Re: [gthomas] Re: Y Kuchninsky's Proposed dating methods for GThom
- On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Rick Hubbard wrote:
> The as-yet-unresolved problem of how to devise a defensible datingWell, I beg to disagree, Rick.
> theory for the Gospel of Thomas moves no closer to denouement by
> simply adopting Loisy's hypotheses about the origin and development of
> the intracanonical gospels.
> Whether or not, for example, there existed early versions of the NTNot at all. To the contrary, establishing that there was an early
> gospels(proto-gospels)is irrelevant to the issue.
Jewish-Christian period of gospel-production would be very relevant
> Similarly, questions about literary relationships among the synopticsMost people will disagree with your here.
> and issues of priority are also not important.
> The first observation about Loisy's views of the gospels is that muchBut this was a very influential work not only for Loisy.
> of what he asserted about them was simply an endorsement of the views
> of other scholars (with numerous qualifications, of course). There is
> virtually no question that Loisy embraced the general conclusions of
> the purely historical approach to the NT that began with D.F. Strauss'
> monumental work which was published in 1835-1836, _Das Leben Jesu,
> kritisch bearbetet_.
> Strauss, and others after him, regarded the majority of the materialBut this is what Bultmann was saying too. Loisy borrowed quite a lot from
> in the NT gospels as "mythical," an assertion repeated over and over
> again by Loisy [_Origins_, 15-18, 28, 31]. Moreover, Loisy denied
> that the gospels in any way reflected historical memories of Jesus
> [Birth, 12, 41].
> At the same time he dismissed the notion of divine authorship of notAnd you support the notion of divine authorship of the gospels?
> only the gospels, but of the entire biblical corpus [Origins, 10-13].
In such a case, it is not surprising in the least that you will not
> Loisy thus approaches the text as a dispassionate critical historianI think Loisy would have welcomed such a comparison.
> ideologically indistinguishable from the likes of D.F. Strauss, F.C.
> Bauer and J. Weisse
> (especially the latter's interest in the eschatological implicationsYes, this and the following are correct.
> of the gospels).
> But still, this is not to say that Loisy did not contribute his own
> originality to the discussions. In fact what is distinctly
> characteristic of Loisy is his assertions that the gospels were
> didactic instruments [Birth, 43], or catechisms, the sole purpose of
> which was to advance the propaganda of the church (Birth, 17].
> The gospels were in effect, nothing else than teaching documents in"Eschatological" and "evangelical" are primarily the labels that Loisy
> their earliest forms. Those early forms, it needs to be said, were
> heavily edited from the time of their origins until, in some cases
> after their canonization (Origins, Birth, 44].
> Loisy argues that the gospels were formed around two fundamental
> catacheses, each of which conformed to the Christian rites of baptism
> and the eucharist [Origins, 78]. The earlier of the two catacheses was
> that of the eucharist around which formed the passion cycle and the
> traditions of the risen Christ [Origins, 78]. The second catachesis,
> the baptismal, became the core of the stories about Jesus' public
> ministry, from his baptism at the hands of John to the passion
> narrative [Origins, 78]. Loisy designates the eucharistic catachesis
> as the the eschatological and the baptismal he calls the evangelical.
uses to distinguish two major compositional layers in the canonical
gospels. According to him, the earliest layer was the eschatological, and
the later one was the evangelical. Loisy says that the focus of the
earliest believers was to anxiously expect the "Great Event", when Jesus
as Messiah/Christ will arrive in glory to put everything right in the
world. In other words, the End-Times.
But when such expectations waned, after 70, then a theological adjustment
followed. Instead of the End of the World, a new burgeoning Christian
movement, the Ecclesia, arrived in the world. So the focus of the movement
shifted to dealing with this new reality.
> The earliest cathechesis he argues did not originate with the gospelsThis is not in the Collier edition. Are you using the other edition?
> but in the confessions found in Pauline Christianity [Origins, 77].
I don't think Loisy said that the Pauline confessions were the earliest.
Perhaps you misinterpreted him. According to him, the earliest catechesis
> In his analysis of the Markan gospel, Loisy continues with theFor Loisy, Jesus was not consecrated as the Messiah in his earthly life.
> thematic study of the traditions under the rubric of catacheses His
> analysis [Origins, 77-110] and his conclusions [Origins, 315-318] keep
> these concepts continually before the reader. What may be derived from
> Loisy's analysis and conclusions is that the most primitive forms of
> the traditions were fundamentally confessional and were intertwined
> almost exclusively with the consecration of the Messiah and the
> revelation of the mystery in the risen Christ.
> If Loisy's analysis and conclusions are correct, then it follows thatBut the nature of this "mystery" should be further specified.
> the earliest strata of the gospels which he dates to just prior to 70
> CE (for Mark) [Birth, 45] should be expected to exhibit content
> consistent with the earliest catechesis, i.e., material related to the
> "revelation of the mystery" [Birth, 43].
> The question then is this: Where in GThom, are those elements which byThese are the Jewish-Christian elements in GOT.
> Loisy's own set of criteria, define Thomas as "early" as Kuchinsky
> I argue that those elements are not there at all and that thereforeYour misunderstanding continues, but judging by what you said above, it's
> either GThom is not earlier than Mark or that, if it is earlier, then
> Loisy's hypotheses are inadequate tools in this case.
not in the least surprising.
> As a final note, it is impossible not to respond to Kuchinsky'sA "good number of people" like 99%? I mean biblical scholars of course.
> persistent complaint that Loisy is unknown to which was raised by this
> most recent post on [Loisy]:
> "PS. As far as Loisy goes, it's curious how many "new experts" have
> now appeared on the horizon who apparently have never even read him.
> They merely cite some secondary literature that seems quite as clued
> out as they are. And then on this basis they claim breathlessly that
> Loisy is "well known" to NT professionals! Really, this is rather
> funny. Will deal with this later."
> There are indeed a good number of people who have probably not read
> Loisy extensively.
> Given his general irrelevance to contemporary NT research, there is noAn alternative interpretation, of course, would be that he was way ahead
> good reason why anyone should spend much time doing so. He is not much
> more than a subject of historical curiosity. Moreover, one who does
> take time to read virtually any of Loisy's works will be immediately
> stricken by the eccentricity of his hypotheses when viewed
> three-fourths of a century later, from the perspective of contemporary
of his time.
> Contrary to Kuchinksy's assertion in the quote above, as well as inYes, his early works are cited now and then. But, as I said before, at
> previous posts, Loisy *is* well known to reputable NT "professionals"
> (which I presume to mean, NT scholars). His publications are regularly
> acknowledged in the bibliographic sections of innumerable major
> scholarly works published since 1950. A few of the most important
> scholars who have given recognition to Loisy in this way include R.
> Bultmann, J. Fitzmeyer, G. Ludemann, R. Brown and of course W. G.
> Kummel (the latter who Kuchinsky deprecates, even though Kummel's _New
> Testament Introduction_ has continued to be a standard handbook on the
> subject in colleges, universities and seminaries for more than forty
this time, no adequate critical review of his crucial later contributions
exists in English-language scholarship. It's as simple as that.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
"Genuine ignorance is ... profitable because it is likely to be
accompanied by humility, curiosity, and open mindedness; whereas ability
to repeat catch-phrases, cant terms, familiar propositions, gives the
conceit of learning, and coats the mind with varnish water-proof to new
ideas" -- John Dewey