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

Re: [gthomas] Dating GThom

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Smith
    ... What are these last four based on? Are they dates for the Coptic version of Thomas? Or are they based on the old argument of Thomas being Gnostic, and
    Message 1 of 15 , Aug 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      on 7/30/00 9:41 AM, Rick Hubbard at rhubbard@... wrote:

      > For the sake of illustrating the general trajectories in the discussions
      > about the date of GThom, it may be helpful to identify some of the
      > participants in the debate and the dating they suggest.
      >
      > H. Koester: 70-100 CE
      > R. Cameron: 50-100 CE
      > W. Davies: 50-70 CE
      > J. Fitzmyer: C. 200 CE (End of 2nd c.)
      > J. Menard: C. 200 CE (End of 2nd c.)
      > A. Guillamont C. (End of 2nd c.)
      > B. Dehandschutter C. (End of 2nd c.)

      What are these last four based on? Are they dates for the Coptic version of
      Thomas? Or are they based on the old argument of Thomas being Gnostic, and
      therefore late?

      Andrew
    • Andrew Smith
      ... The archives are at http://www.egroups.com/messages/crosstalk Andrew Smith
      Message 2 of 15 , Aug 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        on 7/31/00 10:31 AM, Jacob Knee at jknee@... wrote:

        > Many thanks for a great message. Just to probe a little further on the last
        > point. How might you go about detecting strata within the GoT: are you
        > thinking of something like Kloppenborg's methodolgy in approaching Q.
        >
        > I remember this issue being debated in the past either on this list or on
        > the old Crosstalk - principally between Bill Arnal and, the much missed,
        > Stevan Davies. If anyone knows where the old Crosstalk archives are kept it
        > might be worth doing a search.
        >

        The archives are at http://www.egroups.com/messages/crosstalk

        Andrew Smith
      • Jack Kilmon
        ... From: Andrew Smith To: Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [gthomas] Dating GThom ... of ... The
        Message 3 of 15 , Aug 1, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Andrew Smith <asmith@...>
          To: <gthomas@egroups.com>
          Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 2:10 PM
          Subject: Re: [gthomas] Dating GThom


          > on 7/30/00 9:41 AM, Rick Hubbard at rhubbard@... wrote:
          >
          > > For the sake of illustrating the general trajectories in the discussions
          > > about the date of GThom, it may be helpful to identify some of the
          > > participants in the debate and the dating they suggest.
          > >
          > > H. Koester: 70-100 CE
          > > R. Cameron: 50-100 CE
          > > W. Davies: 50-70 CE
          > > J. Fitzmyer: C. 200 CE (End of 2nd c.)
          > > J. Menard: C. 200 CE (End of 2nd c.)
          > > A. Guillamont C. (End of 2nd c.)
          > > B. Dehandschutter C. (End of 2nd c.)
          >
          > What are these last four based on? Are they dates for the Coptic version
          of
          > Thomas? Or are they based on the old argument of Thomas being Gnostic, and
          > therefore late?

          The last 4 cannot be dates estimated for the composition of GoT but
          termini ad quem for the scribing of POxy 1 (200 CE), POxy 654 (250-300 CE)
          and POxy 655 (200-250 CE). Surely these scholars do nor believe that
          the Oxyrhynchus GoT's are autographs. The first three are estimates on
          the composition of GoT. I agree with Davies.



          Jack
          --
          ______________________________________________

          taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

          Jack Kilmon
          jkilmon@...

