RE: [GTh] #95 & #109
- Hey all:
>[Dave asked:]Thanks for this, Rick. I wasn't able to reply to Dave's original message yet
>Out of curiosity, could you provide a brief summary of the criteria
>you used to base your published (1995?) analytical breakout of GoT
>mentioned in earlier posts?
>[and Rick replied]
>I did my best to try to summarize Bill's article last summer. Although
>is always the danger that I have missed something altogether, or that >I
>mis-stated Bill's position, the "breakout" of the strata is close to
>accurate (at least). Here's the link:
because any copies of the article I have are back at the office, and I'm at
home today. But this saves me the necessity of a (belated) reply.
Department of Religion
University of Manitoba
"Well, I can see I'm not in Paris"
-- Ernest Hemingway, on landing in Winnipeg
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
- Rick Hubbard said:
>>I did my best to try to summarize Bill's article lastsummer. Although there is always the danger that I have
missed something altogether, or that I have mis-stated
Bill's position, the "breakout" of the strata is close to
accurate (at least). Here's the link:
I must have missed this one! Well, at least I now have
something to do over the weekend. Still have to find the
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- William Arnal Wrote on 3/08/02:
>>We might be talking past each other again. Did I seem to imply that Thomassayings must or should go back to Jesus? No, like you and like Kloppenborg,
I can't see Thomas as testimony to the historical Jesus -- it, like the
canonicals, is a theological-literary production, I assume.
I'm at work at the moment, and I can't seem to locate your posts about the
oral traditions of Thomas. I'll look again at home for these posts since I
am very curious about your analysis of this issue.
I did however run across this comment of yours about the origins of Thomas,
and I'm curious if you wouldn't mind giving me me a short explanation of
*WHY* you can't see this as a testimony to the historical Jesus, and instead
"assume" it's a theological-literary production. From my vantange point,
Thomas seems very randomly slapped together and I don't see much of an
underlying "production" to it. The randomness of these sayings, as opposed
to grouped "themes", seems to lend credence to the notion that these were
recorded at different times as the author happened to pen them down, rather
than this list representing a well thought out "production" per se.
[sig added by ed. Contributors should sign messages.]