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

Re: [gthomas] Dating GThom

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Smith
    ... The archives are at http://www.egroups.com/messages/crosstalk Andrew Smith
    Message 1 of 15 , Aug 1 2:10 PM
    • 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 2 of 15 , Aug 1 2:27 PM
      • 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 3 of 15 , Aug 2 7:50 AM
        • 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 4 of 15 , Aug 3 8:18 AM
          • 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 5 of 15 , Aug 3 9:59 AM
            • 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 6 of 15 , Aug 3 11:53 AM
              • 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 7 of 15 , Aug 4 8:56 AM
                • 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 8 of 15 , Aug 4 9:37 AM
                  • 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 9 of 15 , Aug 4 10:48 AM
                    • 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 10 of 15 , Aug 5 2:34 AM
                      • 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 11 of 15 , Aug 6 12:40 PM
                        • 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.