          http://www.historian.net

          sharing a meal for free.
          http://www.thehungersite.com/
        • Rick Hubbard
          ... Actually, all of the last four (Fitzmyer, Menard, Guillamont and Dehandschutter) *are* using these dates to refer to the entirety of GThom, not the Greek
          Message 4 of 15 , Aug 2, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Jack Kilmon wrote:
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: Andrew Smith <asmith@...>
            > To: <gthomas@egroups.com>
            > Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 2:10 PM
            > Subject: Re: [gthomas] Dating GThom
            >
            > > on 7/30/00 9:41 AM, Rick Hubbard at rhubbard@... wrote:
            > >
            > > > For the sake of illustrating the general trajectories in the discussions
            > > > about the date of GThom, it may be helpful to identify some of the
            > > > participants in the debate and the dating they suggest.
            > > >
            > > > H. Koester: 70-100 CE
            > > > R. Cameron: 50-100 CE
            > > > W. Davies: 50-70 CE
            > > > J. Fitzmyer: C. 200 CE (End of 2nd c.)
            > > > J. Menard: C. 200 CE (End of 2nd c.)
            > > > A. Guillamont C. (End of 2nd c.)
            > > > B. Dehandschutter C. (End of 2nd c.)
            > >
            > > What are these last four based on? Are they dates for the Coptic version
            > of
            > > Thomas? Or are they based on the old argument of Thomas being Gnostic, and
            > > therefore late?
            >
            > The last 4 cannot be dates estimated for the composition of GoT but
            > termini ad quem for the scribing of POxy 1 (200 CE), POxy 654 (250-300 CE)
            > and POxy 655 (200-250 CE). Surely these scholars do nor believe that
            > the Oxyrhynchus GoT's are autographs. The first three are estimates on
            > the composition of GoT. I agree with Davies.

            Actually, all of the last four (Fitzmyer, Menard, Guillamont and
            Dehandschutter) *are* using these dates to refer to the entirety of
            GThom, not the Greek (P Oxy) fragments. The methods and assumptions by
            which they reach their respective conclusions are described by J.
            Robinson in C. Hedrick & R. Hodgson, Jr. _Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and
            Early Christianity_, Hemdrickson, (1986), pp 142-166.

            Menard's conclusions derive from a conjectured relationship between
            GThom and Syriac NT wherein Menard sees a connection between, "instances
            where the Syriac canonical gospels and the Gospel of Thomas share a
            variant from the Greek NT or where the Syriac canonical gospels present
            an ambiguous term with one of its meanings found in the GNT and the
            other in GThom." (_Nag Hammadi_, p 159). In the work cited, Robinson
            there disputes that conclusion as well as Menard's inference that
            ActsThom (3rd c.) is dependent on GThom so GThom 'could hence date from
            the end of the second century.' ((Menard, L'Evangile selon Thomas, p
            156) in _Nag Hammdi_, p 160).

            Dehandschutter's conclusions proceed from the premise that the genre of
            the synoptics is sufficiently different from GThom that the application
            of the same techniques of literary criticism to both documents yield
            skewed results. His view seems to reflect a bias in which GThom and the
            synoptics bear a different "value" in terms of their relevance to early
            Christianity. The problems with that premise seem to me to be
            self-evident.

            Fitzmyer's position is perhaps the most perplexing. Robinson cites this
            remark of Fitzmyer, "'The Greek copies are dated roughly to the first
            half of the third century AD, but the Gospel itself may well have been
            composed toward the end of the second century.'" ((Fitzmyer, _The Gospel
            According to Luke_, Doubleday, (1981), p 85) _Nag Hammadi_, p 158).
            Fitzmyer's bias toward so-called gnostic gospels in general is
            illustrated by Robinson (in the same place) by quoting the remark from
            Fitzmyer which characterizes these gospels as, "..schlock that is
            supposed to pass for 'literature'... It has been mystifying, indeed, why
            serious scholars continue to talk about the pertinence of this material
            to the study of the New Testment.'" (Proper attribution of this remark
            may be read in _Nag Hammadi_, p 158 n 85).

            In any case, the views of Koester, Cameron and Davies seem to represent
            the majority position so it would seem that one runs little risk in
            positing an early date for GThom.

            On the other hand, these two groups of scholars, who argue for
            contradicting conclusions about the date of GThom, share the assumption
            that GThom can be subjected to the same methods of compositional dating
            as other texts from the same period. Perhaps that assumption needs to be
            re-examined.

            Stephan Patterson has raised an interesting suggestion about this matter
            in _The Fifth Gospel_, Trinity (1998). He recognizes that while, "...
            some form of the gospel existed aalready before the end of the first
            century... This does not mean however that everything we now see in this
            gospel derives from this early period." (p 43). He says further, "The
            genesis of the Gospel of Thomas probably lies in the last decades of the
            first century...But this collection grew and changed." He concludes by
            saying that, "The interpreter of Thomas must always hold open the
            possibility of various time frames for individual logia." He thereafter
            cites two additonal scholars, H. Schenke and R. Valantasis, who argue
            for late dating of GThom (Schenke: after 135; Valantasis: "just after
            the turn of the first century).

