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

RE: [gthomas] What's Early, What's Late

Expand Messages
  • Richard Anderson
    how about a good website on Philo http://www.hivolda.no/asf/kkf/philopag.html Richard H. Anderson Where does one go for a good synopsis of Philo?
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 22, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      how about a good website on Philo
      http://www.hivolda.no/asf/kkf/philopag.html
      Richard H. Anderson

      Where does one go for a good
      synopsis of Philo?
    • Rick Hubbard
      ... From: Andrew Smith To: gthomas@egroups.com Date: Thursday, November 02, 2000 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [gthomas]
      Message 2 of 7 , Nov 2, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Andrew Smith <asmith@...>
        To: gthomas@egroups.com <gthomas@egroups.com>
        Date: Thursday, November 02, 2000 10:07 PM
        Subject: Re: [gthomas] What's Early, What's Late



        Andrew wrote:

        >Well, it was basically a bright idea that I hoped someone would take up.
        The
        >essence of it is: why should we assume that the the
        >non-synoptically-paralleled and non-Yeshuine material is late? If we can't
        >find any reasons to late-date it then why shouldn't we think that it
        >precedes the "Jesus" material? The parallels in Philo and Wisdom literature
        >fit with that. I don't really know where to go from here. What do I need to
        >show?


        You raise an interesting point with this question, "why should we assume
        that the the
        >non-synoptically-paralleled and non-Yeshuine material is late?"

        There does seem to be a tendency among some people to assume that what is
        not "authentic Jesus" material must be later than than the material that
        *is* "authentic Jesus" material. The proper question that should be posed,
        in my opinion, is what elements of the text may be linked to the core Jesus
        traditions? Conversely, what material is independent of the Jesus traditions
        *and* should that material be attributed to the individual creativity of the
        author *or* is there evidence that the author was influenced by other
        sources?

        The point of departure, if one is to pursue this line of investigation,
        should be to first to identify those portions of GThom which seem to have no
        external "parallels." That by itself is an interesting exercise because what
        you will find is that where evidently independent material is present in
        GThom, it exists in rather large blocks of material. In other words, when
        there is one logion that exhibits independent characteristics, almosst
        always there are several other logia before and after it that are also
        independent.

        You can make of that what you will, but if you wish to know "what to do
        next," it might be worthwhile to examine that seemingly idependent material
        very closely. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to look elsewhere in the Nag
        Hammadi corpus for evidence of influence. Philo of course would also be a
        good place to look.

        I'd be interested in seeing what conclusions you can reach.

        Rick Hubbard
        Humble Maine Woodsman
        >
        >Andrew
        >
        >
        >> At 11:02 AM 09/27/2000 -0700, you wrote:
        >>> I'm reading Meier's A Marginal Jew Vol. 1 at the moment. He has a
        chapter
        >>> there which infamously dismisses all of the agrapha and apocryphal
        gospels
        >>> as being useless in the quest for the historical Jesus. We discussed
        some of
        >>> his arguments earlier this year. He argues individually for each
        significant
        >>> case, but basically it comes down to this: if a non-canonical source has
        a
        >>> parallel to the synoptics then it doesn't tell us anything about HJ that
        we
        >>> don't know already; if a saying is unparalleled then it probably doesn't
        >>> come from HJ.
        >>> Anyway, I found his synoptic bias irritating and this got me on to
        thinking
        >>> of what is early and what is late in GoT. We spend a lot of time
        discussing
        >>> the synoptically paralleled core of material in GoT and judge this
        early.
        >>> The more unusual material becomes late, even from the second century in
        >>> some opinions. Yet if a saying originally came from Jesus this doesn't
        >>> necessarily make it earlier than a saying from another source;
        >>> alternatively, the synoptic sayings may be earlier, but not very much
        >>> earlier.
        >>>
        >>> So, what if we reverse this? Then the unparalleled material precedes the
        >>> Jesus material. What sort of picture would that give us? Well, some of
        the
        >>> strangest logia are the Five Trees, and the Image and Light sayings.
        Where
        >>> could these have come from? We find these ideas coming up in Philo, a
        >>> contemporary of Jesus. Philo was also popular with some of the church
        >>> fathers such as Origen, but GoT shows no sign of quoting directly from
        >>> Philo--merely some of the ideas are similar. I don't see any reason to
        >>> assume that all of Philo's ideas originated with him, and they may well
        have
        >>> been discussed or even have originated in Jewish Hellenistic circles who
        >>> were interested in Wisdom ideas.
        >>>
        >>> So, what sort of community might fit this picture? A group of
        Hellenistic
        >>> Jews who discuss Philonic ideas, perhaps working in the wisdom
        tradition.
        >>> Then an itinerant Christian comes around and converts them. They acquire
        >>> Jesus sayings but of course don't completely abandon their previous
        >>> interests, and the Jewish Christianity is grafted onto the Jewish Wisdom
        >>> tradition. At some point they write down what they can remember and the
        >>> Philonic/Wisdom sayings are put into the mouth of Jesus.
        >>>
        >>> This helped me to understand what Steve Davies was getting at with his
        >>> argument that the Odes of Solomon was originally pre-Christian.
        >>> Unfortunately he didn't really take time to argue this thoroughly, but
        he
        >>> was more interested in the historical implications of it, so it was
        >>> difficult to take it seriously.
        >>>
        >>> Whaddaya think?
        >>>
        >>> Best Wishes
        >>>
        >>> Andrew Smith
        >>>
        >>> -------------------------------------------------
        >>> To post to gthomas, send email to gthomas@egroups.com
        >>> To unsubscribe, send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
        >>
        >> Steve Allison
        >> Knoxville, TN
        >>
        >>
        >> -------------------------------------------------
        >> 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
        >
      • Andrew Smith
        ... Well, it was basically a bright idea that I hoped someone would take up. The essence of it is: why should we assume that the the
        Message 3 of 7 , Nov 2, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          on 10/22/00 5:58 PM, Steve Allison at dermarc@... wrote:

          > Its unfortunate that there's been no activity lately. I would like to see
          > comment on Andrew's suggestion below. Was there any other Jewish group or
          > source with a philosophy like Philo's? Where does one go for a good
          > synopsis of Philo?
          >

          Well, it was basically a bright idea that I hoped someone would take up. The
          essence of it is: why should we assume that the the
          non-synoptically-paralleled and non-Yeshuine material is late? If we can't
          find any reasons to late-date it then why shouldn't we think that it
          precedes the "Jesus" material? The parallels in Philo and Wisdom literature
          fit with that. I don't really know where to go from here. What do I need to
          show?

          Andrew


          > At 11:02 AM 09/27/2000 -0700, you wrote:
          >> I'm reading Meier's A Marginal Jew Vol. 1 at the moment. He has a chapter
          >> there which infamously dismisses all of the agrapha and apocryphal gospels
          >> as being useless in the quest for the historical Jesus. We discussed some of
          >> his arguments earlier this year. He argues individually for each significant
          >> case, but basically it comes down to this: if a non-canonical source has a
          >> parallel to the synoptics then it doesn't tell us anything about HJ that we
          >> don't know already; if a saying is unparalleled then it probably doesn't
          >> come from HJ.
          >> Anyway, I found his synoptic bias irritating and this got me on to thinking
          >> of what is early and what is late in GoT. We spend a lot of time discussing
          >> the synoptically paralleled core of material in GoT and judge this early.
          >> The more unusual material becomes late, even from the second century in
          >> some opinions. Yet if a saying originally came from Jesus this doesn't
          >> necessarily make it earlier than a saying from another source;
          >> alternatively, the synoptic sayings may be earlier, but not very much
          >> earlier.
          >>
          >> So, what if we reverse this? Then the unparalleled material precedes the
          >> Jesus material. What sort of picture would that give us? Well, some of the
          >> strangest logia are the Five Trees, and the Image and Light sayings. Where
          >> could these have come from? We find these ideas coming up in Philo, a
          >> contemporary of Jesus. Philo was also popular with some of the church
          >> fathers such as Origen, but GoT shows no sign of quoting directly from
          >> Philo--merely some of the ideas are similar. I don't see any reason to
          >> assume that all of Philo's ideas originated with him, and they may well have
          >> been discussed or even have originated in Jewish Hellenistic circles who
          >> were interested in Wisdom ideas.
          >>
          >> So, what sort of community might fit this picture? A group of Hellenistic
          >> Jews who discuss Philonic ideas, perhaps working in the wisdom tradition.
          >> Then an itinerant Christian comes around and converts them. They acquire
          >> Jesus sayings but of course don't completely abandon their previous
          >> interests, and the Jewish Christianity is grafted onto the Jewish Wisdom
          >> tradition. At some point they write down what they can remember and the
          >> Philonic/Wisdom sayings are put into the mouth of Jesus.
          >>
          >> This helped me to understand what Steve Davies was getting at with his
          >> argument that the Odes of Solomon was originally pre-Christian.
          >> Unfortunately he didn't really take time to argue this thoroughly, but he
          >> was more interested in the historical implications of it, so it was
          >> difficult to take it seriously.
          >>
          >> Whaddaya think?
          >>
          >> Best Wishes
          >>
          >> Andrew Smith
          >>
          >> -------------------------------------------------
          >> To post to gthomas, send email to gthomas@egroups.com
          >> To unsubscribe, send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
          >
          > Steve Allison
          > Knoxville, TN
          >
          >
          > -------------------------------------------------
          > To post to gthomas, send email to gthomas@egroups.com
          > To unsubscribe, send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.