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

Re: [gthomas] pushing the list limits

Expand Messages
  • Tom Ragland
    See ** below-- On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 08:03:14 -0400, gthomas@egroups.com wrote: ... writings ... the ... not ... but ... material ... AD. Your conclusion about
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 31, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      See ** below--

      On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 08:03:14 -0400, gthomas@egroups.com wrote:

      Tom Ragland wrote:
      > Tom Ragland:
      > With DSS and NH dating up to perpetual debates, I researched the
      > of every book I could get my hands on, performed a personal analysis of
      > interrelationships of documents via themes, keywords, and scope. I'm
      > saying that Thomas as we now know it was published in hardback in 33 AD,
      > that I pisis (admittedly) that it represents an authentic core of
      > that goes back to an historical person named Jesus who last taught in 33

      Your conclusion about GThom seems to cohere with that of the Jesus
      Seminar. I would be curious, however, to know the "route" which you used
      to arrive at your assessment. Precisely how does GThom's "themes,
      keywords and scope" illuminate your conclusion?

      ** Tom ** It was interesting to read the findings of the Jesus Seminar and
      discover that they had come to some of the same conclusions I had reached in
      solitary study. I have been influenced on several books on redaction
      criticism of gospel content. What intrigues me about Thomas is the many
      parallels in the Matthew and Luke Material which scholars have called "Q"
      for over a century now. It is also my discovery that the fully synoptic
      (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) texts centering around the passion play seem to be
      of a school of thought alien to the teaching collection of "Q". Then there
      is the material only found in Matthew, which could be dismissed except for
      the fascinating fact that this material is also pre-echoed in Thomas.

      > Tom Ragland:
      > ................ You may also note that I date gnostic texts to even 50
      > which conservative scholars place at 350 AD, but I am not alone in this
      > I do have good scholarly (as yet unpublished) reasons for my chronology
      > the first couple of centuries AD.

      Without "letting the cat out of the bag" before publication of your
      hypotheses about "gnostic texts", perhaps you could provide some
      additional detail regarding which particular texts you date to 50 BCE
      and the evidence which you cite in support of that dating?

      ** Tom ** Actually, dating Eugnostos to 50 BC is from the introduction in
      the common edition of NHL. Their argument was that the three major
      philosophical systems mentioned would not make sense after that dating.
      Then if you group the documents that have no Christian references at their
      core, they fit in well in the timeframe of the diversity of thought in the
      first century BC. Then starting with those texts that are penciled in as
      early, the themes (key words and phrasings) were noted for each text and
      those with unique common terms were assigned schools of thought. Then, for
      example with the Eugnostos rewrite as the Sophia of Jesus Christ, the themes
      were found to gel with the themes attributed to Simon. That together with
      the supposition that one could not publish a "gospel" of Jesus that was this
      extremely "Gnostic" after the time when the more catholic versions of the
      gospel stories were commonplace. With Philip, even though the final version
      is of a late date, I argue for the core of the material to be first century
      AD because of the simplicity of themes.

      The dating of the DSS material rests on the school that has the main
      characters belonging to the first century BC, which jives with the dating of
      other Jewish materials such as Enoch, Adam and Eve, Twelve Patriarchs, and
      the known tensions between Jewish factions in the post-Maccabean era in the
      first century BC. The DSS texts that contain Christian sounding themes have
      been pushed to the time of Jesus. If later, then they would be more
      blatently Christian. All of the pieces of the puzzle fit well within my
      paradigm, but I am always open to ideas. I balk at the idea that some of
      the DSS are describing tensions between Paul and James. It seems like too
      much wishful thinking.

      So do you think I'm way radical or do you understand why I have come up with
      the conclusions that I have reached? If only I could be beamed back to
      Alexandria a couple of thousand years ago!

      Tom Ragland --> tomragland@...

      Say Bye to Slow Internet!
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.