            Patterson's suggestion, when seen in the context of the ongoing debate
            about the "date" of GThom, suggests that perhaps it is indeed *not*
            possible to date GThom in the traditonal way in which other pieces of
            literature from late antiquity is dated. The fluidity of the text is
            such that it may have been a work in progress for many decades and so it
            contains multiple strata of material that entered the text at different
            times.

            Or, maybe not.

            Rick Hubbard
            Humble Maine Woodsman
            >
            > Jack
            > --
            > ______________________________________________
            >
            > taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon
            >
            > Jack Kilmon
            > jkilmon@...
            >
            > http://www.historian.net
            >
            > sharing a meal for free.
            > http://www.thehungersite.com/
            >
            > -------------------------------------------------
            > To post to gthomas, send email to gthomas@egroups.com
            > To unsubscribe, send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
          • Yuri Kuchinsky
            In gthomas@egroups.com, on Aug 1, 2000, Andrew Smith wrote (in reply to ... The problem with this line of argument, Andrew, is that it leaves the area of
            Message 5 of 15 , Aug 3, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              In gthomas@egroups.com, on Aug 1, 2000, Andrew Smith wrote (in reply to
              joe lieb):

              > Steve (Davies) is referring to modern scholarship, not to a general
              > view of Jesus. I understand him to be saying that the tendency in
              > modern HJ research to emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus is due to an
              > element of political correctness, which is understandable in the
              > post-Holocaust world, but which isn't really confirmed by the sources.
              > It's arguable, but I find this model quite useful.

              The problem with this line of argument, Andrew, is that it leaves the area
              of objective historical scholarship, and begins to focus on personal
              presuppositions and motivations. But this is pure speculation.

              Is there really a big tendency in modern HJ research to emphasize the
              Jewishness of Jesus? Maybe, maybe not. But was there a tendency in
              ancient HJ research to emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus? There surely
              was.

              Mt 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
              Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

              Lk 16:17 "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the
              least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law."

              So then I guess this nasty political correctness business was already
              quite a problem 1900 years ago?

              Yes, there are all kinds of tendencies in modern HJ research. There are so
              many of them. And if one begins to focus on personal motivations of
              various researchers, then I'm afraid for all of them there can be found
              various suitably opprobrious personal motivations. But perhaps it is not
              such a good idea to go down this road.

              Best regards,

              Yuri.

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

              Open biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - loisy-l

              To subscribe to loisy-l, send blank email to loisy-subscribe@...

              The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
              equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
            • Andrew Smith
              ... This really wasn t the point of re-posting Steve s letter. I wrote the above paragraph because Joe Lieb picked up on Steve s last sentence in the post and
              Message 6 of 15 , Aug 3, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                on 8/3/00 8:18 AM, Yuri Kuchinsky at yuku@... wrote:

                >
                > In gthomas@egroups.com, on Aug 1, 2000, Andrew Smith wrote (in reply to
                > joe lieb):
                >
                >> Steve (Davies) is referring to modern scholarship, not to a general
                >> view of Jesus. I understand him to be saying that the tendency in
                >> modern HJ research to emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus is due to an
                >> element of political correctness, which is understandable in the
                >> post-Holocaust world, but which isn't really confirmed by the sources.
                >> It's arguable, but I find this model quite useful.
                >
                > The problem with this line of argument, Andrew, is that it leaves the area
                > of objective historical scholarship, and begins to focus on personal
                > presuppositions and motivations. But this is pure speculation.
                >

                This really wasn't the point of re-posting Steve's letter. I wrote the above
                paragraph because Joe Lieb picked up on Steve's last sentence in the post
                and started to run away with it. Additonally, my post may have added to the
                confusion: when I wrote "this model" I wasn't referring to this view of
                modern scholarship, but the model of Christianity being anomian or
                antinomian in the earliest sources.

                > Is there really a big tendency in modern HJ research to emphasize the
                > Jewishness of Jesus? Maybe, maybe not. But was there a tendency in
                > ancient HJ research to emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus? There surely
                > was.

                Are Matthew and Luke trying to research the historical Jesus? Luke maybe.

                >
                > Mt 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
                > Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
                >
                > Lk 16:17 "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the
                > least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law."
                >
                > So then I guess this nasty political correctness business was already
                > quite a problem 1900 years ago?

                This was one of Steve's good points, which you are confirming here:-

                > 3. The presentation of Jesus as a man concerned with the Judean
                > Law in a postitive sense changes in a remarkably straight-line
                > way from the earliest sources, which advocate freedom from the
                > Law (Paul), to intermediate sources that by no means give Jesus
                > anything like a clear positive pro-Torah stance (Mark), to later
                > sources that do in fact present Jesus as a Torah teaching pharisaic
                > Judean (Matthew).
                >

                Anyway, back to the Gospel of Thomas.

                Andrew Smith
              • William Arnal
                ... It s no more (or less) pure speculation than redaction criticism. It s a reasonable area of scholarly inquiry: historiography and its various tendency at
                Message 7 of 15 , Aug 3, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 11:18 AM 8/3/00 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

                  >The problem with this line of argument, Andrew, is that it leaves the area
                  >of objective historical scholarship, and begins to focus on personal
                  >presuppositions and motivations. But this is pure speculation.

                  It's no more (or less) "pure speculation" than redaction criticism. It's a
                  reasonable area of scholarly inquiry: historiography and its various
                  tendency at various times and places. Schweitzer's book, for instance,
                  advanced the field of historical Jesus scholarship immensely by focusing on
                  precisely this. And several modern scholars (Sean Freyne is an excellent
                  example) freely admit that contemporary issues (in Freyne's case, the
                  Holocaust) do figure into their scholarship. Also: "personal" here is a
                  little misleading. No one is claiming that scholar "x" believes "y" about
                  the historical Jesus because of the way his parents potty-trained him, or
                  some such thing. The issue is historic intellectual currents and their
                  manifestation in biblical studies (as elsewhere). Moreover, while the
                  accusation of bias certainly does not in itself disprove any hypothesis
                  (actual direct evidence is needed for that), observing bias may tell us
                  something useful about why some hypotheses are defended so vigorously, or
                  why they are maintained even when the evidence for them is very weak.

                  >Is there really a big tendency in modern HJ research to emphasize the
                  >Jewishness of Jesus? Maybe, maybe not. But was there a tendency in
                  >ancient HJ research to emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus? There surely
                  >was.

                  The ancient tendency to emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus could be just as,
                  well, tendentious as the modern tendency. And there is in fact an opposite
                  ancient tendency, i.e., to repudiate or at least minimize the Jewishness
                  (whatever that means) of Jesus.

                  >So then I guess this nasty political correctness business was already
                  >quite a problem 1900 years ago?

                  That's gratuitous. The issue is not "political correctness," it's agenda.
                  The agenda which drive some aspects of the presentation of Jesus today are
                  certainly not those that drove the evangelists, but that needn't prevent the
                  results from being similar.

                  Bill
                  __________________________________
                  William Arnal wea1@...
                  Religion/Classics New York University

                  Is there an ursine proclivity for sylvan defecation?
                • Yuri Kuchinsky
                  ... Andrew, But one can argue that this is how Matthew and Luke really imagined the Historical Jesus to have been. So do you really think the way they came up
                  Message 8 of 15 , Aug 4, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Andrew Smith wrote:
                    > on 8/3/00 8:18 AM, Yuri Kuchinsky at yuku@... wrote:

                    ...

                    > > Is there really a big tendency in modern HJ research to emphasize the
                    > > Jewishness of Jesus? Maybe, maybe not. But was there a tendency in
                    > > ancient HJ research to emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus? There surely
                    > > was.
                    >
                    > Are Matthew and Luke trying to research the historical Jesus? Luke
                    > maybe.

                    Andrew,

                    But one can argue that this is how Matthew and Luke really imagined the
                    Historical Jesus to have been. So do you really think the way they came up
                    with their picture of Jesus was so radically different from the ways our
                    modern scholars come up with their own pictures of Jesus? Because in both
                    cases personal presuppositions may play their roles.

                    > > Mt 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
                    > > Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
                    > >
                    > > Lk 16:17 "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the
                    > > least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law."
                    > >
                    > > So then I guess this nasty political correctness business was already
                    > > quite a problem 1900 years ago?
                    >
                    > This was one of Steve's good points, which you are confirming here:-

                    [Steve:]
                    > > 3. The presentation of Jesus as a man concerned with the Judean
                    > > Law in a postitive sense changes in a remarkably straight-line
                    > > way from the earliest sources, which advocate freedom from the
                    > > Law (Paul), to intermediate sources that by no means give Jesus
                    > > anything like a clear positive pro-Torah stance (Mark), to later
                    > > sources that do in fact present Jesus as a Torah teaching pharisaic
                    > > Judean (Matthew).

                    So please observe the personal presuppositions in the above snippet of
                    Steve's. According to him, the "earliest sources" (Paul) advocate "freedom
                    from the Law". But how can we be sure that everything in Paul was really
                    written by Paul? A presupposition that is certainly questionable, although
                    almost never questioned.

                    Next, according to him, "intermediate sources" (Mark) "by no means give
                    Jesus anything like a clear positive pro-Torah stance". But how can we be
                    sure that Mk is really so early in its entirety? A presupposition that is
                    rather doubtful.

                    I have addressed this whole issue before on this list in more detail.
                    Here's that article,

                    GOT and its historical context (3/15/2000),
                    http://www.egroups.com/message/gthomas/2436

                    And here's a relevant exerpt,

                    [quote]

                    Is it possible that Jesus was un-apocalyptic, and then his followers
                    became apocalyptic? This is how Crossan would like to see things. But I
                    think it's a lot more natural to see the source of un-apocalypticism in
                    the years much after 70, as the Messianic expectations were being
                    inevitably disappointed. The movement would have been looking for a new
                    focus then, and gnosticism would have seemed like a good one.

                    So what are the early daters really saying? They would like HJ to be
                    un-apocalyptic laid-back social worker, I suppose, maybe even mostly
                    secular-minded? ...

                    So, all right, Jesus was un-apocalyptic, but then for some reason his
                    followers all went astray and became apocalyptic? All except one, that is,
                    by the name of Didymus Judas Thomas, who managed to preserve the "original
                    teachings" in some "little pocket" of society, until that too vanished
                    (except for what little managed to trickle into the sands of Nag Hammadi
                    for us to discover, to be sure).

                    If we suppose that all his followers went astray and became OT-oriented
                    and apocalyptic all of a sudden, then this must have happened before 70,
                    right? But I thought that according to Crossan we have the Gentiles taking
                    over the Jesus movement before 70 in a big hurry? Sure seems like there
                    are some problems with this scenario somehow? One may indeed wonder how
                    could back-to-the-Torah movement be happening at the same time as the
                    let's-dump-the-Torah movement..

                    [unquote]

                    And now I will also add a clarification to what I wrote back in March. The
                    purpose of that post was to argue that all NT materials, as well as GOT
                    should be dated later rather than earlier. Because I concluded then as
                    follows,

                    "In my view, GOT had a similar history to that of the synoptic gospels,
                    i.e. it was a work-in-progress for perhaps 100 years from 50 to 150."

                    So while as compared to most commentators I tend to date _everything_
                    later, at the same time, if one wishes to date GOT vis-a-vis the
                    Synoptics, then clearly from the redactional standpoint GOT precedes much
                    of the Synoptic sayings materials. And also, in my view, chronologically
                    GOT precedes a lot of stuff that is now found in Mk.

                    Regards,

                    Yuri.

                    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
                  • Yuri Kuchinsky
                    ... Sure, Bill, presuppositions and motivations do enter into scholarly reconstructions in a big way. ... Yes, intellectual currents are also important. But if
                    Message 9 of 15 , Aug 4, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, William Arnal wrote:
                      > At 11:18 AM 8/3/00 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
                      >
                      > >The problem with this line of argument, Andrew, is that it leaves the area
                      > >of objective historical scholarship, and begins to focus on personal
                      > >presuppositions and motivations. But this is pure speculation.
                      >
                      > It's no more (or less) "pure speculation" than redaction criticism.
                      > It's a reasonable area of scholarly inquiry: historiography and its
                      > various tendency at various times and places. Schweitzer's book, for
                      > instance, advanced the field of historical Jesus scholarship immensely
                      > by focusing on precisely this. And several modern scholars (Sean
                      > Freyne is an excellent example) freely admit that contemporary issues
                      > (in Freyne's case, the Holocaust) do figure into their scholarship.

                      Sure, Bill, presuppositions and motivations do enter into scholarly
                      reconstructions in a big way.

                      > Also: "personal" here is a little misleading. No one is claiming that
                      > scholar "x" believes "y" about the historical Jesus because of the way
                      > his parents potty-trained him, or some such thing. The issue is
                      > historic intellectual currents and their manifestation in biblical
                      > studies (as elsewhere). Moreover, while the accusation of bias
                      > certainly does not in itself disprove any hypothesis (actual direct
                      > evidence is needed for that), observing bias may tell us something
                      > useful about why some hypotheses are defended so vigorously, or why
                      > they are maintained even when the evidence for them is very weak.

                      Yes, intellectual currents are also important.

                      But if one begins to deal with such things, then those raising such issues
                      should _also_ expect their own presuppositions and motivations to be fair
                      game for some close scrutiny. Isn't this only fair?

                      I did follow the recent email conference with Crossan, and I recall that
                      he complained quite a lot about those who try to focus on _his_
                      presuppositions and motivations. So obviously, this is not the thing that
                      he welcomes too much. That's why I expressed the view that since,
                      generally, it's a sword that can cut both ways, perhaps such lines of
                      reasoning should be avoided, because they can easily degenerate into
                      personal exchanges.

                      > >Is there really a big tendency in modern HJ research to emphasize the
                      > >Jewishness of Jesus? Maybe, maybe not. But was there a tendency in
                      > >ancient HJ research to emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus? There surely
                      > >was.
                      >
                      > The ancient tendency to emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus could be
                      > just as, well, tendentious as the modern tendency.

                      Sure!

                      > And there is in fact an opposite ancient tendency, i.e., to repudiate
                      > or at least minimize the Jewishness (whatever that means) of Jesus.

                      Of course. The question is which came first? See my previous reply to
                      Andrew.

                      > >So then I guess this nasty political correctness business was already
                      > >quite a problem 1900 years ago?
                      >
                      > That's gratuitous. The issue is not "political correctness," it's
                      > agenda. The agenda which drive some aspects of the presentation of
                      > Jesus today are certainly not those that drove the evangelists, but
                      > that needn't prevent the results from being similar.

                      Yes, and again I agree. Indeed, it's all about the agendas. So suppose we
                      now focus on the agendas which drive some aspects of the presentation of
                      Jesus today? It was Steve's repost that brought out the bugaboo of
                      "political correctness". OK, fine. So then I will ask in turn, who are the
                      people who are usually known as "anti-PC" today? It's the right-wing
                      yahoos like Rush, Jerry Fallwell, etc. Some of them, to be sure, with a
                      discernible air of anti-semitism hanging about them. So which of these two
                      camps would I rather find myself in?

                      Remember what I already said about those raising such issues? That they
                      should also expect their own presuppositions to be fair game?

                      Regards,

                      Yuri.

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

                      Open biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - loisy-l

                      To subscribe to loisy-l, send blank email to loisy-subscribe@...

                      The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                      equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                    • Andrew Smith
                      ... Yes, of course it was radically different! Are you suggesting that Matthew and Luke were critical scholars in the modern fashion? ... Paul s attitude to
                      Message 10 of 15 , Aug 4, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >
                        > Andrew,
                        >
                        > But one can argue that this is how Matthew and Luke really imagined the
                        > Historical Jesus to have been. So do you really think the way they came up
                        > with their picture of Jesus was so radically different from the ways our
                        > modern scholars come up with their own pictures of Jesus? Because in both
                        > cases personal presuppositions may play their roles.
                        >

                        Yes, of course it was radically different! Are you suggesting that Matthew
                        and Luke were critical scholars in the modern fashion?

                        > So please observe the personal presuppositions in the above snippet of
                        > Steve's. According to him, the "earliest sources" (Paul) advocate "freedom
                        > from the Law". But how can we be sure that everything in Paul was really
                        > written by Paul? A presupposition that is certainly questionable, although
                        > almost never questioned.
                        >

                        Paul's attitude to the law isn't a personal presupposition of Steve, it's
                        the general consensus of modern scholarship. He's simply taking the standard
                        datings of the gospels and epistles and showing that they point to quite a
                        different model of early Christianity. And nobody thinks that everything in
                        the Pauline letters was written by Paul.

                        <snipped>
                        >One may indeed wonder how
                        >could back-to-the-Torah movement be happening at the same time as the
                        >let's-dump-the-Torah movement..

                        If it began with anomian or antinomian elements this isn't such a problem.
                        Some parts of the movement maintain the original attitude, other parts slip
                        back into nomian Judaism.

