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

[GTh] Re: Dating

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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.