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

Re: [GTh] #54 (and Re: #114) and #14

Expand Messages
  • BitsyCat1@aol.com
    In a message dated 09/30/2002 19:12:53PM, FMMCCOY@email.msn.com writes:
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 30, 2002
      In a message dated 09/30/2002 19:12:53PM, FMMCCOY@... writes:

      << John, do you have any evidence I have overlooked which supports the
      hypothesis that GTh 14.5 and Matt 15:11 are both based on a passage from a
      postulated Loggia of Matthew document?

      John replies

      AS I recall Steven Davies Makes an Argument for MArkan Dependance.( From
      Thomas)Although I admit it has been a couple of Months since I read that.( I
      believe It was/is On line) at his site.

      Not all of Mark certainly but a certain Markan Dependencies. Therefore If
      there are any Markan dependence on Thomas (Or the Common source of the
      Thomasine sayings) This then would satisfy the order you suggest.( Generally
      if not specifically)
      In the case where a Dependence of Mark (Or sections thereof) Might be shown,
      it would indicate to me that a section/s of Thomas Precede Mark, followed by
      This of course would not rule out the fact that they were based upon a Pre
      Gospel/Sayings list Like Unto the Ta Loggia, or even Q source, or yet
      unidentified source..nor rule out the fact that the dependant sections were a
      Pre Mark (Later assembled into the Gospel itself)

      Certainly I have never seen a discrepancy in thinking that "Parts" of
      Thomas precede both Mark and Matthew, and was most probably from a Common
      source. or sayings list. The Absence of Narrative, the more primitive form,
      lack of the Passion and Cross narratives. Either earlier or assembled Later.

      The Theme of the Two into One I believe was explored on either this
      list or the other (Gospel of Thomas) as being the Words of
      Levi(Matthew/Mathias) as reported by Papias and the other source likely being
      Kefa.( This argument finding its way from JAck Kilmon) with specific
      reasoning. That Some of Thomas then precedes Mark.

      Certainly we can argue which sections are early and therefore might appear
      in either Mark and Matthew due to being early (In sourcing) Versus the Late.
      However, I have noticed that even in the supposed: Late sayings that
      if you extract the Meaning of the sayings (Or remove the Apparent Gnostification) It may have had a More primitive form that was then expanded on in Thomas (and most certainly in the Coptic)
      One would surmise that for a Saying to be expanded (Perhaps to make
      a particular point for the Coptic Compiler) That the saying began in a more
      primitive form.
      Saying 114 could be a Pauline Statement referring to the
      Admonition that there is No male nor Female in Jesus Christ/Redacted and
      conflated into a dialog between Jesus, Peter, and Mary.
      But then there is the unsettling possibility that it is the other
      way around? Paul read the saying and clarified its meaning in his Letters?
      The proof has not been shown to my satisfaction (And perhaps
      others) That Thomas is Dependent on Matthew or Mark.
      It would seem all that has been shown is that it is Either
      dependent on Matthew/Mark or, That Matthew and Mark contains elements of
      Thomas (And or Its Common source).
      Just as it might be either dependent on Paul, or Paul contains
      elements of Thomas. There is not enough evidence to prove the absolute
      There is, as I see it no persuading evidence to prove beyond a
      shadow of a doubt the premise of dependency?( on either Gospel)
      It remains rather a possibility.

      Frankly this salvage theory would seem to have considerable merit
      There exists a report by Papias of One Non extant document. There are Likely
      to be others which the compilers would struggle to assemble (resulting in
      only a lose order with some catchwords, As the sayings of Jesus. a Vox Iesu)
      Important enough in its time(Perhaps even treasured) which not only would be
      assembled, but important enough to the Keepers of the Document to preserve in
      the face of the imminent loss (Or perceived coming loss of its contents)

      Regards JOHN MOON
      37172 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxjohnmoon3717@...
    • Ron McCann
      John, You are using the term TA LOGGIA. Could you clarify please? Best, Ron McCann Sakatoon, Canada
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 2, 2002

        You are using the term TA LOGGIA.
        Could you clarify please?


        Ron McCann
        Sakatoon, Canada
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.