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

[gthomas] Re: Q2 and Thomas

Expand Messages
  • William E. Arnal
    ... Perhaps you should read the work you re criticizing Mike -- you d thereby avoid making irrelevant points. I hate to sound snotty about this, but I am SO
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 18, 1999
      On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Mike Grondin wrote:

      > influence not evident elsewhere. But I would be very suspicious of any
      > attempt to separate huge chunks of text from each other, unless the grounds
      > were explicitly logical, without historical implications - and even then I
      > wouldn't call it 'stratification', because of the implications of that word.

      Perhaps you should read the work you're criticizing Mike --
      you'd thereby avoid making irrelevant points. I hate to
      sound snotty about this, but I am SO sick of hearing these
      same criticisms over and over again, when in fact they
      don't touch the substance of the arguments for
      stratification. The stuff is in print -- read it!

      Bill


      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
      http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
    • Stevan Davies
      ... that word. That is the trouble with Thomas, isn t it? You think you ve got the major themes except that there are all of those other sayings that either
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 18, 1999
        > From: Mike Grondin
        > This is not to say that all attempts at stratification are to be eschewed.
        > For example, ISTM that GTh 77a is a later addition to the main corpus -
        > mainly on the grounds that it doesn't seem to fit with the major themes in
        > the rest of the text. We might also suspect that #83 shows a Platonic
        > influence not evident elsewhere. But I would be very suspicious of any
        > attempt to separate huge chunks of text from each other, unless the grounds
        > were explicitly logical, without historical implications - and even then I
        > wouldn't call it 'stratification', because of the implications of
        that word.

        That is the trouble with Thomas, isn't it? You think you've got "the
        major themes" except that there are all of those other sayings that
        either have nothing to do with the major themes or actually have
        other themes entirely in mind. Interestingly, 77a is arguably the
        most anciently attested of all the Thomas sayings, fitting as it
        does with that host of pre-gospel "Jesus the Pantocrator" material,
        albeit first-person and not third-person.

        I was wondering whether the Q1/2 sayings material circulated
        as sayings attributed to "Jesus" and, if so, how is this known?

        Steve

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
        http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
      • Mark Goodacre
        I enjoyed reading those old Crosstalk messages. As a general comment, one thing that concerns me is that the casual reader could get the impression that Q and
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 19, 1999
          I enjoyed reading those old Crosstalk messages. As a general
          comment, one thing that concerns me is that the casual reader could
          get the impression that Q and Thomas have a special relationship in
          terms of overlapping content. There are of course many parallels to
          (what we call) Q material in Thomas but there are parallels also to
          sayings material from Mark, M, L, Mark-Q overlap, prima facie
          MattR of Mark and prima facie LukeR of Mark. The areas of
          overlap are essentially between Thomas and synoptic sayings material
          in general: Thomas has no special relationship with Q material. If
          there is any preference, I would say that it is with (what we would
          call) M + Q, the same kind of preference paralleled in other early
          Christian documents like the epistle of James, but -- as I say -- there
          is plenty of Mk & some L too.

          I realise that this will be Noddy stuff to most on the list, but I think that
          it is nevertheless worth reiterating for those who might be seduced into
          thinking that there is a special relationship between Q and Thomas in
          terms of content. Whether there might be a special relationship in
          terms of genre is a story for another day.

          Mark
          --------------------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
          University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
          Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

          http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
          The New Testament Gateway
          Mark Without Q
          Aseneth Home Page

          ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
          http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
        • Mike Grondin
          ... Could you specify some of this Jesus the Pantocrator material, Steve? Mike ... eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 19, 1999
            >...77a is arguably the most anciently attested of all the Thomas
            >sayings, fitting as it does with that host of pre-gospel "Jesus
            >the Pantocrator" material, albeit first-person and not third-person.

            Could you specify some of this "Jesus the Pantocrator" material, Steve?

            Mike

            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
            http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
          • Mike Grondin
            ... Damn! I thought only Paul Miller was listening! But seriously, I m afraid that I d become so concerned about the lack of traffic on the list lately that I
            Message 5 of 10 , Jul 19, 1999
              Bill Arnal:
              >Perhaps you should read the work you're criticizing Mike --
              >you'd thereby avoid making irrelevant points. I hate to
              >sound snotty about this, but I am SO sick of hearing these
              >same criticisms over and over again, when in fact they
              >don't touch the substance of the arguments for
              >stratification. The stuff is in print -- read it!

