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

6234Re: [GTh] Crosstalk Discussions

Expand Messages
  • William Arnal
    Apr 3, 2004
      Hi Gordon et al.:

      >Good to hear from you! So you survived the winter freeze:)!

      And it was a BAD winter this year, for any number of reasons.

      >s April's
      >work available online? Can you easily send me your "rigorous work?"

      The answer to both questions is, probably not. I am not aware of April's
      article being on-line, nor my own. I know that sometime within the last
      couple years, someone had wanted to post my HTR piece on their website, so I
      wrote to HTR about the copyright, and never got a response. I forget who
      wanted to do this, and don't know whether they went ahead with it anyway. I
      doubt it.

      >To another matter, I'd like to hear your thoughts about the date and sitz
      >early Thomas. Do you conceive it, like you conceive Q1, "very early" (as
      >from you "Jesus and the Village Scribes" work)?

      Well, since I'm no longer convinced I was right, it's hard to say. But yes,
      my inclination was to regard the foundational layer as quite early. And I am
      STILL inclined to date the complete Thomas, i.e., Thomas as we more or less
      have it, as very early -- i.e., 40s to 60s or thereabouts. I have yet to be
      convinced by any of the arguments placing Thomas late-ish.

      William Arnal
      University of Regina

      Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic