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

Re: Re: [GTh](was #54 and synoptic usage (was #114 Late

Expand Messages
  • BitsyCat1@aol.com
    In a message dated 09/30/2002 12:44:44PM, DaGoi@aol.com writes:
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 30 11:18 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 09/30/2002 12:44:44PM, DaGoi@... writes:

      << side from the fact that the attestation of gThom is late, consisting of a
      tight chronological sandwich from the mass of source citations (in Clem
      Strom) to the sudden 'explosion' of manuscripts (in Greek) and actual
      citations (by name)? This in itself leaves the burden of proof on any theory
      that would put it earlier; the 'late daters' who figure 40-50 yrs. earlier
      (150 ce or so) are mildly out of line, but to put it 100 or 130 years earlier
      is wildly out of line no matter how eminent the scholar who makes the
      unsupported claim. The reasons given for any earlier dating in the pile of
      books I have on the subject seem quite unlikely to bear such a burden. There
      is of course no end of books but I do not plan to buy another on or assuming
      an early dating unless I hear of a reason more substantial.

      The book though is literarily and historically fascinating, and whether it >>

      John Asks?

      Then you consider Davies case for a certain Markan Dependence in Error?
      The Pauline citation (Certainly weak but nevertheless apparent) In 1st
      Corinthians 2:9, to be a fluke?
      That is to some extent you may be correct, some may be later than other
      Sayings which are Earlier.
      The Question would be could you make the case for the entire Gospel of
      Thomas being later (or in the Time period you cite with Clement)?

      There are other arguments for an early strata in Thomas that would pre
      exist the clementine citing.

      IM not sure it is possible to Pin the document to One "only" time
      period. Especially in the Coptic?

      But I would disagree the Burden falls equally on the Late daters and
      Early daters to prove their case. Not Greater on one rather than another. It
      would seem more likely that AN Early extant document would end up in a Later
      Extant document by a dependancy, but I would say there is at least an equal
      burden of proof.

      Regards john moon
      Springfield, Teen johnmoon3717@...
    • Grondin
      ... theory ... Bill- I m wondering if you perceive a similar tight chronological sandwich from the mass of canonical source citations in Justin, to the
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 30 3:21 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        [Bill Foley]:
        > Aside from the fact that the attestation of gThom is late, consisting of a
        > tight chronological sandwich from the mass of source citations (in Clem
        > Strom) to the sudden 'explosion' of manuscripts (in Greek) and actual
        > citations (by name)? This in itself leaves the burden of proof on any
        theory
        > that would put it earlier ...

        Bill-

        I'm wondering if you perceive a similar "tight chronological sandwich" from
        the mass of canonical source citations in Justin, to the sudden 'explosion'
        of canonical manuscripts, to the actual citations of canonical gospels (by
        name)? By parity of reasoning, wouldn't this show that the canonicals were
        written in the 2nd century?

        Mike
      • Ron McCann
        I have been away, again and am trying to play catch-up . Apologies Jim, I ll get to your posts shortly. Once again, the usage or non usage of the Synoptics by
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 30 6:06 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          I have been away, again and am trying to play "catch-up". Apologies Jim,
          I'll get to your posts shortly.

          Once again, the usage or non usage of the Synoptics by our Thomas author(s)
          has raised it's ugly head. And the arguments seem interminable, pro and con.
          Again, as well, we are dipping into the early or late dating arguments. Both
          seem unresolvable.

          I have consistenty advocated the position that Thomas did not have or depend
          upon the 4 Gospels and that it is early, not late; and I wanted to raise a
          point, which for me, at least, resolved the two issues.

          The Thomas incipit tells us that these (the sayings which follow) are the
          SECRET words that Jesus spoke, and further, that anyone who "finds" the
          (proper) interpretation of these sayings "will not taste death" ( ie- become
          a living inextinguishable Spirit while in the flesh.).

          This incipit designates ALL the included sayings as sayings whose meaning is
          unknown unless penetrated by the seeker, and my ears are still ringing from
          a post made many moons ago by our estemed moderator Mike Grondin to the
          effect that to the Thomas authors, perhaps these sayings were still a
          mystery, inviting resolution. In other words, even THEY didn't know what
          they meant, and wanted their novices and students to take a crack at them.
          This incipit invites and challenges the reader or hearer to seek for and
          find the meaning promising "LIFE" to those who can crack it. My error was to
          assume that the Thomas community HAD the "secret" meanings all "taped", that
          this was a "learning exercise" for initiates, and that some "oral or Arnal
          (dig) Thomasine professor would obligingly lay it all out after the students
          had foundered. I had supposed that their Thomas studies had been accompanied
          by an oral explication, exposition and teaching, long since lost when the
          Thomas community and teachers vanished. It is equally possible however that
          their "professors" just didn't know any of the meanings of the sayings they
          included in this Gospel. They knew that penetrating Jesus's words lead to
          "Life", but they had no idea what ALL these included collected sayings
          meant.

          Thomas has sayings of Jesus unknown to the Gospel writers and it has those
          that are known to them- it's about half and half.

          How is that POSSIBLE that the Gospel of Thomas authors would consider that
          some of the meanings of some of the Synoptic sayings they include are still
          unknown? Some of the sayings, certainly, (perhaps up to half) are
          mysterious, but the rest, because of the Gospels, HAD ALREADY BEEN GIVEN
          MEANING AND CONTEXT IN THE EXISTING GOSPELS THAT WOULD ALLOW THIER MEANING
          TO BE APPRECIATED AND PENETRATED ( sorry for the shout). How could, IF THEY
          INDEED HAD THE GOSPELS, would these synoptic-parallel sayings still be
          mysterious and not have assigned meanings? Why would they consider them
          still secret and needing to be penetrated? Why include them?

          Here's my point. Only if they DIDN'T have the Synoptic Gospels at their
          disposal- which tends to give context to and explain the synoptic parallel
          sayings- would they consider them STILL a mystery. They seem to insist,
          from the incipit, that at least half the sayings in Thomas- those with
          Synoptic parallels- STILL, AT THEIR TIME do not have any assigned or
          recognizable meaning, and their meaning STILL has to be penetrated.

          Unless one assumes the Thomas authors are being deliberatedly perverse and
          rejecting later interpretations, one must buy Thomas as pre-Synoptic,
          earlier and non-dependant. Further, one must buy that the Thomas authors
          relied, in part, on a previously existing sayings-collection- (probably
          Papias's Matthean Logia Collection)- which the later Thomas community found
          mysterious and had to interpret. They seemed to have bogged down. This
          collection of isolated sayings which, as I suggest Mark and Q also used and
          interpreted, existed in a yet uninterpreted form before any of the Gospels.

          Horse sense tells us that if the Thomas authors were still "in mystery"
          about parallel sayings preserved in the Synoptics- they never HAD the
          Synoptics. Had they had them we probably would see much fewer "unresolved"
          sayings in Thomas. They would have focused on the "uncrackables."

          The "in mystery" dates Thomas- early and non-dependant.

          Capice?

          Respectfully,

          Ron McCann
          Saskatoon, Canada

          However,
        • DaGoi@aol.com
          In a message dated 9/30/2 6:24:09 PM, Mike wrote: ... theory ... Bill- I m wondering if you perceive a similar tight chronological sandwich from the mass of
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 7, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 9/30/2 6:24:09 PM, Mike wrote:

            <<[Bill Foley]:
            > Aside from the fact that the attestation of gThom is late, consisting of a
            > tight chronological sandwich from the mass of source citations (in Clem
            > Strom) to the sudden 'explosion' of manuscripts (in Greek) and actual
            > citations (by name)? This in itself leaves the burden of proof on any
            theory
            > that would put it earlier ...

            Bill-

            I'm wondering if you perceive a similar "tight chronological sandwich" from
            the mass of canonical source citations in Justin, to the sudden 'explosion'
            of canonical manuscripts, to the actual citations of canonical gospels (by
            name)? By parity of reasoning, wouldn't this show that the canonicals were
            written in the 2nd century?

            Mike
            >>

            An essential difference is that Clement shows us where many of the logions
            come from - that is, he can not go into detail about where the sources he
            quotes get these logions, but he more or less tells us the state of gThom at
            the time he writes the Stroms. Then 'suddenly' to our evidence (at least)
            three manuscripts show up within only a few years. This is a book Clement
            should know, being that it is in Egypt - 3 copies we have from just after
            this time and comparatively in his neighborhood - the book should be all
            around him if it existed in his time (unless, as I say, he did it himself
            shortly after the Stroms) - and he is not shy about quoting where he gets his
            stuff.
            Maybe he missed it somehow and just was not in that loop, but I think
            that is unlikely.

            By contrast the g4 have nothing similar to this (that I'm aware of this late
            at night). The manuscripts are more spaced out, the attestations are more
            spaced out, and there is no one saying like "Sower went out to sow is from
            Plato". Some things of course are mirrored in the Talmud, but because of
            the dating of that, (Mishna about the time of ClemAlex or a little after and
            the Gemara quite sometime after that) it could just as easily be developments
            from rabbis pondering what Jesus supposedly said.

            IF Clem Alex did compose gThom though, from sources such as gHeb, gEgy, the
            g4, and other places like Aesop, still, he not only counters some of the
            Gnostic understandings, but incorporates whatever he thinks is best in their
            understanding. If a later church declared Origen a heretic outright, it's
            kept Clem in name only, as he is more sympathetic to Greek Philosophy and
            probably parts of the more Valentinian gnosticism (though that may be merely
            a reflection, in my own mind and then thrown onto my still not finished
            reading of the Stroms, of the neo-Valentinians adopting gThom).

            Bill Foley
            Woburn
          • swallison
            ... consisting of a ... Clem ... actual ... sandwich from ... explosion ... gospels (by ... canonicals were ... logions ... sources he ... gThom at ...
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 13, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In gthomas@y..., DaGoi@a... wrote:
              >
              > In a message dated 9/30/2 6:24:09 PM, Mike wrote:
              >
              > <<[Bill Foley]:
              > > Aside from the fact that the attestation of gThom is late,
              consisting of a
              > > tight chronological sandwich from the mass of source citations (in
              Clem
              > > Strom) to the sudden 'explosion' of manuscripts (in Greek) and
              actual
              > > citations (by name)? This in itself leaves the burden of proof on any
              > theory
              > > that would put it earlier ...
              >
              > Bill-
              >
              > I'm wondering if you perceive a similar "tight chronological
              sandwich" from
              > the mass of canonical source citations in Justin, to the sudden
              'explosion'
              > of canonical manuscripts, to the actual citations of canonical
              gospels (by
              > name)? By parity of reasoning, wouldn't this show that the
              canonicals were
              > written in the 2nd century?
              >
              > Mike
              > >>
              >
              > An essential difference is that Clement shows us where many of the
              logions
              > come from - that is, he can not go into detail about where the
              sources he
              > quotes get these logions, but he more or less tells us the state of
              gThom at
              > the time he writes the Stroms. Then 'suddenly' to our evidence (at
              least)
              > three manuscripts show up within only a few years. This is a book
              Clement
              > should know, being that it is in Egypt - 3 copies we have from just
              after
              > this time and comparatively in his neighborhood - the book should be
              all
              > around him if it existed in his time (unless, as I say, he did it
              himself
              > shortly after the Stroms) - and he is not shy about quoting where he
              gets his
              > stuff.
              > Maybe he missed it somehow and just was not in that loop, but I
              think
              > that is unlikely.
              >
              > ..........................
              >
              > Bill Foley
              > Woburn


              I just did a search in the Stromata, at Peter Kirby's site, on the
              name "Mark." I did not find any citation of the gospel of Mark in
              this long work. I did a search on "Luke." One explicit mention of the
              gospel of Luke and one specific mention of Acts turned up. Regarding
              Matthew, only two times does he mention Matthew and then quote or
              allude to something in canonical Matthew. I've not finished reading
              the Stromata but I'm sure Clement quoted without citation these works
              often, many times ascribing it to "the Lord." Given that these well
              known and much longer works are explicitly cited so infrequently, it
              is not all that surprising that the gospel of Thomas, if it existed,
              might not be cited too. I realize that Clement does mention the
              gospel of Mark in other fragmentary writings and in citations of
              Clement by others.

              Steve Allison
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.