- ... in any ... Just as an aside, isn t the Odes of Solomon arguably Christian, arguably 1C and arguably in its original language (Syriac)? ... shocked that ...Message 1 of 49 , May 3, 2001View Source--- In gthomas@y..., William Arnal <wea1@i...> wrote:
> Since there are NO extant first century Christian documents written
> semitic language, this is really irrelevant.Just as an aside, isn't the Odes of Solomon arguably Christian,
arguably 1C and arguably in its original language (Syriac)?
> Plain and simple: you don't get Ph.D's inshocked that
> biblical scholarship by working with translations. I'm actually
> anyone would even think this.I know this is an exception, but Stevan Davies, for whom I have
really the highest regard, doesn't seem to be very at home in Greek
and seems to know no Coptic. But it's a lovely image, the Jesus
Seminar all poring over their leatherbound copies of the King James
- George, ... ... And I wrote in re a portion of your letter which ended with the above that I found little to agree with in it. I read in too much of aMessage 49 of 49 , May 4, 2001View SourceGeorge,
You wrote in re GThom86:
>This interpretation has three things going for it, in my view. First,<SNIP>
>it reveals GTh 86 to be pithy and powerful, two characteristics
>generally attributed to Jesus' aphorisms. . .
>Second, it echoes a common theme in Thomas, that of conflictingAnd I wrote in re a portion of your letter which ended with the above that I
>internal natures, the pre-Fall identity vs. the post-Fall identity.
>Third, if indeed Jesus was a mystic/teacher, you would expect that he
>would teach what for mystics everywhere is almost a truism: To find
>peace or "rest" you must identify with what is most divine in yourself
>and disconnect from everything that is not. So I see the Jesus of
>Thomas as more interested in this kind of "rest" than in the comfort
>of having a home or shelter.
found 'little to agree with' in it. I read in too much of a damn hurry for which
I apologize. I am in reasonably close agreement with all three of these
propositions and they are certainly worth noting. But in disagreement with the
snipped portion I fail to see how the excellent points you have made apply to
your interpretation of SOM as 'mankind' and not mine of SOM as a self reference
of Jesus as human being, his aphoristic self, to Jesus as prophet, who spreads
the word of the HS. Think about it. Its something of a gestalt.
Best wishes, Odell
Prof. Geology Em., W&L