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

Re: Kuchinsky's GThom dating argument

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    ... I don t think I agree with this, Rick. In my view, the most logical picture of the earliest Jewish-Christian catechesis would have been as follows. Jesus
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 2, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Rick Hubbard wrote:

      > On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Rick Hubbard wrote:
      >
      > "The as-yet-unresolved problem of how to devise a defensible dating
      > 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."
      >
      > To which Y. Kuchinsky replied:
      >
      > "Well, I beg to disagree, Rick."
      >
      > The absence of specifically stated reasons for disagreement, makes it
      > is difficult to rebut this statement. Disagreement is a normal part of
      > discourse, but it should be noted that it is both conventional and
      > courteous to explain *why* one disagrees with another (even on this
      > list).
      >
      > With that in mind, I can do nothing more than review the evidence upon
      > which I based the conclusion that adopting Loisy's hypotheses about
      > the origin and development of the intracanonical gospels contributes
      > nothing to the dating of GThom.
      >
      > First, Loisy's central thesis is that the intracanonical gospels
      > functioned as didactic instruments during the formative years of
      > Christianity. They were, in other words, catechisms or manuals of
      > instruction for Christian initiates (Birth, 43).
      >
      > Second, Loisy asserts that the catechesis of the gospels originated
      > before the gospels themselves, i.e., in the teaching of the primitive
      > church (Origins, 41).
      >
      > Third, Loisy unequivocally states that the earliest forms of the
      > catechesis contained no reference to "the career and ministry of
      > Jesus" and that "considerable time lapsed before it [the catechesis]
      > included any record of the personal action and teaching of Jesus"
      > (Origins, 43).

      I don't think I agree with this, Rick. In my view, the most logical
      picture of the earliest Jewish-Christian catechesis would have been as
      follows.

      "Jesus was a remarkable man, very wise and righteous. He was the son of
      God, and he healed the sick, and performed many miracles. But the cruel
      and unjust authorities of our country arrested and killed him, just as
      they killed his teacher John before that. But then God his Father accepted
      Jesus into his bosom, and, as a reward for his righteousness, made his the
      Messiah of Israel. Jesus is alive, and he will come back soon in glory to
      judge the actions of all, and to usher in a New Age of God. Believe in
      Jesus, or you will never have life everlasting."

      All this is fully compatible with Judaism. But the Crucified Messiah of Mk
      is clearly a distortion of Judaism.

      I cannot check out your purported quotes from Loisy above, because it
      seems I have a different edition of this book. But somehow I don't think
      you've represented his views on this accurately. It is rather
      inconceivable to me that the earliest catechesis contained no references
      whatsoever to "the career and ministry of Jesus". Some such references
      must have been contained there.

      > Fourth, that which characterizes the catecheses imbedded in the
      > gospels are the themes of baptism and eucharist, the former of which
      > forms the cycle of preaching and deeds of Jesus and the latter of
      > which forms the framework for the passion narrative (Birth, 43).

      I'm now looking at page 43 in BIRTH (Allen and Unwin edition, 1948), but I
      don't think this is what is said there.

      Loisy does talk about "the baptismal catechism and the eucharistic". But I
      don't see your "the former of which forms the cycle of preaching and deeds
      of Jesus and the latter of which forms the framework for the passion
      narrative."

      According to Loisy, the earliest narrative was the passion narrative, and
      it was used in a liturgical setting.

      > Therefore, based on Loisy's premises, as summarized above, one should
      > expect that the oldest strata of Christian literature would be replete
      > with baptismal and eucharistic themes.

      Maybe so.

      > If one applies those criteria to the content of GThom, then one must
      > conclude that this document is quite late, since there is very little
      > in its text that can be indisputably understood as either baptismal or
      > eucharistic in character.

      Your "quite late" above can be variously interpreted. If we assume that
      the earliest Christian narrative was the passion narrative, then it may
      have emerged well before 70. The sayings traditions may have been
      formulated after the passion narrative, but they still can date also from
      before 70.

      > The alternative to that conclusion, is of course that Loisy's
      > assessment of the way the tradition developed is simply *wrong.* Since
      > Loisy's approach stands in diametric opposition to the dominant
      > contemporary arguments that the earliest strata of material in the
      > gospels are indeed pre-Easter

      But Loisy does not need to stand in opposition to that.

      > (i.e., a few authentic words of Jesus and memories about his deeds),

      Peter was there, so his memories of Jesus were certainly important for
      later Jewish-Christians post-Easter. I don't see why Loisy would stand in
      opposition to such a reasonable guess?

      > then the more defensible conclusion would be that Loisy is completely
      > "off the mark" (or more bluntly, he *is* wrong) and that a defensible
      > dating theory for the Gospel of Thomas moves no closer to denouement
      > by simply adopting his hypotheses about the origin and development of
      > the intracanonical gospels."

      Loisy proposed the view that the earliest gospels were
      Jewish-Christian. In other words, there was an early Jewish-Christian
      period of (proto) gospel production, before the Gentiles got on the
      act. But later, the newly dominant Gentiles re-edited and expanded these
      earlier proto-gospels to reflect their own biases, such as an anti-Judaic
      bias.

      Since GOT shows substantial signs of still being a Jewish-Christian
      gospel, on Loisy's theory it would probably date to the time prior to the
      canonical versions, which bear clear signs of the later Gentile take-over
      of the Christian movement. But GOT does not bear such clear signs of
      Gentile dominance.

      Regards,

      Yuri.

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

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

      "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
    • Andrew Smith
      ... It s compatible with Judaism because you made it up! ;- But if we accept this as a reconstruction of some sort, which parts of the Gospel of Thomas are in
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 3, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        on 8/2/00 10:35 AM, Yuri Kuchinsky at yuku@... wrote:

        > In my view, the most logical
        > picture of the earliest Jewish-Christian catechesis would have been as
        > follows.
        >
        > "Jesus was a remarkable man, very wise and righteous. He was the son of
        > God, and he healed the sick, and performed many miracles. But the cruel
        > and unjust authorities of our country arrested and killed him, just as
        > they killed his teacher John before that. But then God his Father accepted
        > Jesus into his bosom, and, as a reward for his righteousness, made his the
        > Messiah of Israel. Jesus is alive, and he will come back soon in glory to
        > judge the actions of all, and to usher in a New Age of God. Believe in
        > Jesus, or you will never have life everlasting."
        >
        > All this is fully compatible with Judaism. But the Crucified Messiah of Mk
        > is clearly a distortion of Judaism.

        It's compatible with Judaism because you made it up! ;->

        But if we accept this as a reconstruction of some sort, which parts of the
        Gospel of Thomas are in line with this, since you are saying that the
        "Jewish" parts of the GoT are early? "Jesus is alive" is more or less
        Thomasine, but what else in your catechesis is compatible with GoT? Or, from
        another point of view, which are the parts of GoT that you think are Jewish
        and early?

        Best Wishes

        Andrew
      • Jim Bauer
        There s a book out that may prove helpful for this debate, Charles Foxworth s _Jesus within Judaism_. I didn t get a chance to read the whole thing so I can t
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 3, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          There's a book out that may prove helpful for this debate, Charles
          Foxworth's _Jesus within Judaism_. I didn't get a chance to read the whole
          thing so I can't synopsize here but think it worthy of at least drawing it
          to the attention of the list members.

          Jim Bauer
          -----Original Message-----
          From: Andrew Smith <asmith@...>
          To: gthomas@egroups.com <gthomas@egroups.com>
          Date: Thursday, August 03, 2000 4:41 PM
          Subject: Re: [gthomas] Re: Kuchinsky's GThom dating argument


          >on 8/2/00 10:35 AM, Yuri Kuchinsky at yuku@... wrote:
          >
          >> In my view, the most logical
          >> picture of the earliest Jewish-Christian catechesis would have been as
          >> follows.
          >>
          >> "Jesus was a remarkable man, very wise and righteous. He was the son of
          >> God, and he healed the sick, and performed many miracles. But the cruel
          >> and unjust authorities of our country arrested and killed him, just as
          >> they killed his teacher John before that. But then God his Father
          accepted
          >> Jesus into his bosom, and, as a reward for his righteousness, made his
          the
          >> Messiah of Israel. Jesus is alive, and he will come back soon in glory to
          >> judge the actions of all, and to usher in a New Age of God. Believe in
          >> Jesus, or you will never have life everlasting."
          >>
          >> All this is fully compatible with Judaism. But the Crucified Messiah of
          Mk
          >> is clearly a distortion of Judaism.
          >
          >It's compatible with Judaism because you made it up! ;->
          >
          >But if we accept this as a reconstruction of some sort, which parts of the
          >Gospel of Thomas are in line with this, since you are saying that the
          >"Jewish" parts of the GoT are early? "Jesus is alive" is more or less
          >Thomasine, but what else in your catechesis is compatible with GoT? Or,
          from
          >another point of view, which are the parts of GoT that you think are Jewish
          >and early?
          >
          >Best Wishes
          >
          >Andrew
          >
          >
          >-------------------------------------------------
          >To post to gthomas, send email to gthomas@egroups.com
          >To unsubscribe, send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
        • Rick Hubbard
          On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Rick Hubbard wrote: The as-yet-unresolved problem of how to devise a defensible dating theory for the Gospel of Thomas moves no closer to
          Message 4 of 10 , Aug 4, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Rick Hubbard wrote:

            "The as-yet-unresolved problem of how to devise a defensible dating
            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."

            To which Y. Kuchinsky replied:

            "Well, I beg to disagree, Rick."

            Rick Hubbard Responded:

            The absence of specifically stated reasons for disagreement, makes it is
            difficult to rebut this statement. Disagreement is a normal part of
            discourse, but it should be noted that it is both conventional and
            courteous to explain *why* one disagrees with another (even on this
            list).

            With that in mind, I can do nothing more than review the evidence upon
            which I based the conclusion that adopting Loisy's hypotheses about the
            origin and development of the intracanonical gospels contributes nothing
            to the dating of GThom.


            My apologies for not including the proper references to Loisy's work in
            my previous post. In order to rectify that oversight, I have included
            them below.

            (Birth) Loisy, Alfred F. _The Birth of the Christian Religion_. Tr L.P.
            Jacks. New York: Macmillan, 1950.

            (Origins) Loisy, Alfred F. _The Origins of the New Testament_. Tr L.P.
            Jacks. New York: MacMillan, 1950.

            In addition, I have also provided more extensive quotations from each
            work previously cited in order to illuminate more clearly what Loisy
            actually said. Hopefully, this will neutralize Kuchinsky's thinly veiled
            accusation that I falsified my citations or otherwise mis-represented
            what Loisy has written, ("...somehow I don't think you've represented
            his views on this accurately," and "I cannot check out your **purported
            quotes** [my emphasis]....").


            Rick Hubbard wrote on July 24, 2000:

            "First, Loisy's central thesis is that the intracanonical gospels
            functioned as didactic instruments during the formative years of
            Christianity. They were, in other words, catechisms or manuals of
            instruction for Christian initiates (Birth, 43)."

            To expand on this comment, Loisy's precise words on page 43 are as
            follows:

            "The Gospels when closely examined are far less the echoes of a
            tradition zealous to keep intact the memories of Jesus than a didactic
            instrument, we might even say a catechism of the worship rendered to the
            Lord Christ.... Two cycles are, or centres, are discernable, the cycle
            of the preaching in Galilee and the cycle of the passion in Jerusalem;
            the instruction of catechumens and the revelation of a mystery; the
            bapstismal catechism and the eucharistic [catechism]."

            Rick Hubbard also wrote on July 24, 2000:

            "Second, Loisy asserts that the catechesis of the gospels originated
            before the gospels themselves, i.e., in the teaching of the primitive
            church (Origins, 41)."

            Again, to amplify this citation, Loisy's words on page 41 read:

            "This profession of faith was all gathered up as it were in one word,
            'Maranatha'- '"the Lord comes,"' is on the point of coming (cf. I
            Corinthians xvi, 22). From First Corinthians (i,12-15) it results quite
            clearly that the above profession of faith in Romans [Rom 10:9-10], *in
            which the earliest catechetical teaching was summarized* [my emphasis],
            was the profession of catechumens at baptism..."

            Rick Hubbard wrote on July 24, 2000:

            "Third, Loisy unequivocally states that the earliest forms of the
            catechesis contained no reference to "the career and ministry of Jesus"
            and that "considerable time lapsed before it [the catechesis] included
            any record of the personal action and teaching of Jesus" (Origins, 43)."

            Loisy's exact words on page 43 read:

            "There is therefore no difficulty in obtaining a clear idea of of
            Christian catechetical teaching in its primitive form. *The career and
            ministry of Jesus had no place in it;* [my emphasis] .... While the
            first form of the catechesis is thus clearly defined, documentary
            evidence is defective as to the detail of the of its evolution to the
            form which followed. *It seems, however, that a considerable course of
            time elapsed before it included any record of the personal action and
            teaching of Jesus..."

            Finally on July 24, 2000 Rick Hubbard wrote:

            Fourth, that which characterizes the catecheses imbedded in the
            gospels are the themes of baptism and eucharist, the former of which
            forms the cycle of preaching and deeds of Jesus and the latter of which
            forms the framework for the passion narrative (Birth, 43).

            To which Y. Kuchinsky replied on August 2, 2000:

            "I'm now looking at page 43 in BIRTH (Allen and Unwin edition, 1948),
            but I don't think this is what is said there."

            It should be noted that the Allen and Unwin 1948 edition to which
            Kuchinsky refers is not the same as the one from which I quote, so there
            is a possibility that the pagination is different. In any case, however,
            the edition which I cite contains these exact words of Loisy on page 43
            (also cited above in support of my first point):

            "The Gospels when closely examined are far less the echoes of a
            tradition zealous to keep intact the memories of Jesus than a didactic
            instrument, we might even say a catechism of the worship rendered to the
            Lord Christ.... Two cycles are, or centres, are discernable, the cycle
            of the preaching in Galilee and the cycle of the passion in
            Jerusalem;.."

            Hopefully this clarifies precisely what Loisy *did* write and that I am
            thereby absolved from being guilty of fabricating citations or
            misrepresenting what that author wrote.

            It seems likely that Kuchinsky and I will remain in disagreement about
            whether Loisy can make a substantial contribution to determining the
            date of composition of GThom. On the one hand, I am unpersuaded by
            Kuchinsky's undocumented opinions while he remains unconvinced that I
            have accurately represented what Loisy wrote (as well as, apparently, my
            own integrity).

            It seems therefore that this discussion should be concluded simply by
            repeating, once again, my original assertion from July 24, 2000:

            "The as-yet-unresolved problem of how to devise a defensible dating
            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."

            Rick Hubbard
            Humble Maine Woodsman
          • Yuri Kuchinsky
            ... No way, Andrew! In fact, this was my rock-solid and completely objective reconstruction of what I ve found in the earliest texts! :) ... Of the most
            Message 5 of 10 , Aug 4, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Andrew Smith wrote:
              > on 8/2/00 10:35 AM, Yuri Kuchinsky at yuku@... wrote:
              >
              > > In my view, the most logical
              > > picture of the earliest Jewish-Christian catechesis would have been as
              > > follows.
              > >
              > > "Jesus was a remarkable man, very wise and righteous. He was the son of
              > > God, and he healed the sick, and performed many miracles. But the cruel
              > > and unjust authorities of our country arrested and killed him, just as
              > > they killed his teacher John before that. But then God his Father accepted
              > > Jesus into his bosom, and, as a reward for his righteousness, made his the
              > > Messiah of Israel. Jesus is alive, and he will come back soon in glory to
              > > judge the actions of all, and to usher in a New Age of God. Believe in
              > > Jesus, or you will never have life everlasting."
              > >
              > > All this is fully compatible with Judaism. But the Crucified Messiah of Mk
              > > is clearly a distortion of Judaism.
              >
              > It's compatible with Judaism because you made it up! ;->

              No way, Andrew!

              In fact, this was my rock-solid and completely objective reconstruction of
              what I've found in the earliest texts! :)

              > But if we accept this as a reconstruction of some sort,

              Of the most reasonable sort...

              > which parts of the Gospel of Thomas are in line with this, since you
              > are saying that the "Jewish" parts of the GoT are early?

              I'm saying that GOT as a whole is a Jewish-Christian document.

              > "Jesus is alive" is more or less Thomasine, but what else in your
              > catechesis is compatible with GoT?

              I'm saying that the earliest catechesis did not involve any document such
              as GOT. So this came later, but still earlier than all the Gentile stuff
              that went into the Synoptics.

              > Or, from another point of view, which are the parts of GoT that you
              > think are Jewish and early?

              Take a look e.g. at saying #27 which talks about fasting and keeping the
              Sabbath favourably.

              BTW I said nothing about stratification of GOT so far. Sure, such a
              stratification would be a legitimate and useful exercise, and a number of
              attempts have been made already. In my view, these sayings that look most
              like "gnostic" would probably be a late stratum.

              But this is a different subject from what we've been discussing so far. My
              main point so far is that we should look at GOT _as a whole_, and see it
              as basically a Jewish-Christian document that, unlike the canonicals,
              lacks any obvious late Gentile editorial intrusions. For example, the
              original disciples are not bad-mouthed continously like they are in the
              canonicals. Thus, redactionally, as a whole, GOT should be dated previous
              to all three Synoptics.

              Also, in regard to what Jim Bauer said, the book that he meant was
              probably James H. Charlesworth, "Jesus within Judaism". There are quite a
              few webpages mentioning it, and providing quotes.

              Regards,

              Yuri.

              Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto

              But scientists, who ought to know
              Assure us that it must be so.
              Oh, let us never, never doubt
              What nobody is sure about.
              -- Hilaire Belloc
            • Andrew Smith
              ... Here s your catechesis again. I ve divided it into sections. 1. Jesus was a remarkable man, very wise and righteous. 2.He was the son of God, 3. and he
              Message 6 of 10 , Aug 4, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                on 8/4/00 10:05 AM, Yuri Kuchinsky at yuku@... wrote:

                >> "Jesus is alive" is more or less Thomasine, but what else in your
                >> catechesis is compatible with GoT?
                >
                > I'm saying that the earliest catechesis did not involve any document such
                > as GOT. So this came later, but still earlier than all the Gentile stuff
                > that went into the Synoptics.

                Here's your catechesis again. I've divided it into sections.

                "

                1. Jesus was a remarkable man, very wise and righteous.

                2.He was the son of God,

                3. and he healed the sick, and performed many miracles.

                4. But the cruel and unjust authorities of our country arrested and killed
                him, just as they killed his teacher John before that.

                5. But then God his Father accepted Jesus into his bosom, and, as a reward
                for his righteousness, made his the Messiah of Israel.

                6. Jesus is alive, and he will come back soon in glory to
                judge the actions of all, and to usher in a New Age of God.

                7.Believe in Jesus, or you will never have life everlasting."

                If this is typical of early Christianity, as you propose, surely GThomas is
                very different to this. Which Thomas sayings or motifs are in line with the
                various points of your catechesis? You could just insert the numbers of the
                logia next to the parts of your catechesis, with a couple of comments.
                Otherwise, why is Thomas so different to this?

                Andrew
              • Ronald David McCann
                I am getting lost here. I have read your debates since last october and frankly they usually blow me away. I have loved Joe s injections into the fray because
                Message 7 of 10 , Aug 5, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  I am getting lost here. I have read your debates since last october and
                  frankly they usually blow me away. I have loved Joe's injections into the
                  fray because they inject some "horse sense":

                  But I just don't understand this last exchange. How can anybody
                  debate if
                  Jesus was Jewish? Is everything up for debate in moderm scholarship?

                  There are "lurkers" who watch your exchanges with great interest. Youu
                  guys are always "On stage". Remember that. And Remember we are not as
                  bright as you are. But we are still interested

                  Ron
                  On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Andrew Smith wrote:

                  > on 8/2/00 10:35 AM, Yuri Kuchinsky at yuku@... wrote:
                  >
                  > > In my view, the most logical
                  > > picture of the earliest Jewish-Christian catechesis would have been as
                  > > follows.
                  > >
                  > > "Jesus was a remarkable man, very wise and righteous. He was the son of
                  > > God, and he healed the sick, and performed many miracles. But the cruel
                  > > and unjust authorities of our country arrested and killed him, just as
                  > > they killed his teacher John before that. But then God his Father accepted
                  > > Jesus into his bosom, and, as a reward for his righteousness, made his the
                  > > Messiah of Israel. Jesus is alive, and he will come back soon in glory to
                  > > judge the actions of all, and to usher in a New Age of God. Believe in
                  > > Jesus, or you will never have life everlasting."
                  > >
                  > > All this is fully compatible with Judaism. But the Crucified Messiah of Mk
                  > > is clearly a distortion of Judaism.
                  >
                  > It's compatible with Judaism because you made it up! ;->
                  >
                  > But if we accept this as a reconstruction of some sort, which parts of the
                  > Gospel of Thomas are in line with this, since you are saying that the
                  > "Jewish" parts of the GoT are early? "Jesus is alive" is more or less
                  > Thomasine, but what else in your catechesis is compatible with GoT? Or, from
                  > another point of view, which are the parts of GoT that you think are Jewish
                  > and early?
                  >
                  > Best Wishes
                  >
                  > Andrew
                  >
                  >
                  > -------------------------------------------------
                  > To post to gthomas, send email to gthomas@egroups.com
                  > To unsubscribe, send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                  >
                • Rick Hubbard
                  ... Your post raises some some interesting points which deserve response. First, while it does seem that everything is up for debate in contemporary
                  Message 8 of 10 , Aug 7, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ronald David McCann wrote:
                    >
                    > I am getting lost here. I have read your debates since last october and
                    > frankly they usually blow me away. I have loved Joe's injections into the
                    > fray because they inject some "horse sense":
                    >
                    > But I just don't understand this last exchange. How can anybody
                    > debate if
                    > Jesus was Jewish? Is everything up for debate in moderm scholarship?

                    Your post raises some some interesting points which deserve response.

                    First, while it does seem that everything is "up for debate" in
                    contemporary scholarship, some things are not *seriously* debatable
                    because either those things have been unanimously accepted as "the most
                    assured results of scholarship" or because there is insufficient
                    empirical evidence about which legitimate debate can revolve (in other
                    words, there are simply some things we would like to know about, but
                    which we cannot because there is no evidence on which to base defensible
                    conclusions).

                    Second, it is often difficult for non specialists to identify (on this
                    list) those topics which are *seriously debateable* because a good deal
                    of the discussion on this list occurs between folks who are not
                    themselves specialists, but who are under-informed about the topic over
                    which they argue. Those folks seem to fall naturally into two groups:
                    those are are aware that they do not know everything about the subject
                    which they discuss, and at the opposite end of the spectrum, those who
                    imagine that they do. Within that latter group, is a subset of people
                    who not only imagine that they are sufficiently informed to be able to
                    argue cogently, but who also insist that their insight is so keen that
                    their very assertions are to be accepted without question. The challenge
                    for those who are content to "listen in" on the list, is to determine
                    who is credible and who is not.

                    With respect to the "Jewishness of Jesus," that seems to be one of those
                    topics about which there is a good deal of certainty in mainstream
                    scholarship. But that relative certainty does not preclude debate on the
                    issue. On one hand some dispute his "Jewishness" because to accept that
                    conclusion would somehow interfere with their own assumptions or
                    eccentric indulgences. Others, as I suggested, debate the issue simply
                    because they are uninformed about the strength of the evidence which
                    suggest that he *was* Jewish.

                    Your observation that "you are all on-stage" is sobering. Sometimes we
                    forget (or at least I forget) that the number of people who participate
                    in discussions on this list represent only a fraction of the total
                    subscribers. For that reason alone, those who post here would be well
                    advised to put forward their best, and to refrain from the sort of
                    misbehavior that reflects badly on everyone else. Argument by assertion,
                    for example, is an anathema. Usually (depending of course on the person
                    involved and the circumstance), such representations automatically
                    disqualify their own credibility and cast upon the one who made the
                    assertion a cloud of suspicion about the veracity of all else the person
                    says elsewhere.

                    In any case, hang in there and always feel free to ask for
                    clarifications!

                    Rick Hubbard
                    Humble Maine Woodsman




                    >
                    > There are "lurkers" who watch your exchanges with great interest. Youu
                    > guys are always "On stage". Remember that. And Remember we are not as
                    > bright as you are. But we are still interested
                    >
                    > Ron
                    > On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Andrew Smith wrote:
                    >
                    > > on 8/2/00 10:35 AM, Yuri Kuchinsky at yuku@... wrote:
                    > >
                    > > > In my view, the most logical
                    > > > picture of the earliest Jewish-Christian catechesis would have been as
                    > > > follows.
                    > > >
                    > > > "Jesus was a remarkable man, very wise and righteous. He was the son of
                    > > > God, and he healed the sick, and performed many miracles. But the cruel
                    > > > and unjust authorities of our country arrested and killed him, just as
                    > > > they killed his teacher John before that. But then God his Father accepted
                    > > > Jesus into his bosom, and, as a reward for his righteousness, made his the
                    > > > Messiah of Israel. Jesus is alive, and he will come back soon in glory to
                    > > > judge the actions of all, and to usher in a New Age of God. Believe in
                    > > > Jesus, or you will never have life everlasting."
                    > > >
                    > > > All this is fully compatible with Judaism. But the Crucified Messiah of Mk
                    > > > is clearly a distortion of Judaism.
                    > >
                    > > It's compatible with Judaism because you made it up! ;->
                    > >
                    > > But if we accept this as a reconstruction of some sort, which parts of the
                    > > Gospel of Thomas are in line with this, since you are saying that the
                    > > "Jewish" parts of the GoT are early? "Jesus is alive" is more or less
                    > > Thomasine, but what else in your catechesis is compatible with GoT? Or, from
                    > > another point of view, which are the parts of GoT that you think are Jewish
                    > > and early?
                    > >
                    > > Best Wishes
                    > >
                    > > Andrew
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > -------------------------------------------------
                    > > To post to gthomas, send email to gthomas@egroups.com
                    > > To unsubscribe, send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                    > >
                    >
                    > -------------------------------------------------
                    > To post to gthomas, send email to gthomas@egroups.com
                    > To unsubscribe, send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                  • Isidoros
                    ... Not unlike, let us say, of the certainty in mainstream scholarship of the Catholic Middle Ages, say, about the relative movement and the positions of the
                    Message 9 of 10 , Aug 22, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      To "lost" Donald David McCann's:

                      > > I am getting lost here [...] I just don't understand this last exchange.
                      > > How can anybody debate if Jesus was Jewish?
                      > > Is everything up for debate in moderm scholarship?

                      offered Rick Hubbard, on 7 Aug 2000:

                      >With respect to the "Jewishness of Jesus," that seems to be one of those
                      >topics about which there is a good deal of certainty in mainstream
                      >scholarship.

                      Not unlike, let us say, of the "certainty in mainstream scholarship"
                      of the Catholic Middle Ages, say, about the relative movement and
                      the positions of the Sun and Gaia and of the planets. Ask Galileo Galilei.


                      >But that relative certainty does not preclude debate on the
                      >issue. On one hand some dispute his "Jewishness" because to accept that
                      >conclusion would somehow interfere with their own assumptions or
                      >eccentric indulgences. Others, as I suggested, debate the issue simply
                      >because they are uninformed about the strength of the evidence which
                      >suggest that he *was* Jewish.

                      You don't say! Two possibilities, neatly taking care the all. How
                      wonderfully simple, and all exhaustive are the two solutions,
                      and how easily disposing of the"uninformed" "debaters". So didactic.

                      >In any case, hang in there and always feel free to ask for
                      >clarifications!

                      Isidoros,
                      who apologizes here (too) for the lateness to re-enter the fray-- and,
                      remembers, especially in lieu of the above offered "clarifications",
                      that has indeed asked for a certain "definitions" ("please" he pleaded)
                      before long. Yet, all one continues to read are the same "historical
                      suppositions". This 2000 years o()d debate goes on in part because
                      people will not question the "given".
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.