                        <rest snipped>

                        I'm sorry that I haven't got time to address all of your points, except to
                        mention that Thomas does have an apocalyptic *protology* .

                        What makes your posts so difficult, Yuri, is that you argue so broadly using
                        phrases like "It's my opinion that", "in my view", etc. and so you end up
                        not arguing but just asserting. You very rarely ground anything in a
                        specificic piece of text or a critical observation, so your theories are
                        seldom taken seriously, especially since you are working uphill with most of
                        them.

                        Best Wishes

                        Andrew Smith
                      • Jacob Knee
                        For those who are interested Eerdmans theological publishers seem to have activated their web site at www.eerdmans.com Best wishes, Jacob Knee (Cam,
                        Message 11 of 15 , Aug 5, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          For those who are interested Eerdmans theological publishers seem to have
                          'activated' their web site at www.eerdmans.com

                          Best wishes,
                          Jacob Knee
                          (Cam, Gloucestershire)
                        • Yuri Kuchinsky
                          ... But who said anything about critical scholars , Andrew? Exactly how many of today s scholars are critical scholars still remains to be determined. In my
                          Message 12 of 15 , Aug 6, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Andrew Smith wrote:

                            > > Andrew,
                            > >
                            > > But one can argue that this is how Matthew and Luke really imagined the
                            > > Historical Jesus to have been. So do you really think the way they came up
                            > > with their picture of Jesus was so radically different from the ways our
                            > > modern scholars come up with their own pictures of Jesus? Because in both
                            > > cases personal presuppositions may play their roles.
                            >
                            > Yes, of course it was radically different! Are you suggesting that
                            > Matthew and Luke were critical scholars in the modern fashion?

                            But who said anything about "critical scholars", Andrew?

                            Exactly how many of today's scholars are critical scholars still remains
                            to be determined. In my view, there're not enough.

                            > > So please observe the personal presuppositions in the above snippet of
                            > > Steve's. According to him, the "earliest sources" (Paul) advocate "freedom
                            > > from the Law". But how can we be sure that everything in Paul was really
                            > > written by Paul? A presupposition that is certainly questionable, although
                            > > almost never questioned.
                            >
                            > Paul's attitude to the law isn't a personal presupposition of Steve,
                            > it's the general consensus of modern scholarship. He's simply taking
                            > the standard datings of the gospels and epistles

                            And now you don't really seem like a truly critical scholar yourself...

                            > and showing that they point to quite a different model of early
                            > Christianity. And nobody thinks that everything in the Pauline
                            > letters was written by Paul.
                            >
                            > <snipped>
                            > >One may indeed wonder how
                            > >could back-to-the-Torah movement be happening at the same time as the
                            > >let's-dump-the-Torah movement..
                            >
                            > If it began with anomian or antinomian elements

                            But I've examined this assumption already and found it lacking.

                            > this isn't such a problem. Some parts of the movement maintain the
                            > original attitude, other parts slip back into nomian Judaism.

                            So you're suggesting now that the "anomian or antinomian elements" split
                            off early, and that the rest of the movement became nomian before 70? But
                            then you have a problem because according to Crossan et al the rest of the
                            movement became _anomian_ before 70 as is witnessed by Mk. Thus,
                            persistence in dating Mk early creates serious problems for a critical
                            scholar. In actual fact, a lot of Mk seems late.

                            Thus, your objection had already been answered. The incongruity is still
                            there.

                            > I'm sorry that I haven't got time to address all of your points,
                            > except to mention that Thomas does have an apocalyptic *protology* .

                            So this supports my point of view?

                            > What makes your posts so difficult, Yuri, is that you argue so broadly
                            > using phrases like "It's my opinion that", "in my view", etc. and so
                            > you end up not arguing but just asserting. You very rarely ground
                            > anything in a specificic piece of text or a critical observation, so
                            > your theories are seldom taken seriously, especially since you are
                            > working uphill with most of them.

                            But I think my theories are seldom taken seriously because, in order to
                            take them seriously, great many scholars would have to stop taking so much
                            of their own previous work seriously...

                            Yours,

                            Yuri.

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

                            Open biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - loisy-l

                            To subscribe to loisy-l, send blank email to loisy-subscribe@...

                            I doubt, therefore I might be.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.