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

[gthomas] Re: Pharisees v. Sadducees

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    ... I don t think so, Ron. As in most cases, the truth is in the details. And the details in this case is what is said about the Pharisees in #39 and 102.
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 14, 2000
      ronald david mccann wrote:
      > Thomas may well have been a Sadducean product ...

      I don't think so, Ron. As in most cases, the truth is in the details.
      And the details in this case is what is said about the Pharisees in #39
      and 102. While the rhetoric is anti-Pharisee, it grants that they are in
      possession of "the keys of knowledge". I submit that no Sadducean-Xian
      would have worded it that way. ISTM that a Sadducean-Xian would have
      railed against his own former party (not the opposition), and would
      grant to them this backhand compliment that Thomas gives to the
      Pharisees.

      Mike
    • Ronald David McCann
      I can agree with your reasoning, Mike. It is sound. Why should the Pharisees arch-rivals concede they (the Pharisees) had the keys to knowledge ? I think the
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 24, 2000
        I can agree with your reasoning, Mike. It is sound. Why
        should the Pharisees' arch-rivals concede they (the Pharisees) had the
        "keys to knowledge"?
        I think the short answer is " We told them, and they rejected it."
        Rather than an admission that the Pharisees had "the key", I see an
        allegation they were given the key and refused to use it- the dog in the
        manger logion. This preserves the emnity. "You had it, you didn't use
        it."

        My difficulty with THOMAS is what it doesn't have- references to the
        End of Days, the Judgement, Armageddon, the Return of the Messiah, the
        Cross ( except for a probable idiomatic expression of the day),
        Redemption, The Resurrection, The World to Come and so on.

        It is a non-Apocalytic Christianity and so non-Escatelogical it is
        almost "non-christian" as we know it.

        The Sadducees, as we know them, were opposed to many of these ideas.
        I guess the question is- what was their own view? A straight negation is
        hardly an answer. What views did they have? And is it possible the Thomas
        stream is their legacy?

        Best Wishes,

        Ron

        > ronald david mccann wrote:
        > > Thomas may well have been a Sadducean product ...
        >
        > I don't think so, Ron. As in most cases, the truth is in the details.
        > And the details in this case is what is said about the Pharisees in #39
        > and 102. While the rhetoric is anti-Pharisee, it grants that they are
        > in possession of "the keys of knowledge". I submit that no
        > Sadducean-Xian would have worded it that way. ISTM that a
        > Sadducean-Xian would have railed against his own former party (not the
        > opposition), and would grant to them this backhand compliment that
        > Thomas gives to the Pharisees.
        >
        > Mike
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > To post to gthomas send e mail to gthomas@egroups.com
        > To unsubscribe from gthomas send a blank e mail to gthomas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
        > -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/gthomas/?m=1
        >
        >
      • Yuri Kuchinsky
        On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Ronald David McCann wrote: ... I guess there re two ways to explain this, Ron. 1. GOT was composed before all these traditional hallmarks
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 27, 2000
          On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Ronald David McCann wrote:

          ...

          > My difficulty with THOMAS is what it doesn't have- references to the
          > End of Days, the Judgement, Armageddon, the Return of the Messiah, the
          > Cross ( except for a probable idiomatic expression of the day),
          > Redemption, The Resurrection, The World to Come and so on.
          >
          > It is a non-Apocalytic Christianity and so non-Escatelogical it is
          > almost "non-christian" as we know it.

          I guess there're two ways to explain this, Ron.

          1. GOT was composed before all these traditional hallmarks of Christianity
          came about. So they are absent because of this.

          2. GOT was composed after most of these traditional hallmarks of
          Christianity came about, but the compilers of GOT (who admittedly made use
          of some very early sources) chose to disregard and omit all these because
          of a certain theological reason of their own.

          Myself, I vote for #2. It is simply inconceivable to me that _all_ of
          these traditional hallmarks of Christianity were completely absent at any
          time, but especially at any time post-Easter.

          So it stands to reason that their omission was intentional and not a
          function of earliness.

          > The Sadducees, as we know them, were opposed to many of these ideas. I
          > guess the question is- what was their own view? A straight negation is
          > hardly an answer. What views did they have? And is it possible the
          > Thomas stream is their legacy?

          Well, I can go with you as far as to say that the authors of GOT were
          fairly traditionalist but at the same time somewhat unorthodox Jews.

          Regards,

          Yuri.

          Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

          Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

          The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
          equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
        • Michael Grondin
          ... So you should vote for #1, should you not? Mike
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 28, 2000
            At 01:03 PM 03/27/00 -0500, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

            >1. GOT was composed before all these traditional hallmarks of Christianity
            >came about. So they are absent because of this.
            >
            >2. GOT was composed after most of these traditional hallmarks of
            >Christianity came about, but the compilers of GOT (who admittedly made use
            >of some very early sources) chose to disregard and omit all these because
            >of a certain theological reason of their own.
            >
            >Myself, I vote for #2. It is simply inconceivable to me that _all_ of
            >these traditional hallmarks of Christianity were completely absent at any
            >time, but especially at any time post-Easter.

            So you should vote for #1, should you not?

            Mike
          • Yuri Kuchinsky
            ... Mike, What makes you think I should vote for #1? Generally, I regard GOT as being in the same league as the 4 canonical gospels. I see the 4 canonicals as
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 30, 2000
              On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Michael Grondin wrote:

              > At 01:03 PM 03/27/00 -0500, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
              >
              > >1. GOT was composed before all these traditional hallmarks of Christianity
              > >came about. So they are absent because of this.
              > >
              > >2. GOT was composed after most of these traditional hallmarks of
              > >Christianity came about, but the compilers of GOT (who admittedly made use
              > >of some very early sources) chose to disregard and omit all these because
              > >of a certain theological reason of their own.
              > >
              > >Myself, I vote for #2. It is simply inconceivable to me that _all_ of
              > >these traditional hallmarks of Christianity were completely absent at any
              > >time, but especially at any time post-Easter.
              >
              > So you should vote for #1, should you not?

              Mike,

              What makes you think I should vote for #1?

              Generally, I regard GOT as being in the same league as the 4 canonical
              gospels. I see the 4 canonicals as being continuously reworked and/or
              expanded well into the 2nd c. Same with GOT.

              I believe all the 4 canonicals were originally anonymous documents. Their
              names were affixed to them some time in the 2nd c. And I see no reason to
              exempt GOT from this pattern either. And so on.

              Regards,

              Yuri.

              Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

              Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

              The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
              equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
            • Michael Grondin
              ... Sorry. Because you mentioned possible omission of material *from GOT* in #2, I carried that over to your rationale and read it as completely absent [from
              Message 6 of 6 , Mar 30, 2000
                At 01:03 PM 03/27/00 -0500, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
                >1. GOT was composed before all these traditional hallmarks of Christianity
                >came about. So they are absent because of this.
                >
                >2. GOT was composed after most of these traditional hallmarks of
                >Christianity came about, but the compilers of GOT (who admittedly made use
                >of some very early sources) chose to disregard and omit all these because
                >of a certain theological reason of their own.
                >
                >Myself, I vote for #2. It is simply inconceivable to me that _all_ of
                >these traditional hallmarks of Christianity were completely absent at any
                >time, but especially at any time post-Easter.

                To which I responded:
                > So you should vote for #1, should you not?

                To which Yuri responded:
                >What makes you think I should vote for #1?

                Sorry. Because you mentioned possible omission of material *from GOT* in
                #2, I carried that over to your rationale and read it as "completely absent
                [from GOT]" rather than "completely absent [from Xianity]". I see where
                you're coming from now, although it should be pointed out that, although
                you find it inconceivable that "_all_" the traditional hallmarks should be
                missing from early Xianity, you *don't* find it inconceivable that the
                several _apocalyptic_ hallmarks that Ron mentioned should be missing. In
                fact, you've insisted that it be so. So it must be the passion and
                resurrection hallmarks that you're focusing on in this argument. And I
                think it's quite correct to say that Thomas was virtually the opposite of
                Paul in this respect - the one stressed the resurrection to the exclusion
                of all else, while the other ignored it.

                Mike
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.