like this work to help us correct
      > misstakes!

      I would like to add two points. First, April DeConick has written a paper
      that I consider a "must read" for those doing research on the question of
      whether there are layers of tradition in GThomas. It is, "The Original
      Gospel of Thomas" (Vigiliae Christianae, LVI: 2, 2002, pp.167-199).

      Second, your "misstakes" is a mis-take!


      Frank McCoy
      1809 N. English Apt. 15
      Maplewood, MN 55109
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic