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

Re: [GTh] Re: Dating

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... schism ... it ... that ... Shymeon bar Halfa (Clopas/Alphaeus) was the son of Jesus (Y shua) and James (Ya akov) uncle, the brother of Joseph. All of
    Message 1 of 28 , Apr 10, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > What seems to be described here is the history of the movement that
      > produced the material found in the Nag Hammadi texts--including,
      > of course, the GTh. This movement apparently arose c. 62 CE out of a
      schism
      > in the Jerusalem Church after the martydom of James the Just and the
      > appointment of Symeon bar Clopas as his successor--with the schism being
      > led by a man named Thebuthis.
      > This explains the veneration of James the Just in GTh. In this case,
      it
      > is because the people who formed the original Thomas community were a part
      > of the Jerusalem Church led by James the James. In this case, the person
      > they couldn't stand was his successor, Symeon bar Clopas and, so, they
      > seceded from the Jerusalem Church and went their own way in a movement
      that
      > was proto-Gnostic to begin with and ended-up becoming fully Gnostic.

      Shymeon bar Halfa (Clopas/Alphaeus) was the son of Jesus' (Y'shua) and
      James' (Ya'akov) uncle, the brother of Joseph. All of the succeeding nasis
      of the
      Jerusalem assembly, after Ya'akov, were either cousins or brothers of Jesus
      and
      James. Are you saying that the qehali did not like Shymeon? Why? Where
      did you get this information?



      > Compared to most of the Nag Hammadi texts, GTh appears rather
      > "primitive". As a result, if it was produced by this movement, I think it
      > would have been in one of its early stages, i.e., sometime before 120 CE..

      The GoT is a much earlier text than the gnostics. More ascetic, it was
      "neutral" to gnostics who incorporated it in their literature with minimal
      gnostic redaction. The GoT may be a product of a textual trajectory
      from the "Logia" or "Q" which dates very early, perhaps even to the
      lifetime of Jesus.



      > In any event, in this case, it was written later than 62 CE. Also,
      outside
      > of possibly GTh 71, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 CE
      > is not mentioned in GTh. I think that, this means, they were becoming
      > distant memories and so, it dates to at least 10 years later, i.e., to c.
      80
      > CE at the earliest. So, if the GTh is one of the texts written by this
      > movement, I think its most likely date is sometime between 80 and 120 CE..
      > Are you or any other list member aware of anything in GTh that can
      help
      > us to pin down a date for its writing?


      The GoT, like "Q," is layered with an earlier core text and later additions.
      That GoT does not mention the destruction of the Temple is more
      likely that it predates the destruction but either way it is not a telling
      point. In my viiew, the only tool one has in the GoT that could add
      to speculation of its date is form and source criticism using the
      earliest layer. I see at least 3 layers of Thomas. T-1 is the
      earliest layer demonstrating more "primitive" forms than synoptic
      parallels as well as Aramaic interference and may well be relic
      sayings from the "logia" written even during the lifetime of Jesus by
      a literate disciple (Matthew?). T-2 may be sayings from oral
      tradition added to Thomas in the 40's and 50's, like #71 to which you
      refer above. T-3 would be dated to the 90's or even 2nd century like #105.

      Jack
    • Ron McCann
      Thanks to Frank McCoy and Jack Kilmon for the interesting exchange on dating Thomas. First, let me say that I wholeheartedly subscribe to Jack s presentation
      Message 2 of 28 , Apr 11, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks to Frank McCoy and Jack Kilmon for the interesting exchange on dating
        Thomas.

        First, let me say that I wholeheartedly subscribe to Jack's presentation of
        Thomas as a layered text with at least three layers and so with about three"
        dates of composition". My own work seems to show that the earliest layer,
        T-1 seems to derive from a still earlier written sayings source which I have
        dubbed the "Matthean Loggia Collection" which was raided by Mark and the Q-1
        authors in composing their Gospels, and which can be reconstructed in the
        manner that Q was, except we have three (Thomas,Mark and Q) sources from
        which to reconstruct it. My best guess is that this was collected by the
        literate apostle Matthew (Levi:- as a tax collector he must have known how
        to write) and it is mentioned by Eusebius as a collection of Jesus-sayings
        by Matthew, written in Hebrew (Aramaic) which "everyone translated as best
        he could". I suspect the Jerusalem Church and James were it's custodians. It
        likely dates to Jesus' lifetime, as does another document to be found
        embedded in Q-1, which I call The Kingdom document, which falls out when
        narrative material and Matthian Logia sayings are blue-penciled out of Q-1.
        It appears to be either and epistle of Jesus, or a speech taken down
        verbatim. The Collection is quite extensive and "puts paid" to a lot of the
        conclusions of the Jesus seminar. I suggest there is going to be a lot of
        scholarly "spinning of wheels" until the scholarly community turns its'
        attention to the reconstruction and examination of these earliest of
        written sources.


        Now as to help with dates, I agree with Frank that Thomas shows elements of
        a schism, but think these elements are material added at a later date to
        original Thomas. Firstly, L 12- James the Just. The sobriquet "the Just" was
        supposedly earned by James's pious practices (Josephus?). Assuming he took
        over the Church in AD 30-32, it still would take time to earn that
        sobriquet- 10 years? L 12 uses the term so we know it dates to a time when
        James has earned the sobriquet. It also seems to contemplate him still being
        alive and in charge. ie. pre 62 CE. Still it may only refer to the
        Provenance of the Thomas Group. But it would not be necessary to include
        such a saying unless there was a schism and there were competing divisions
        within the church where it becomes necessary to identify ones group as
        belonging to one part or another. This saying may well date to the 60's, but
        perhaps even later..

        L 13, as I read it, also speaks to this schism- Simon Peter's Group which
        holds Jesus to be a Righteous Angel ( Messenger of God) ( A Prophet, The
        Messiah???), Matthew's group who hold he was a wise philosopher ( the Jesus
        Seminar position?) and the Thomas Group, to whom he is something Ineffable.
        This too is a late addition. Peter is called Simon Peter, as he is in Logion
        114, and here, as there, he is portrayed as mistaken ( if not dumb). ( A
        slam at the Simon Group). The name Simon Peter does not occur in Mark or
        Paul's writings (where he is always Cephas). It is used only once in Matthew
        and once in Luke and not in Acts (AD 70-80 ?). It comes into prominent use
        for the first time in John's Gospel. ( AD 90-110). L12, 13 and 114 (Making
        Mary male- which seems a protest against the return of male chauvinism in
        the Church) all likely date to this last period., along with # 71 which
        seems to be the Thomas group's response to being labelled "illegitimate
        bastards" by some other group at that time.

        I hope these comments are helpful.

        Best Regards,

        Ron McCann
      • FMMCCOY
        ... From: Jack Kilmon To: Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Dating ... Dear Jack
        Message 3 of 28 , Apr 13, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
          To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 9:54 AM
          Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Dating
          >
          >
          Dear Jack Kilmon

          You ask, "Are you saying that the qehali did not like Shymeon? Why?
          Where did you get this information?"
          Unfortunately, I don't know the meaning of "qehali". In any event, I
          simply infer from Hegesippus' declaration that this group
          seceded after Shymeon became the new leader that
          they must have had some major differences with him.

          You also state, "The GoT, like "Q," is layered with an earlier core
          text and later additions.
          > That GoT does not mention the destruction of the Temple is more
          > likely that it predates the destruction but either way it is not a telling
          > point. In my viiew, the only tool one has in the GoT that could add
          > to speculation of its date is form and source criticism using the
          > earliest layer. I see at least 3 layers of Thomas. T-1 is the
          > earliest layer demonstrating more "primitive" forms than synoptic
          > parallels as well as Aramaic interference and may well be relic
          > sayings from the "logia" written even during the lifetime of Jesus by
          > a literate disciple (Matthew?). T-2 may be sayings from oral
          > tradition added to Thomas in the 40's and 50's, like #71 to which you
          > refer above. T-3 would be dated to the 90's or even 2nd century like
          #105."
          In this theory you propose, there are at least five documents for which
          we have no "hard" evidence that they ever existed: two postulated earlier
          versions of GTh, at least two postulated versions of a postulated document
          you call Q, and a postulated very early saying source possibly going back to
          the life-time of Jesus. Does not this make the theory inherently
          implausible?
          Also, I fail to see the reliability of your two criteria for T-1. That a
          passage has Aramaic intereference only tells us that in one or more of the
          stages in its transmission it was in Aramaic. It doesn't tell us when it
          was in Aramaic. For example, it might have been said by Jesus in Aramaic,
          translated into Greek c. 55 CE, then re-translated back into Aramaic (but
          not in a perfect fashion) in 110 CE before being written down in Greek
          and/or Coptic in, say, 130 CE. Again, how can we possibly know what
          constitutes "more 'primitive' forms" when we don't know the truly primitive
          forms, i.e., the original forms used by Jesus?
          Finally, I fail to see anything about GTh 105 that necessitates a date
          later than 90 CE. Could you please explain?

          Regards,

          Frank McCoy
          Maplewood, MN USA
          .
        • Jacob Knee
          What reasons are there for believing the claim below to be true. It might seem, given the assumption that Jesus spoke aramaic, that many of his disciples spoke
          Message 4 of 28 , Apr 14, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            What reasons are there for believing the claim below to be true.

            It might seem, given the assumption that Jesus spoke aramaic, that many of
            his disciples spoke aramaic too.

            Best wishes,
            Jacob


            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Jack Kilmon [mailto:jkilmon@...]
            > Sent: 14 April 2001 17:12
            > To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Dating
            >
            >
            > Simply because there is ONE stage that was reliably Aramaic, the vox Iesu.
            >
            >
          • Jack Kilmon
            ... From: FMMCCOY To: Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 6:16 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Dating ... The
            Message 5 of 28 , Apr 14, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "FMMCCOY" <FMMCCOY@...>
              To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 6:16 PM
              Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Dating


              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
              > To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 9:54 AM
              > Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Dating
              > >
              > >
              > Dear Jack Kilmon
              >
              > You ask, "Are you saying that the qehali did not like Shymeon? Why?
              > Where did you get this information?"
              > Unfortunately, I don't know the meaning of "qehali".

              The "assembly."


              > In any event, I
              > simply infer from Hegesippus' declaration that this group
              > seceded after Shymeon became the new leader that
              > they must have had some major differences with him.

              This "group" were the original netzarim, the followers of Jesus consisting
              of his disciples, family and followers. After Shymeon came Zadok, then
              Zacchaeus, Tobias, Benjamin, Matthias, and so on. I don't know what
              Hegesippus says, for as much as he is reliable, that infers a "secession."

              >
              > You also state, "The GoT, like "Q," is layered with an earlier core
              > text and later additions.
              > > That GoT does not mention the destruction of the Temple is more
              > > likely that it predates the destruction but either way it is not a
              telling
              > > point. In my viiew, the only tool one has in the GoT that could add
              > > to speculation of its date is form and source criticism using the
              > > earliest layer. I see at least 3 layers of Thomas. T-1 is the
              > > earliest layer demonstrating more "primitive" forms than synoptic
              > > parallels as well as Aramaic interference and may well be relic
              > > sayings from the "logia" written even during the lifetime of Jesus by
              > > a literate disciple (Matthew?). T-2 may be sayings from oral
              > > tradition added to Thomas in the 40's and 50's, like #71 to which you
              > > refer above. T-3 would be dated to the 90's or even 2nd century like
              > #105."

              > In this theory you propose, there are at least five documents for
              which
              > we have no "hard" evidence that they ever existed: two postulated earlier
              > versions of GTh, at least two postulated versions of a postulated document
              > you call Q, and a postulated very early saying source possibly going back
              to
              > the life-time of Jesus. Does not this make the theory inherently
              > implausible?

              No. These are not "five documents" but one document that, like most of the
              NT writings, are composites over time.

              > Also, I fail to see the reliability of your two criteria for T-1. That
              a
              > passage has Aramaic intereference only tells us that in one or more of the
              > stages in its transmission it was in Aramaic. It doesn't tell us when it
              > was in Aramaic. For example, it might have been said by Jesus in Aramaic,
              > translated into Greek c. 55 CE, then re-translated back into Aramaic (but
              > not in a perfect fashion) in 110 CE before being written down in Greek
              > and/or Coptic in, say, 130 CE.

              Simply because there is ONE stage that was reliably Aramaic, the vox Iesu.

              > Again, how can we possibly know what
              > constitutes "more 'primitive' forms" when we don't know the truly
              primitive
              > forms, i.e., the original forms used by Jesus?

              The detection of glosses, interpolations and redaction is a function of
              source and form criticism. In Source criticism you look at:

              1 Any incongruities in the language of the text and the language of the
              putative source, in this case the author/speaker (Jesus) who
              would have rendered it in Aramaic. Special pleadings for secondary
              retroversions are not necessary.

              2.A comparison of the logion with parallels in other Christian texts. The
              parallels between GoT and the "Q" passages of
              Matthew and Luke and, more interesting, the parallels with Markan forms
              which, when studied, indicate a specific
              block of material from an Aramaic source document.

              3. An explanation of how the text does not fit the known sayings of Jesus.

              4. An estimation of the agenda of the editors of the text..

              I take the Bultmannian approach in form criticism in the study of the
              development of oral forms to written text. This can be
              expanded to "flow and sequence" in the written text as is so evident in the
              seams in the heavily edited Gospel of John.

              I make no bones, however, about using a "follow the Aramaic" approach when
              it comes to any written saying attributed
              to Jesus.



              > Finally, I fail to see anything about GTh 105 that necessitates a date
              > later than 90 CE. Could you please explain?

              This non-Yeshuine logion reflects a concern of early Christians about
              the parentage of Jesus, an issue of the 2nd century.

              Jack
            • Michael Grondin
              ... Do you mean succession ? At any rate, one question: why do you suppose Shymeon was chosen over others in J s immediate family? As I understand it, Jude,
              Message 6 of 28 , Apr 14, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Jack Kilmon wrote:
                >This "group" were the original netzarim, the followers of Jesus consisting
                >of his disciples, family and followers. After Shymeon came Zadok, then
                >Zacchaeus, Tobias, Benjamin, Matthias, and so on. I don't know what
                >Hegesippus says, for as much as he is reliable, that infers a "secession."

                Do you mean 'succession'? At any rate, one question: why do you suppose
                Shymeon was chosen over others in J's immediate family? As I understand it,
                Jude, for example, was still alive at the time. Why would it go to a
                cousin? (As you can perhaps ascertain, I'm trying to figure out whether
                this was truly a monarchical succession, or whether they were free to
                choose any relative at all.)

                Regards,
                Mike
              • Michael Grondin
                ... I see now that you did mean secession . Here s the relevant portion of Frank s note: Possibly, a clue for dating GTh comes from History (Book 4, Sect.
                Message 7 of 28 , Apr 14, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jack Kilmon wrote:
                  >I don't know what
                  >Hegesippus says, for as much as he is reliable, that infers a "secession."

                  I see now that you did mean 'secession'. Here's the relevant portion of
                  Frank's note:

                  Possibly, a clue for dating GTh comes from History (Book 4, Sect. 22),
                  where Eusebius thusly quotes Hegesippus, "When James the Righteous
                  had suffered martyrdom like the Lord and for the same reason, Symeon the son
                  his uncle Clopas was appointed bishop....But Thebuthis, because he had not
                  been made bishop, began to seduce her (i.e., the Church) by means of the
                  seven sects (to which he himself belonged) among the people. From these
                  came Simon and his his Simonians, Cleobius and his Cleobienes, Dositheus and
                  his Dositheans, Gorthaeus and his Gorathenes, and the Masbotheans. From
                  these were derived the Menandrianists, Marcionists, Carpocratians,
                  Valentians, Basilidians, and Saturnilians, every man introducing his own
                  opinions in his own particular way."

                  A further portion of Eusebius 4:22 that Frank didn't quote is this:

                  "Hegesippus also names the sects that once existed among the Jews:
                  'There were various tribes in the Circumcision, among the Children of
                  Israel, all hostile to the tribe of Judah and the Christ. They were
                  these - Essenes, Galilaeans [!], Hemerobaptists, Masbotheans, Samaritans,
                  Sadducees, and Pharisees.'"

                  There are two things I'd like to say about this. The first is that, either
                  deliberately or unconsciously, Hegesippus and other mainstream church
                  writers tended to place all supposed heretics into a single unified
                  "movement". Frank seems to buy into this, but to my understanding it's not
                  historically accurate. (Other church writers, BTW, credit Simon Magus as
                  being the original source of Xian gnosticism. Presumably, he's the 'Simon'
                  mentioned by Hegesippus above. The connection with Thebuthis strikes me as
                  being forced.)

                  The second comment is about this character Thebuthis. It's hardly credible
                  that he would have developed an entire alternative theology out of
                  political jealousy. A more likely story is that he already had an alternate
                  theology, and that this may have been one of the reasons for his not having
                  been selected over Shymeon in the first place (assuming that Thebuthis had
                  been, in fact, under serious consideration). Alternately, Thebuthis' views
                  might have been tolerated by Jacob, but proscribed by Shymeon - in which
                  case again the motive would not have been simple jealousy. In either case,
                  if he (Thebuthis) then proceeded (ala Arius) to force his views to be
                  accepted via the political route (i.e., removal of Shymeon and appointment
                  of a sympathetic bishop), then the story would make some sense - and it
                  would sound a lot like a mini-version of the much later Arian controversy,
                  in which a theological dispute became a political struggle.

                  Regards,
                  Mike
                • William Arnal
                  ... No, it doesn t. The issue is really what the literary evidence supports. If indeed it supports the existence of Q, of multiple recensions of Q, and of
                  Message 8 of 28 , Apr 14, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 08:16 PM 4/13/01 -0500, FMMCCOY wrote:

                    > In this theory you propose, there are at least five documents for which
                    >we have no "hard" evidence that they ever existed: two postulated earlier
                    >versions of GTh, at least two postulated versions of a postulated document
                    >you call Q, and a postulated very early saying source possibly going back to
                    >the life-time of Jesus. Does not this make the theory inherently
                    >implausible?

                    No, it doesn't. The issue is really what the literary evidence supports. If
                    indeed it supports the existence of Q, of multiple recensions of Q, and of
                    multiple recensions of Thomas, than any theory which failed to take this
                    evidence into account would be, in fact, inherently implausible.

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

                    please note my slightly revised e-mail address
                  • William Arnal
                    ... I m not sure how reliably Aramaic this was at all. ... On the same grounds and by a similar reading, Mark 3:31-35 would have to indicate a second-century
                    Message 9 of 28 , Apr 14, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 09:12 AM 4/14/01 -0700, Jack Kilmon wrote:

                      >Simply because there is ONE stage that was reliably Aramaic, the vox Iesu.

                      I'm not sure how reliably Aramaic this was at all.

                      >> Finally, I fail to see anything about GTh 105 that necessitates a date
                      >> later than 90 CE. Could you please explain?
                      >
                      >This non-Yeshuine logion reflects a concern of early Christians about
                      >the parentage of Jesus, an issue of the 2nd century.

                      On the same grounds and by a similar reading, Mark 3:31-35 would have to
                      indicate a second-century provenance for Mark.

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

                      please note my slightly revised e-mail address
                    • William Arnal
                      ... I have to concur with this -- absolutely! Bill __________________________________ William Arnal william.arnal@nyu.edu Religion/Classics New York
                      Message 10 of 28 , Apr 14, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 08:16 PM 4/13/01 -0500, FMMCCOY wrote:

                        > Also, I fail to see the reliability of your two criteria for T-1. That a
                        >passage has Aramaic intereference only tells us that in one or more of the
                        >stages in its transmission it was in Aramaic. It doesn't tell us when it
                        >was in Aramaic. For example, it might have been said by Jesus in Aramaic,
                        >translated into Greek c. 55 CE, then re-translated back into Aramaic (but
                        >not in a perfect fashion) in 110 CE before being written down in Greek
                        >and/or Coptic in, say, 130 CE. Again, how can we possibly know what
                        >constitutes "more 'primitive' forms" when we don't know the truly primitive
                        >forms, i.e., the original forms used by Jesus?

                        I have to concur with this -- absolutely!

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

                        please note my slightly revised e-mail address
                      • Jack Kilmon
                        ... From: Michael Grondin To: Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 9:32 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Dating ...
                        Message 11 of 28 , Apr 14, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Michael Grondin" <mgrondin@...>
                          To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 9:32 AM
                          Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Dating


                          > Jack Kilmon wrote:
                          > >This "group" were the original netzarim, the followers of Jesus
                          consisting
                          > >of his disciples, family and followers. After Shymeon came Zadok, then
                          > >Zacchaeus, Tobias, Benjamin, Matthias, and so on. I don't know what
                          > >Hegesippus says, for as much as he is reliable, that infers a
                          "secession."
                          >
                          > Do you mean 'succession'?

                          No, Frank seems to think the other members of the group seceded when
                          Symeon became Nasi...like maybe his right guard took a left turn <g>


                          >At any rate, one question: why do you suppose
                          > Shymeon was chosen over others in J's immediate family? As I understand
                          it,
                          > Jude, for example, was still alive at the time. Why would it go to a
                          > cousin? (As you can perhaps ascertain, I'm trying to figure out whether
                          > this was truly a monarchical succession, or whether they were free to
                          > choose any relative at all.)

                          This is an interesting aspect to which I have given some thought. All of
                          the
                          successors of Ya'akov bar Yosef appear to have been "once removed"
                          relatives,
                          cousins, nephews, grand-nephews rather than those recorded, other than
                          Ya'akov, to be blood siblings....namely Yosef, Yehudah and Shymeon.

                          Other than Brother Jake, we have no mention in any of the early sources
                          that the other siblings involved themselves although we do hear about
                          the grandchildren of Yehudah whom Hegesippus, cited by Eusebius,
                          claims became leaders of the Jerusalem group.

                          Although I believe that Jesus' public life and the Nazarene movement was
                          indeed a "family affair" from the start I dont think it was a monarchical
                          leadership. Thinking that the "twelve disciples" are an artificial post-
                          passion designation, the other brothers may have been off carrying
                          the "good news" elsewhere..perhaps Yehudah "toma" was really
                          little brother Jude.

                          The early Christian Church...which you notice I do not equate with
                          Jesus' original Jewish group.....made a concerted effort to historically
                          assassinate the immediate siblings and family of Jesus probably
                          because of the divinity and virginal conception business which obviously
                          any family member would dispute. This appears to be when the
                          genuine Jewish group became "heretics" to the Christians.

                          Jack
                        • smithand44@hotmail.com
                          ... so-called ... and ... itself late. ... (105) Jesus said: He who shall know father and mother shall be called the son of a harlot. First off I note that,
                          Message 12 of 28 , Apr 14, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In gthomas@y..., "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@h...> wrote:
                            > I contend
                            > that #105, on the other hand, addresses the polemic issue of Jesus
                            so-called
                            > illigitimate parentage which was issue during the Mishnaic period
                            and
                            > responded
                            > to a well-developed virginal conception construction...which is
                            itself late.
                            >
                            > Jack

                            (105) Jesus said: He who shall know father and mother shall be called
                            the son of a harlot.

                            First off I note that, according to Crossan, Bill Arnal puts this in
                            the second strata of GThomas, as gnostic wisdom. Since the first
                            strata is inversionary wisdom, shouldn't this belong to the first
                            since this saying is, without any interpretaion, inversionary--
                            legitimate is compared to illegitimate, the first half of the saying
                            presents someone who has a legitimate parentage, and the second half
                            confounds this by saying that he shall be supposed the child of a
                            whore .


                            In itself the saying does not relate to a virginal conception nor to
                            Mishnaic parodies of it. As Frank McCoy pointed out, Philo has the
                            father as God and the Mother as wisdom, as does, more or less, the
                            Odes of Solomon.

                            In any case, if we want to be minimalistic about it, this saying is
                            comprehensible in any culture in which the child of a prostitute is
                            considered as being lower than the child of parents who have had a
                            non-prostitutional relationship. To paraphrase it, those who do the
                            right thing shall be called those who do the wrong thing.

                            Andrew Smith
                          • Jack Kilmon
                            ... From: William Arnal To: Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Dating ... Iesu. ...
                            Message 13 of 28 , Apr 14, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "William Arnal" <wea1@...>
                              To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 12:45 PM
                              Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Dating


                              >
                              > At 09:12 AM 4/14/01 -0700, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                              >
                              > >Simply because there is ONE stage that was reliably Aramaic, the vox
                              Iesu.
                              >
                              > I'm not sure how reliably Aramaic this was at all.
                              >
                              > >> Finally, I fail to see anything about GTh 105 that necessitates a
                              date
                              > >> later than 90 CE. Could you please explain?
                              > >
                              > >This non-Yeshuine logion reflects a concern of early Christians about
                              > >the parentage of Jesus, an issue of the 2nd century.
                              >
                              > On the same grounds and by a similar reading, Mark 3:31-35 would have to
                              > indicate a second-century provenance for Mark.

                              Not really, Bill. GoT Logion 105 and Mark 3:31-35 address two separate
                              issue to two different audiences. One interpretation of the Markan text is
                              that
                              although it is up in the air whether it is truly Yeshuine, the reflection of
                              tension
                              between Jesus family and the disciples could be an accurate picture of the
                              Nazarene community prior to the composition of Mark (70 CE). I contend
                              that #105, on the other hand, addresses the polemic issue of Jesus so-called
                              illigitimate parentage which was issue during the Mishnaic period and
                              responded
                              to a well-developed virginal conception construction...which is itself late.

                              Jack
                            • smithand44@hotmail.com
                              ... supports. If ... and of ... this ... I really wouldn t claim to be well-informed with regards to the literary stratification of documents, but I have read
                              Message 14 of 28 , Apr 15, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In gthomas@y..., William Arnal <wea1@i...> wrote:
                                >
                                > No, it doesn't. The issue is really what the literary evidence
                                supports. If
                                > indeed it supports the existence of Q, of multiple recensions of Q,
                                and of
                                > multiple recensions of Thomas, than any theory which failed to take
                                this
                                > evidence into account would be, in fact, inherently implausible.
                                >
                                > Bill

                                I really wouldn't claim to be well-informed with regards to the
                                literary stratification of documents, but I have read Crossan's brief
                                summary of Bill's arguments re: GThomas in the Birth of Christianity
                                and also his and others' and Kloppenborg's own comments on
                                Kloppneborg's work (though not the Formation of Q itself.)

                                Surely literary evidence doesn't support anything in itself--it's a
                                question of the techniques that are applied to it. So my biggest
                                questions in terms of literary stratification are:

                                Do we have any reliable controls on this? Do we have documents that
                                have been subjected to stratification for which we know the stages of
                                development but the stratifier didn't? Or do we have ancient
                                documents which resist stratification, since they were originally
                                composed as of a piece?

                                Doesn't stratification assume that literary forms are discrete
                                entities? For example, according to Crossan, Arnal's stratification
                                divides GThomas into a first layer of inversionary wisdom and a
                                second layer of gnostic wisdom. According to his list, 105 is
                                gnostic, yet it has an inversionary form and no explicit reference to
                                gnostic materials. Then again, if a saying is classified as a type A
                                saying, but it has a type B recension, for instance wisdom in form,
                                but gnostic in outlook, since this is a literary stratification, not
                                a tradition-historical one, why shouldn't we propose that the
                                document was more or less transcribing oral traditions and that, even
                                if we can reliably identify stratification of forms, those forms and
                                their recensions existed before GThomas was committed to paper? Or,
                                more simply, that there is nothing to stop a gnostic saying (whatever
                                that is) from being expressed in a wisdom format. One may as well say
                                that two of the modern forms which exist are Soundbite and Logical
                                Argument, so that if we find a soundbite which contains a logical
                                argument, this is evidence of a recension.

                                Lastly, an analysis by forms ignores the facts that writers and
                                groups are rarely consistent in their usages. How should one analyse
                                the email in this discussion group? Some explicitly refer to past
                                emails by including quotations, some summarise them, some pose
                                arguments as a result of scholarly training, some imitate the style
                                of those arguments, some people are referring by memory to previous
                                emails, with or without acknowledgement.

                                So I think that Frank McCoy is right. For example, the Common Sayings
                                Tradition as Q1/GThomas must seem like it's reliable guide to the
                                early Jesus traditons, but it relies on assuming the two document
                                hypothesis, then on being able to reconstruct Q through recension
                                criticism, then on being to identify the earlist layer of Q through
                                stratification. Which agaib makes me question, has anyone, being
                                ignorant of a document's formation, been able to stratify a document
                                so that it closely resembles the original? I made some small
                                revisions in this email before I sent it. Can you tell what they are?

                                Best Wishes

                                Andrew Smuth
                              • David C. Hindley
                                ... stratify a document so that it closely resembles the original?
                                Message 15 of 28 , Apr 15, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Andrew Smith (Smuth?) said:

                                  >>has anyone, being ignorant of a document's formation, been able to
                                  stratify a document so that it closely resembles the original?<<

                                  I am sure that modern examples (within the last couple hundred years,
                                  that is) could be produced, but I am not so confidant that analysis of
                                  their characteristics have been seriously applied to early Christian
                                  literary evidence. Perhaps Bill or Mike can help us here?

                                  >>I made some small revisions in this email before I sent it. Can you
                                  tell what they are?<<

                                  Are you not mixing apples (source criticism) with oranges (redaction
                                  criticism)?

                                  Your e-mail is not a compilation of discreet traditions. That kind of
                                  situation lends itself to the kinds of awkward joins and other signs
                                  of editing that come from combining discreet literary units with
                                  varying (and sometimes competing) orientations and agendas into a form
                                  that is intended to project a new (and perhaps completely different)
                                  unified ideology. Or are you making a point similar to postmodern
                                  narrative critics, who say that a well edited document should not
                                  really show many, if any, aporiai, interpreting each apparent aporia
                                  as rhetorical devices?

                                  For redaction criticism, would we not need differing versions of a
                                  document for comparison? If you showed us the early version of the
                                  e-mail, maybe we could come up with something. Perhaps an analogy
                                  might be a newspaper or magazine editor revising a journalist's
                                  article before publication. A comparison of the original article and
                                  the finished, edited, document, may tell us a lot about the agendas of
                                  the journalist and the editor, or it may tell us little.
                                  Unfortunately, that is dependent upon subject matter.

                                  Regards,

                                  Dave Hindley
                                  Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                                • William Arnal
                                  ... This in fact begs the question, Jack. Yes, a particular INTERPRETATION of 105 MAY suggest a late date for Thomas, but a similar interpretation of the
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Apr 15, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 11:06 PM 4/14/01 -0700, Jack Kilmon wrote:

                                    >Not really, Bill. GoT Logion 105 and Mark 3:31-35 address two separate
                                    >issue to two different audiences. One interpretation of the Markan text is
                                    >that
                                    >although it is up in the air whether it is truly Yeshuine, the reflection of
                                    >tension
                                    >between Jesus family and the disciples could be an accurate picture of the
                                    >Nazarene community prior to the composition of Mark (70 CE). I contend
                                    >that #105, on the other hand, addresses the polemic issue of Jesus so-called
                                    >illigitimate parentage which was issue during the Mishnaic period and
                                    >responded
                                    >to a well-developed virginal conception construction...which is itself late.

                                    This in fact begs the question, Jack. Yes, a particular INTERPRETATION of
                                    105 MAY suggest a late date for Thomas, but a similar interpretation of the
                                    Markan passage would do the same. Of course, if you've already assumed that
                                    Thomas is late, or that 105 is late, then this supports such a reading. I
                                    frankly see NOTHING in 105 that refers to the virgin birth, nor in fact to
                                    the illegitimacy tradition. But I further note that traces of the
                                    illegitimacy tradition can be traced as far back as Mark, and it's hardly
                                    fair to characterize the issue as "Mishnaic." Come to think of it, where on
                                    earth in the Mishnah does this come up at all? I thought it was only in the
                                    Talmuds. If I'm right (and I may not be, this is just off the top of my
                                    head), then wouldn't you have to date Thomas, on the same reasoning, to the
                                    7th century or so?

                                    Again, I think this example is a perfect illustration of the methodological
                                    problems I've been complaining about -- the imposition of a
                                    historical-cum-tradition-historical schema onto the texts without paying
                                    sufficient attention to what the texts actually say. In the case of Thomas,
                                    we have a number of OTHER sayings which refer to family (such as 55 and
                                    101), and a copious use of the word "Father" as a designation for God.
                                    Wouldn't it make sense to attempt an interpretation of 105 in light of these
                                    sayings and usages?

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

                                    please note my slightly revised e-mail address
                                  • William Arnal
                                    ... This is a bit of a red herring. Strictly speaking, no evidence supports ANYTHING in itself, of course. But evidence must be appealed to, and some arguments
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Apr 15, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      At 07:10 AM 4/15/01 -0000, smithand44@... wrote:

                                      >I really wouldn't claim to be well-informed with regards to the
                                      >literary stratification of documents, but I have read Crossan's brief
                                      >summary of Bill's arguments re: GThomas in the Birth of Christianity
                                      >and also his and others' and Kloppenborg's own comments on
                                      >Kloppneborg's work (though not the Formation of Q itself.)
                                      >
                                      >Surely literary evidence doesn't support anything in itself--it's a
                                      >question of the techniques that are applied to it. So my biggest
                                      >questions in terms of literary stratification are:

                                      This is a bit of a red herring. Strictly speaking, no evidence supports
                                      ANYTHING in itself, of course. But evidence must be appealed to, and some
                                      arguments and ways of understanding the evidence are better than others. My
                                      original point, then, is that it is foolish (this is not directed at you,
                                      but at the vast numbers of folks out there who do this), to conclude that Q
                                      stratifications are "too hypothetical" without ever bothering to consult the
                                      actual arguments. Gravity and evolution are hypothetical too!

                                      >Do we have any reliable controls on this? Do we have documents that
                                      >have been subjected to stratification for which we know the stages of
                                      >development but the stratifier didn't? Or do we have ancient
                                      >documents which resist stratification, since they were originally
                                      >composed as of a piece?

                                      Yes, yes, and yes. The controls involve the literary methods for
                                      stratification as outlined (best, I think) by Kloppenborg in _Formation_
                                      pp.96-101. And yes, we have other ancient stratified documents -- an example
                                      is 1 Enoch, the Didache appears to be another. I'm not sure what the last
                                      part of your question here ("but the stratifier didn't?") means. And yes,
                                      there are ancient documents that resist stratification -- lots of examples,
                                      but 1 Thess is an obvious one.

                                      >Doesn't stratification assume that literary forms are discrete
                                      >entities?

                                      No, it doesn't. Again, I'd recommend reading Kloppenborg's comments on the
                                      methodology of stratification.

                                      >For example, according to Crossan, Arnal's stratification
                                      >divides GThomas into a first layer of inversionary wisdom and a
                                      >second layer of gnostic wisdom. According to his list, 105 is
                                      >gnostic, yet it has an inversionary form and no explicit reference to
                                      >gnostic materials. Then again, if a saying is classified as a type A
                                      >saying, but it has a type B recension, for instance wisdom in form,
                                      >but gnostic in outlook, since this is a literary stratification, not
                                      >a tradition-historical one, why shouldn't we propose that the
                                      >document was more or less transcribing oral traditions and that, even
                                      >if we can reliably identify stratification of forms, those forms and
                                      >their recensions existed before GThomas was committed to paper? Or,
                                      >more simply, that there is nothing to stop a gnostic saying (whatever
                                      >that is) from being expressed in a wisdom format. One may as well say
                                      >that two of the modern forms which exist are Soundbite and Logical
                                      >Argument, so that if we find a soundbite which contains a logical
                                      >argument, this is evidence of a recension.

                                      No one who had actually read my article, or for that matter who has read
                                      Kloppenborg's _Formation_, would make this objection. Neither one assumes
                                      the impossibility of "redaction B" sharing perspectives or forms with
                                      "redaction A." Again, it's not very helpful to criticize viewpoints and
                                      arguments on the basis of short summaries -- if you're really interested in
                                      this problem, read the work that's been done on it.

                                      >Lastly, an analysis by forms ignores the facts that writers and
                                      >groups are rarely consistent in their usages. How should one analyse

                                      See above paragraph.

                                      >So I think that Frank McCoy is right. For example, the Common Sayings
                                      >Tradition as Q1/GThomas must seem like it's reliable guide to the
                                      >early Jesus traditons, but it relies on assuming the two document
                                      >hypothesis, then on being able to reconstruct Q through recension
                                      >criticism, then on being to identify the earlist layer of Q through
                                      >stratification. Which agaib makes me question, has anyone, being
                                      >ignorant of a document's formation, been able to stratify a document
                                      >so that it closely resembles the original? I made some small
                                      >revisions in this email before I sent it. Can you tell what they are?

                                      It's not the same thing at all. A better example -- a student paper that's
                                      been plagiarized from a library book. In some cases, even without access to
                                      the book, you can reconstruct something very close to an "original" (the
                                      library book) by stripping away the "redaction" (the student's changes or
                                      additions). As for all the hypotheticals involved, each one strikes me as
                                      the best conclusion in light of the evidence. The thing to you if you don't
                                      like it is NOT to toss it all out on the grounds that it's hypothetical, but
                                      to come up with a counter-argument that makes better sense of the evidence.
                                      I.e., an argument for the synoptic relations that is BETTER than the
                                      two-source theory, an argument that Q CANNOT be reconstructed in spite of
                                      the number and quality of double-tradition agreements, an argument that Q is
                                      a literary UNITY in spite of the literary indications that it is not, and so on.
                                      By the way and for what it's worth, against Crossan and Patterson I
                                      myself do NOT happen to think that Q-Thomas parallels, or Q1-Thomas
                                      parallels, at all represent a reliable source for the historical Jesus.

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

                                      please note my slightly revised e-mail address
                                    • FMMCCOY
                                      ... From: William Arnal To: Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 9:14 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Dating This is a bit of
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Apr 15, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: "William Arnal" <wea1@...>
                                        To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 9:14 AM
                                        Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Dating


                                        This is a bit of a red herring. Strictly speaking, no evidence supports
                                        > ANYTHING in itself, of course. But evidence must be appealed to, and some
                                        > arguments and ways of understanding the evidence are better than others.
                                        My
                                        > original point, then, is that it is foolish (this is not directed at you,
                                        > but at the vast numbers of folks out there who do this), to conclude that
                                        Q
                                        > stratifications are "too hypothetical" without ever bothering to consult
                                        the
                                        > actual arguments. Gravity and evolution are hypothetical too!
                                        >
                                        Dear William Arnal:
                                        If gravity is hypothetical, then why don't you go to the top of the
                                        Empire State Building and jump off? I'll admit that gravitrons haven't been
                                        discovered yet, so that the particular hypotheses we have to explain the
                                        phenomena called gravity haven't been proven yet, but the existence of this
                                        phenomena and the consequences one pays if one acts as though it were
                                        hypothetical are quite real.
                                        I am an amateur geologist and took a college course on paleontology. The
                                        reality of evolution is unquestionable.
                                        No copy of Q exists, so it is not real and any hypothesised strata aren't
                                        real either..

                                        You also write,. "And yes,
                                        > there are ancient documents that resist stratification -- lots of
                                        examples,
                                        > but 1 Thess is an obvious one."
                                        Why, then, do a majority of scholars
                                        think that I Thess 2:13-16 belongs to a later strata than most of this
                                        epistle? It seems to me that this whole business of looking for strata in
                                        texts, both real texts and hypothesised non-existent texts that maybe never
                                        existed, is out of control and, unless it can be made more rigorous and
                                        scientific, it should be viewed as a glorified parlor game.
                                        >
                                        Again, you state, "The thing to you if you don't
                                        like it is NOT to toss it all out on the grounds that it's hypothetical, but
                                        to come up with a counter-argument that makes better sense of the evidence.
                                        I.e., an argument for the synoptic relations that is BETTER than the
                                        two-source theory, an argument that Q CANNOT be reconstructed in spite of
                                        the number and quality of double-tradition agreements, an argument that Q is
                                        a literary UNITY in spite of the literary indications that it is not, and so
                                        on"
                                        All we know for certain is that there are some passages that are very
                                        similar in both Luke and Matthew and that are not found in Mark. We call
                                        such passages the Q tradtion. Many of these passages have literary
                                        connections. This might because (1) Luke used Matthew as a source, or (2)
                                        Matthew used Luke as a source, or (3) Matthew and Luke used one or more
                                        written sources that are now lost. Even if one takes (3), this doesn't mean
                                        that all of the Q tradition comes from one written source or, even, that all
                                        of the Q tradition comes from written sources. Rather, all one can conclude
                                        is that the Q tradition consists of one or more written sources, the total
                                        some number smaller than infinity, and a number of oral sources that can be
                                        anywhere from zero to a number less than infinity. Unless you can produce a
                                        copy of Q or otherwise prove that it once existed, I see no valid reason to
                                        believe that it once existed.

                                        Again, you state, "By the way and for what it's worth, against Crossan
                                        and Patterson I
                                        > myself do NOT happen to think that Q-Thomas parallels, or Q1-Thomas
                                        > parallels, at all represent a reliable source for the historical Jesus."
                                        Of course, that something is attested to in both the Q and Thomas
                                        traditions does not automatically make it authentic. However, since any
                                        multiple attestation increases probability of
                                        genuineness unless you can prove that the Gospel traditions are not
                                        independent, such double attestations can't be shrugged off either . For
                                        example, in an earlier post, I point out that Jesus claims to be Philo's
                                        Logos in both the Q and Thomas traditions. This can't be shrugged off.
                                        Indeed, that Jesus claimed to be Philo's Logo is also attested to in the
                                        Markan tradition--making it a triple attestation!!!
                                        For example, let us look at Mark 13:31-32, "The heaven and the earth
                                        shall pass
                                        away, but my logoi shall in now way pass away. But concerning that day and
                                        that hour, no one knows, not even the angels within heaven, nor the Son, but
                                        (only) the Father. Here, Jesus identifies himself as being the Logos--the
                                        Son of the Father who, being the Word of God, speaks the immortal logoi
                                        (words) of God. Because the Logos contains within himself all the
                                        utterances of God, the reason why he and the angels do not know the time of
                                        the End is that the Father has not yet spoken on this point. Jesus makes
                                        this statement in which he identifies himself as being the Logos immediately
                                        after making a number of prophecies and he does so in order to certify the
                                        authenticity of these prophecies--for the Logos is the source of all
                                        prophecy. Thus, in Heres 259, Philo states, "Now with every good man it is
                                        the holy Logos which assures him his gift of prophecy. For a prophet (being
                                        a spokesman) has no utterance of his own, but all his utterance came from
                                        elsewhee, the echoes of another's voice."
                                        That Jesus claims to be Philo's Logos not only in the Thomas and Q
                                        traditions, but in the Markan tradition as well, means, I think, that the
                                        real Jesus of history probably claimed to be Philo's Logos.
                                        Too, in The Five Gospels (p. 114), the Jesus Seminar makes this comment
                                        on Mark 13:31-32, "It is doubtful that Jesus would have used the tem son to
                                        refer to himself, yet inthis context it can only mean Jesus. Nevertheless,
                                        a late believer would probably not have invented a saying in which Jesus
                                        claims that he does not have knowledge of that most important of all
                                        dates--the time of his return." They are caught in a dilemma. They cannot
                                        admit that this saying is genuine because it runs counter to their belief
                                        that Jesus did not claim to be a Son in a special sense. Yet, they must
                                        admit, this saying is unlikely to be invented. My thinking is this: since
                                        this saying is unlikely to be invented, it probably is genuine--meaning that
                                        the real Jesus of history probably claimed to be Philo's Logos incarnate on
                                        earth.

                                        Regards,

                                        Frank McCoy
                                        Maplewood, MN USA
                                      • BitsyCat1@aol.com
                                        I would Point out that this sounds almost exactly like Proverbs (The adulteress is folly) the Pure woman is Wisdom. The son of the Harlot would be the son of
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Apr 15, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I would Point out that this sounds almost exactly like Proverbs (The
                                          adulteress is folly) the Pure woman is Wisdom. The son of the Harlot would be
                                          the son of Folly or a fool.
                                          That is I dont think you have to go outside of a Solomon Proverb to explain
                                          it. In 105) It is comprehensible, and almost certainly Hebrew(Aramaic)
                                          Regards john moon


                                          Springfield, Tn 37172johnmoon3717@...
                                        • Jack Kilmon
                                          ... From: William Arnal To: Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 6:53 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Dating ... is ... of ...
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Apr 15, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            From: "William Arnal" <wea1@...>
                                            To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                                            Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 6:53 AM
                                            Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Dating


                                            >
                                            > At 11:06 PM 4/14/01 -0700, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                                            >
                                            > >Not really, Bill. GoT Logion 105 and Mark 3:31-35 address two separate
                                            > >issue to two different audiences. One interpretation of the Markan text
                                            is
                                            > >that
                                            > >although it is up in the air whether it is truly Yeshuine, the reflection
                                            of
                                            > >tension
                                            > >between Jesus family and the disciples could be an accurate picture of
                                            the
                                            > >Nazarene community prior to the composition of Mark (70 CE). I contend
                                            > >that #105, on the other hand, addresses the polemic issue of Jesus
                                            so-called
                                            > >illigitimate parentage which was issue during the Mishnaic period and
                                            > >responded
                                            > >to a well-developed virginal conception construction...which is itself
                                            late.
                                            >
                                            > This in fact begs the question, Jack. Yes, a particular INTERPRETATION of
                                            > 105 MAY suggest a late date for Thomas, but a similar interpretation of
                                            the
                                            > Markan passage would do the same.

                                            I was not suggesting a late date for GoT. In fact, I believe the GoT
                                            pre-dates
                                            the gospel tradition. I am only suggesting a later date for the addition of
                                            #105
                                            to the anthology.


                                            > Of course, if you've already assumed that
                                            > Thomas is late, or that 105 is late, then this supports such a reading. I
                                            > frankly see NOTHING in 105 that refers to the virgin birth, nor in fact to
                                            > the illegitimacy tradition. But I further note that traces of the
                                            > illegitimacy tradition can be traced as far back as Mark, and it's hardly
                                            > fair to characterize the issue as "Mishnaic." Come to think of it, where
                                            on
                                            > earth in the Mishnah does this come up at all? I thought it was only in
                                            the
                                            > Talmuds.

                                            I was referring to the Mishnaic period which is post 90 CE. Perhaps I
                                            should have used Tannaitic...but the Mishna is part of the Talmud which
                                            consists of the Mishnah and the Gemara. Since the Mishnah refers to
                                            material up to 220 CE, I used that term. The Mishnah states:

                                            MISHNAH.[104b] If one writes on his flesh, he is culpable; He who scratches
                                            a mark
                                            on his flesh. He who scratches a mark on his flesh, [etc.] It was taught, R.
                                            Eliezar said
                                            to the sages: But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by
                                            means of scratches
                                            [in the form of charms] upon his flesh? He was a fool, answered they, proof
                                            cannot be
                                            adduced from fools. [Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of
                                            Pandira?-
                                            Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. But the
                                            husband
                                            was Pappos b. Judah?- his mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the
                                            hairdresser?-
                                            It is as we said in Pumbeditha: This is one has been unfaithful to (lit.,
                                            'turned away from'-
                                            satath da) her husband.] (Shabbath 104b)

                                            This results in such statements in the Talmud as:

                                            R. Shimeaon ben 'Azzai said: I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem
                                            wherein was recorded, "Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress."

                                            Since Coptic Thomas dates to a century after the material of the Mishnah, I
                                            have to consider
                                            that #105 may be a late addition in regress to the Mishnaic polemic.

                                            I guess if we had the complete text of POxy 1 it would settle the issue. I
                                            would expect #105 not to be present.




                                            > If I'm right (and I may not be, this is just off the top of my
                                            > head), then wouldn't you have to date Thomas, on the same reasoning, to
                                            the
                                            > 7th century or so?

                                            No.....to be succinct (I always liked that word), I date Thomas to just
                                            prior
                                            to the composition of Mark (actually, I favor an ur-Markus. I say this
                                            because I believe there is a connection between Mark and Thomas.

                                            >
                                            > Again, I think this example is a perfect illustration of the
                                            methodological
                                            > problems I've been complaining about -- the imposition of a
                                            > historical-cum-tradition-historical schema onto the texts without paying
                                            > sufficient attention to what the texts actually say. In the case of
                                            Thomas,
                                            > we have a number of OTHER sayings which refer to family (such as 55 and
                                            > 101), and a copious use of the word "Father" as a designation for God.
                                            > Wouldn't it make sense to attempt an interpretation of 105 in light of
                                            these
                                            > sayings and usages?

                                            I understand your complaint and I am more interested in the use of a
                                            redaction
                                            critical toolset in my approach to Thomas. It becomes necessary, however,
                                            to
                                            choose what tools we use in that methodology. One of the tools that I use
                                            is
                                            an appeal to the Aramaic. When I use that tool on #55, it tells me that,
                                            like
                                            Luke 14:26 an Aramaism of mistranslation is involved with the Greek MISEI
                                            and the Coptic (from Middle Egyptian) MECTE from the Aramaic snh (saneh)
                                            which is an idion for "set aside." I fully appreciate that we do not have
                                            the
                                            original Aramaic text and must decide whether a retroversion can be used to
                                            examine redaction..it is, after all, hypothetical. Having said that, when
                                            the
                                            retroversion makes a heck of a lot more sense than the translation, I have
                                            to
                                            give it some notice. An appeal to the Old Syriac Lukan parallel can also
                                            come into play. Since #101 appears to be an expansion of 55 using the
                                            mistranslation, I have to place 101 to a later redaction level. and 105 as
                                            using a part of 101 and 61 in the appeal to the parentage issue.

                                            Shlama

                                            Jack
                                          • Jack Kilmon
                                            ... From: FMMCCOY To: Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Dating ... some ... you,
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Apr 15, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              ----- Original Message -----
                                              From: "FMMCCOY" <FMMCCOY@...>
                                              To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                                              Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 9:46 AM
                                              Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Dating


                                              >
                                              > ----- Original Message -----
                                              > From: "William Arnal" <wea1@...>
                                              > To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                                              > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 9:14 AM
                                              > Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Dating
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > This is a bit of a red herring. Strictly speaking, no evidence supports
                                              > > ANYTHING in itself, of course. But evidence must be appealed to, and
                                              some
                                              > > arguments and ways of understanding the evidence are better than others.
                                              > My
                                              > > original point, then, is that it is foolish (this is not directed at
                                              you,
                                              > > but at the vast numbers of folks out there who do this), to conclude
                                              that
                                              > Q
                                              > > stratifications are "too hypothetical" without ever bothering to consult
                                              > the
                                              > > actual arguments. Gravity and evolution are hypothetical too!
                                              > >

                                              > Dear William Arnal:
                                              > If gravity is hypothetical, then why don't you go to the top of the
                                              > Empire State Building and jump off? I'll admit that gravitrons haven't
                                              been
                                              > discovered yet, so that the particular hypotheses we have to explain the
                                              > phenomena called gravity haven't been proven yet, but the existence of
                                              this
                                              > phenomena and the consequences one pays if one acts as though it were
                                              > hypothetical are quite real.
                                              > I am an amateur geologist and took a college course on paleontology.
                                              The
                                              > reality of evolution is unquestionable.
                                              > No copy of Q exists, so it is not real and any hypothesised strata
                                              aren't
                                              > real either..

                                              I have a problem with this reasoning, Frank. First, gravity is a *theory*
                                              and not
                                              an hypothesis, just like evolution, and there is a huge difference in
                                              definition between
                                              hypothesis and theory. A theory is a paradigm that cannot be falsified
                                              (yet) by all the
                                              known and available evidence. If you look on Q as a fossil layer..actually
                                              several
                                              fossil layers like lower, middle and upper Devonian brachiopods, Q is just
                                              as real
                                              as the fossils. Like those fossils, Q exists imbedded in a matrix.
                                              Hey, as an amateur palaeontologist myself, I am enjoying this metaphor.


                                              Jack
                                            • William Arnal
                                              ... As others have pointed out, you ve COMPLETELY missed my point, and clearly understand neither what hypothetical means nor how theorizing works. The point
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Apr 16, 2001
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                At 11:46 AM 4/15/01 -0500, FMMCCOY wrote:

                                                > If gravity is hypothetical, then why don't you go to the top of the
                                                >Empire State Building and jump off? I'll admit that gravitrons haven't been
                                                >discovered yet, so that the particular hypotheses we have to explain the
                                                >phenomena called gravity haven't been proven yet, but the existence of this
                                                >phenomena and the consequences one pays if one acts as though it were
                                                >hypothetical are quite real.

                                                As others have pointed out, you've COMPLETELY missed my point, and clearly
                                                understand neither what "hypothetical" means nor how theorizing works. The
                                                point is this: we have data (i.e., the fact that most times someone throws
                                                something off the Empire State Building, it falls to the ground) and we have
                                                theories that explain that data, more or less effectively (gravity).
                                                Likewise, we have synoptic literary data (patterns of agreement and
                                                disagreement), and theories that account for that data (the two document
                                                hypothesis, and specificvally Q). The data is real, and theory can only be
                                                assessed in terms of its ability to account for the data. If it does not
                                                account well for the data, it is a bad theory. If it does account well for
                                                the data, it is a good theory (like gravity, and like, in my opinion, the
                                                two document hypothesis). If you want to reject a theory, you'd better be
                                                able to a) show that it fails effectively to account for thne data; and b)
                                                propose an alternative that does better.

                                                > I am an amateur geologist and took a college course on paleontology. The
                                                >reality of evolution is unquestionable.
                                                > No copy of Q exists, so it is not real and any hypothesised strata aren't
                                                >real either..

                                                No "evolution" exists either. No one has ever found one. It is a set of
                                                inferences from data. Dinosaur bones exist. Animals exist in their
                                                diversity. And on the basis of the pattens of disagreement and agreement of
                                                features (to underscore the parallel with the synoptic problem) evolution is
                                                THEORIZED. It may be a theory whose cogency is so solid that few question
                                                it, but it's still a theory. But, I would say, and I'm sure you would agree,
                                                that anyone who questioned evolution on the grounds that "it's just
                                                hypothetical" is an absolute fool, rejoicing in his or her own ignorance.
                                                Someone who wants to question evolution ought to be able to point out its
                                                deficiencies, and suggest an alternative that is genuinely better.

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

                                                please note my slightly revised e-mail address
                                              • William Arnal
                                                ... I know -- it was just a slip. I don t think you can date the individual traditions that way either. The way to do it is to look for intra-textual aporiae.
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Apr 16, 2001
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  At 01:28 PM 4/15/01 -0700, Jack Kilmon wrote:

                                                  >I was not suggesting a late date for GoT. In fact, I believe the GoT
                                                  >pre-dates
                                                  >the gospel tradition. I am only suggesting a later date for the addition of
                                                  >#105
                                                  >to the anthology.

                                                  I know -- it was just a slip. I don't think you can date the individual
                                                  traditions that way either. The way to do it is to look for intra-textual
                                                  aporiae.

                                                  >I understand your complaint and I am more interested in the use of a
                                                  >redaction
                                                  >critical toolset in my approach to Thomas. It becomes necessary, however,
                                                  >to
                                                  >choose what tools we use in that methodology. One of the tools that I use
                                                  >is
                                                  >an appeal to the Aramaic. When I use that tool on #55, it tells me that,
                                                  >like
                                                  >Luke 14:26 an Aramaism of mistranslation is involved with the Greek MISEI
                                                  >and the Coptic (from Middle Egyptian) MECTE from the Aramaic snh (saneh)
                                                  >which is an idion for "set aside." I fully appreciate that we do not have
                                                  >the
                                                  >original Aramaic text and must decide whether a retroversion can be used to
                                                  >examine redaction..it is, after all, hypothetical. Having said that, when
                                                  >the
                                                  >retroversion makes a heck of a lot more sense than the translation, I have
                                                  >to
                                                  >give it some notice. An appeal to the Old Syriac Lukan parallel can also
                                                  >come into play. Since #101 appears to be an expansion of 55 using the
                                                  >mistranslation, I have to place 101 to a later redaction level. and 105 as
                                                  >using a part of 101 and 61 in the appeal to the parentage issue.

                                                  Well, this is consistent and logical, at any rate. As you know, though, I
                                                  don't at all buy your Aramaic retroversion method, for a variety of reasons.
                                                  But this is something we've already discussed at some length.

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

                                                  please note my slightly revised e-mail address
                                                • Jim Bauer
                                                  ... of ... is ... agree, ... Your analysis of the evolution of science is woefully inadequate and I can say that as the first student ever to receive an A+
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Apr 16, 2001
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    > No "evolution" exists either. No one has ever found one. It is a set of
                                                    > inferences from data. Dinosaur bones exist. Animals exist in their
                                                    > diversity. And on the basis of the pattens of disagreement and agreement
                                                    of
                                                    > features (to underscore the parallel with the synoptic problem) evolution
                                                    is
                                                    > THEORIZED. It may be a theory whose cogency is so solid that few question
                                                    > it, but it's still a theory. But, I would say, and I'm sure you would
                                                    agree,
                                                    > that anyone who questioned evolution on the grounds that "it's just
                                                    > hypothetical" is an absolute fool, rejoicing in his or her own ignorance.
                                                    > Someone who wants to question evolution ought to be able to point out its
                                                    > deficiencies, and suggest an alternative that is genuinely better.

                                                    Your analysis of the evolution of science is woefully inadequate and I can
                                                    say that as the first student ever to receive an A+ from evolutionary
                                                    biologist and philosopher of science Bill Wimsatt at the University of
                                                    Chicago. Even the name of the core corriculum of the graduate course in
                                                    history of science was "evolution of science". As Wimsatt successfully
                                                    argues evolutionary theory is so deeply entrenched that it has become robust
                                                    (in the engineering sence) so any succeeding theory would be a modification
                                                    of the original. This is the same way Newton's theories are still used as
                                                    relativity reduces down to them in systems of small velocity.

                                                    Are you at all aware of Lewontin's definition of evolution? Heritability,
                                                    variability and selection. This definition includes all manner of evolution
                                                    besides biological; there are very many cases of evolution occurring in
                                                    non-biological systems such as culture and psychology. Anyone who thinks
                                                    about philosophy of mind more than five minutes will find these three
                                                    qualities embedded in mind: memory, new ideas, and decision-making.

                                                    It is nearly impossible to argue that any of these three do not exist save
                                                    for Fundies who babble on about "the fixity of species" and "intelligent
                                                    design". In any case I found on-line the other day--and unfortunately
                                                    forgot to bookmark--what the author judged "the most compelling evidence of
                                                    evolution yet" in the form of one species observably turning into another in
                                                    some Siberian warblers and some salamanders in Colorado.

                                                    Personally I think that this thread should be cut. It has nothing to do
                                                    with Thomas and Creationists who want to argue the issue might well be
                                                    better off on some other list.

                                                    Jim Bauer
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > __________________________________
                                                    > William Arnal william.arnal@...
                                                    > Religion/Classics New York University
                                                    >
                                                    > please note my slightly revised e-mail address
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > -------------------------------------------------
                                                    > To post to gthomas, send email to gthomas@egroups.com
                                                    > To unsubscribe, send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                                                    >
                                                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                                    >
                                                  • mgrondin@tir.com
                                                    ... Perhaps that s because Bill wasn t analyzing the evolution of science. Usually, if one is not doing something, it ll be true that they re doing it
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Apr 16, 2001
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      --- Jim Bauer wrote Bill:
                                                      > Your analysis of the evolution of science is woefully inadequate ..

                                                      Perhaps that's because Bill wasn't analyzing the evolution of
                                                      science. Usually, if one is not doing something, it'll be true that
                                                      they're doing it inadequately.

                                                      > Personally I think that this thread should be cut. It has nothing
                                                      > to do with Thomas and Creationists who want to argue the issue
                                                      > might well be better off on some other list.

                                                      This is not your best day, Jim. Read the posts again. No one is
                                                      arguing Creationism. Gravity and evolution were merely used as
                                                      counter-examples to Frank McCoy's seemingly uncareful remark:

                                                      "No copy of Q exists, so it is not real
                                                      and any hypothesised strata aren't real either."

                                                      Later in his note, Frank explained more carefully what he meant, but
                                                      this summary statement of his position rightfully drew fire as
                                                      containing a transparently bad argument ("if not extant, then not
                                                      'real'"). Gravity and evolution may not have been the best choices
                                                      for counter-examples, since they lead into side-issues, but
                                                      counter-examples to the argument are not hard to come by. (Eusebius
                                                      quotes from a text of Hegesippus no copy of which is extant, e.g.)

                                                      Mike
                                                    • William Arnal
                                                      At 12:50 PM 4/16/01 -0600, Jim Bauer wrote all kinds of hubristic stuff ... Gee, I m sorry. You must be a pretty smart dude. ... Wow! Congratulations. Even the
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Apr 16, 2001
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        At 12:50 PM 4/16/01 -0600, Jim Bauer wrote all kinds of hubristic stuff
                                                        about evolution that has nothing to do with anything, including:

                                                        >Your analysis of the evolution of science is woefully inadequate and I can

                                                        Gee, I'm sorry. You must be a pretty smart dude.

                                                        >say that as the first student ever to receive an A+ from evolutionary
                                                        >biologist and philosopher of science Bill Wimsatt at the University of
                                                        >Chicago.

                                                        Wow! Congratulations.

                                                        Even the name of the core corriculum of the graduate course in
                                                        >history of science was "evolution of science". As Wimsatt successfully
                                                        >argues evolutionary theory is so deeply entrenched that it has become robust
                                                        >(in the engineering sence) so any succeeding theory would be a modification
                                                        >of the original. This is the same way Newton's theories are still used as
                                                        >relativity reduces down to them in systems of small velocity.

                                                        Precisely the point I was making was that evolution is a THEORY, not a FACT,
                                                        and that calling something a theory is NOT, in itself, sufficient grounds
                                                        for rejecting it -- hence evolution, gravity, and -- my point -- the issue
                                                        of synoptic relations. To dismiss evolution, or gravity for that matter, on
                                                        the GROUNDS that it is a theory rather than a tangible fact (can you hold
                                                        "evolution" in your hand?) is foolish, recognizing neither the way THEORIES
                                                        work, nor the evidence on which the theory in question is based.

                                                        Etc. Stuff snipped.

                                                        >Personally I think that this thread should be cut. It has nothing to do
                                                        >with Thomas and Creationists who want to argue the issue might well be
                                                        >better off on some other list.

                                                        You've evidently parachuted into this discussion without following the
                                                        thread at all, and indeed without paying attention to the post to which you
                                                        are responding. NO ONE on this list has been discussing or endorsing
                                                        creationism (least of all me!!!); we have been using scientific theories as
                                                        an example of how theories work in order to shed light on theories of the
                                                        literary relationships among ancient Christian texts. If you don't like it,
                                                        too bad. My knowledge of evolutionary theory may indeed be "woefully
                                                        inadequate," but you wouldn't be able to tell that from any posts I've sent,
                                                        which have merely stated that evolution is a theory, not a datum, using
                                                        precisely the COGENCY and ubiquity of evolutionary assumptions to illustrate
                                                        that calling something a theory is not itself grounds for dismissing it.

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

                                                        please note my slightly revised e-mail address
                                                      • BitsyCat1@aol.com
                                                        Perhaps this incautious statement was meant to propose a written Q is not extant, because there is only an oral one? I do not follow the logic otherwise? Or
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Apr 16, 2001
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          Perhaps this incautious statement was meant to propose a written Q is not
                                                          extant, because there is only an oral one? I do not follow the logic
                                                          otherwise? Or perhaps his point is that there is no such thing as the q that
                                                          has been proposed in "Gospel of Thomas"(that might make sense) The counter
                                                          examples are getting a bit wild, though. Please clarify john moon
                                                          Springfield,Tn johnmoon3717@...
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.