Re: [GTh] Re: The Gospel of James
- At 11:15 AM 11/2/2012, David wrote:
From my perspective, I think that the view that Christianity changed in various significant ways in the first 2 centuries is right on the money, as is the view that a number of the biblical (and non-biblical) Christian documents that we see today have been subject to change, and that some may have initially been significantly different in their original form (e.g. Chapters 1-2 not being originally in Lk).
Given that (I assume) relatively non-controversial position, isn't it time to re-consider whether the 2nd century heretics were just the 'losers' in a struggle for dominance between the various Christian factions, and that we should really consider all these people and groups to be different 'flavors' of Christians?
Absolutely! IIRC, is this not the point of Pagels' Gnostic Gospels? And Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities? And other similar books? Indeed, we now even have The Gnostic Bible: Revised and Expanded Edition by Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer (Jun 30, 2009).
In fact, the whole scholarly apparatus of denying privileged status to the books of the NT leads us in this direction.
By the way, I think that the term 'Alpha Christian' should not be used in this context (sorry Bruce), because this term has been used since the 70's to denote a particular type of Christian teaching.
David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Bob Schacht <bobschacht@...> wrote:
> At 10:20 AM 11/1/2012, E Bruce Brooks wrote:
> >The subject is still young.
> I just can't let this pass. You are either ignorant of half a century
> of 1st century & Patristic scholarship, or have cavalierly tossed it aside.
> Or perhaps you mean the subject of your "Alpha Christianity" is still
> young, which by inference tosses all previous scholarship aside
> because they haven't used your terminology or your particular framing
> of the debate. A little less grandiosity, please.
> Particular works of interest include Joseph B. Tyson's _The New
> Testament and Early Christianity_ (1990), James D.G. Dunn's _Unity
> and Diversity in the New Testament_ (1977), and Bauckham's _Jude and
> the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (1990), among many relevant works.
> > But it might be interesting to graph all 1c Christian or
> > paraChristian documents on a scale, depending on the extent to
> > which they rely on the authority of Jewish scriptures or practices.
> You only betray your own ignorance with this statement. Just for
> starters, on this scale you would have to differentiate between
> Sadducees (who venerated only "the Books of Moses") from the
> Pharisees (who venerated, in addition, the Prophets and the Wisdom
> literature), and where would one place the Essene community, and the
> Zealots (to use only the Josephan sects)?
> >No one linear arrangement will solve all problems with these texts,
> This statement I can agree with!
> > but it would still be interesting to have that dimension. Thus,
> > though Paul was against food purity, he was a great quoter of the
> > Jewish scripture, at least when it suited him. He was antinomistic
> > but proscriptural, if I may make up those words. Whereas the
> > supposed deuteroPauline text Hebrews goes extremely far back toward
> > Temple sacrifices as the core metaphor for Jesus.
> >Given James (and after him, Matthew) as reverting toward full
> >nomism, we might have something like this:
> >Matthew . . . . . . . . . Jesus, Alpha . . . . . . . . . . Paul . .
> >. . . . . . . Marcion
> >. . . . . Hebrews
> Sorry, but your graphic seems to have been garbled in cyberspace. Is
> this meant to portray a polar continuum from James and Matthew to
> Hebrews, with Jesus, Alpha, Paul, and Marcion lined up in between?
> >My question would then be, Where on this scale does gThos1-12 fit?
> After declaiming, correctly, that "No one linear arrangement will
> solve all problems with these texts," you go on to return to your own
> favorite linear arrangement that seems to you the key to solve many
> of the problems of these texts. And why do you continue to ignore the
> Gospel of the Ebionites and other early non-Biblical Christian (your
> "paraChristian"? Psuedepigrapha?) texts such as are easily accessible
> in Barnstone's "The Other Bible" and elsewhere?
> I would prefer a more multi-dimensional approach, employing at least
> two such factors,
> * The divinity (or not) of Jesus [Christology]
> * What is required for salvation? (Soteriology]
> My mentor on these subjects is the patristic scholar Thomas Kopecek
> who, in an unpublished manuscript, wrote,
> We need to stress that during the first three centuries of the Jesus
> movement the Christologies taught by its various groups were
> remarkably different.
> From this perspective, your polar scale proposal makes little sense.
> If my rant is off-target, please clarify.
> Bob Schacht
> Northern Arizona University
Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://users.misericordia.edu/davies/thomas/Thomas.html
Coptic-English translation: http://www.gospel-thomas.net/x_transl.htm
PEJE IESOUS (Chris Skinner) http://pejeiesous.com
Judy's Research Blog (Judy Redman) http://judyredman.wordpress.com
The Forbidden Gospels (April DeConick) http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: