> >A point that is a) not demonstrable (it's an assumption, and one lacking in
> >any evidence),
> If you are going to limit your sphere of knowledge to the demonstrable, you
> are going to live in a narrow world. While it may not be demonstrable that
> Yeshu spoke Aramaic as his primary tongue, it nonetheless falls within the
> much more likely than not category, and Greek falls within the much less
> likely than not category.
By definition, scholarly historical investigation is a limited world.
It limits its focus to what is demonstrable and sometimes to what it
empirically verifiable. In virtually every case, inquiry within this
"limited world" seeks to regard probabilities as footnotes, rather than
defensible premises. At the point that one drags into the discussion
one's own personal preferences and defends them by arguing for their
probability, then one has stepped outside the circle of responsible
> > and b) kinda irrelevant (this list is about THOMAS, not the
> >historical Jesus).
> Again, Bill, you seem to like to create blinders. You can't separate the
> discussion of GOT from history.
If I understand correctly the stated purpose of this list, it is
precisely within its historical context that GThom is to be discussed.
That leads me to believe that what goes on here is bound exclusively to
the historical context of GThom, and that speculative hermeneutical
exercises should be conductyed in other forums.
> > Jack's "all too obvious point", though, was not what I
> >was taking issue with (although in another context, I would), but rather its
> >relevance to Thomas?
> > >And finally,
> > >and first and foremost, we should try to make sense out of the Gospels. His
> > >back translation makes the most sense.
> >I don't at ALL understand this point.
> I understand how this might be difficult for you since you don't want to
> consider the historical Jesus and GOT in the same mental session, and you
> don't want to think about what type of teachings may have been taught by a
> great moral teacher. But even that might be difficult for you since you do
> not want your thought processes violated by considering the possibility
> that a real person, and (possibly even Yeshu) may have uttered some of the
> words in GOT. But if you can consider the possibility that a real person
> may have uttered many of the teachings in GOT, and you believe there is
> some moral worth in the teachings, then you might want to try out for size
> back translations based on more than likely Aramaic hypotheses, since the
> interpretations they yield are based upon greater moral sense than hating
> your parents. "Setting aside" one's family is a traditional concept amongst
> those who leave the world behind. But it is not based upon hate.
Whether or not Bill wants to take up with the HJ and GThom at the same
time, the fact remains that there is virtually no "historical Jesus"
present in GThom (and if you want to debate THAT issue with me, you'd
better pack your lunch because you'll find its going to be a VERY long
day at school).
Yes a real person is the source of the GThom logia. Who else, Teddy
I suspect that if take your own blinders off, and look at the "moral
implications" inherent in GThom in its historical and socilogical
contexts, you'll find them not particularly congenial. Certainly they
will not be 100% compatible with the particular flavor of 20th century
Christian thinking that you seem to insist on imposing on the text.