              Damn! I thought only Paul Miller was listening! But seriously, I'm afraid
              that I'd become so concerned about the lack of traffic on the list lately
              that I allowed my ignorance to take its head. There are indeed reasons for
              believing that "Q2" was a later addition to "Q1", and I apologize for
              saying otherwise. But I'm surprised at your suggestion that many others
              have made the same mistake. You mean I'm not the first to be aggressively
              ignorant about the stratification of Q?

              Mike

              ------------------------------------------------------------------------

              eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
              http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
            • Stevan Davies
              ... No sooner said than done. GTh 77 Jesus said, It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am all things. From me did all things come
              Message 6 of 10 , Jul 19, 1999
                > >...77a is arguably the most anciently attested of all the Thomas
                > >sayings, fitting as it does with that host of pre-gospel "Jesus
                > >the Pantocrator" material, albeit first-person and not third-person.
                >
                > Could you specify some of this "Jesus the Pantocrator" material, Steve?
                >
                > Mike

                No sooner said than done.

                GTh 77
                Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them
                all. It is I who am all things. From me did all things come forth, and
                unto me did all things extend.

                1 Cor 8:6
                yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came
                and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through
                whom all things came and through whom we live.

                Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on
                earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or
                authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

                Heb 1:2
                but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he
                appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

                John 1:3
                Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made
                that has been made.

                Steve

                ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
                http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
              • William Arnal
                ... Hurray! ... Yes indeed, which is why I get so cranky about it (and for which I, uh, uh, apologize). This sorta thing appears in PRINT with amazing
                Message 7 of 10 , Jul 19, 1999
                  At 12:31 PM 7/19/99 -0400, Mike Grondin wrote:

                  >Damn! I thought only Paul Miller was listening! But seriously, I'm afraid
                  >that I'd become so concerned about the lack of traffic on the list lately
                  >that I allowed my ignorance to take its head. There are indeed reasons for
                  >believing that "Q2" was a later addition to "Q1", and I apologize for
                  >saying otherwise.

                  Hurray!

                  >But I'm surprised at your suggestion that many others
                  >have made the same mistake. You mean I'm not the first to be aggressively
                  >ignorant about the stratification of Q?

                  Yes indeed, which is why I get so cranky about it (and for which I, uh, uh,
                  apologize). This sorta thing appears in PRINT with amazing regularity.
                  Kloppenborg, in particular, is constantly being "refuted" on the grounds
                  that "wisdom and apocalyptic are not incompatible" or that "the a priori
                  assumption that Jesus [!!] cannot have been an apocalyptist is anachronistic
                  and theologically motivated" etc. -- I fear that sheer repetition will turn
                  all this irrelevant argumentation into FACT, so that no one will actually
                  bother to read the quite different arguments on which the hypothesis is
                  actually founded.

                  Sorry to blow off on this -- the appropriate targets really are elsewhere.

                  Bill
                  __________________________________
                  William Arnal wea1@...
                  Religion/Classics check out my web page, at:
                  New York University http://pages.nyu.edu/~wea1/


                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
                  http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                • Stevan Davies
                  ... Bill ... Bill Arnal has written a brief summary of Kloppenborg s case that he is too humble and self-effacing to mention. It s on the WWW off my Thomas
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jul 19, 1999
                    >> You mean I'm not the first to be aggressively
                    > >ignorant about the stratification of Q?

                    Bill
                    > Yes indeed, which is why I get so cranky about it (and for which I, uh, uh,
                    > apologize). This sorta thing appears in PRINT with amazing regularity.
                    > Kloppenborg, in particular, is constantly being "refuted" on the grounds
                    > that "wisdom and apocalyptic are not incompatible" or that "the a priori
                    > assumption that Jesus [!!] cannot have been an apocalyptist is anachronistic
                    > and theologically motivated" etc. -- I fear that sheer repetition will turn
                    > all this irrelevant argumentation into FACT, so that no one will actually
                    > bother to read the quite different arguments on which the hypothesis is
                    > actually founded.

                    Bill Arnal has written a brief summary of Kloppenborg's case
                    that he is too humble and self-effacing to mention. It's on the WWW
                    off my Thomas homepage at
                    http://www.miseri.edu/users/davies/thomas/billklop.htm


                    Steve

                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gthomas
                    http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.