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

RE: [GTh] Jacobs Remarks on The Extent of the Thomas Community (from months ago)

Expand Messages
  • William Arnal
    ... Yes, it was crosstalk. ... That wasn t EXACTLY what I had in mind. I was really trying to distinguish between community reflection/ideas etc. and
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 6, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Jacob Knee wrote:

      >I note
      >that Bill Arnal wrote recently (on crosstalk perhaps?) of 'early

      Yes, it was crosstalk.

      >christian'
      >texts being on a spectrum - from those produced reflecting the views >of a
      >community (does that imply that the implied audience of the text is the
      >community whose views it can be said to reflect?)

      That wasn't EXACTLY what I had in mind. I was really trying to distinguish
      between community reflection/ideas etc. and individual creativity. The US
      Constitution is a community product; Wuthering Heights is an individual
      creative work. I suppose, though, that one could nuance this "spectrum" idea
      considerably precisely by trying to fix the degree to which a text reflects,
      or fails to reflect, the views of its audience. Hence, from "most communal"
      to "most individual":
      collectively compiled text reflecting the views of its intended audience -->
      individually compiled text using collective traditions and concepts produced
      by and reflecting the views of its intended audience --> collectively
      compiled text "correcting" the views of its intended audience -->
      individually compiled text using collective traditions but "correcting" the
      intended audience --> individually freely composed text "correcting" the
      intended audience --> Idiosyncratic individual composition with no
      particular audience in view.

      or some such thing . . .

      >used by?), just one community). Bill wrote of Q being at the communal >end
      >of
      >the spectrum (though if you accept the classic two document >hypothesis -
      >Q
      >must have circulated rapidly to other scribes/communities) -

      No, I actually don't think so. Seems to me there's good reason to think that
      Matthew actually represents a very late stage of the same community that
      produced Q -- Matthew could be considered a sort-of "Q4." In which case, the
      text need not have circulated at ALL prior to Matthew. And I tend to date
      the composition of Luke VERY late, say, 120 CE or so. So all that's really
      required is for Q to have "circulated" to wherever Luke is "researching"
      within the span of, say, 60-70 years. Hardly "rapid."

      >I wonder >where
      >he would place Thomas?

      At the communal end of the spectrum, for sure. In fact, more so than Q.

      Bill
      ___________________________
      William Arnal
      Department of Religion
      University of Manitoba


      _________________________________________________________________
      MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
      http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
    • Jacob Knee
      Many thanks for this - much snipped but kept for more reflection. Just want to pick up the penultimate point you make. The more commonly used date for Luke
      Message 2 of 2 , Jun 6, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Many thanks for this - much snipped but kept for more reflection.

        Just want to pick up the penultimate point you make. The more commonly used
        date for Luke looks to me to be somewhere 80 - 100 CE with many folks just
        going for around 90 CE. I know the arbitrariness of these dates, as all of
        the dates we're talking about - but if the final edition of Q is produced
        says 55 - 65 CE then a copy arrives with Luke and becomes very familiar to
        him in 15 - 35 years. Not rapid, as you rightly correct, but it does
        evidence a circulation and use of texts between very different communities
        that on the usual redactional model of disperate bodies is surprising, and
        might make us think about the frequency, and so to say, promptness of the
        circulation of texts between communities.

        Best wishes,
        Jacob Knee
        (Cam, Glos.)



        -----Original Message-----
        From: William Arnal [mailto:warnal@...]
        Sent: 07 June 2002 01:26
        To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [GTh] Jacobs Remarks on The Extent of the Thomas Community
        (from months ago)
        [snip]

        No, I actually don't think so. Seems to me there's good reason to think that
        Matthew actually represents a very late stage of the same community that
        produced Q -- Matthew could be considered a sort-of "Q4." In which case, the
        text need not have circulated at ALL prior to Matthew. And I tend to date
        the composition of Luke VERY late, say, 120 CE or so. So all that's really
        required is for Q to have "circulated" to wherever Luke is "researching"
        within the span of, say, 60-70 years. Hardly "rapid."

        >I wonder >where
        >he would place Thomas?

        At the communal end of the spectrum, for sure. In fact, more so than Q.

        Bill
        ___________________________
        William Arnal
        Department of Religion
        University of Manitoba
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.