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

Re: [GTh] Crosstalk Discussions

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    This is notice that I ve uploaded a spreadsheet for Gordon s stratification scheme to our Files section (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/files)- together
    Message 1 of 17 , Mar 30, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      This is notice that I've uploaded a spreadsheet for Gordon's stratification
      scheme to our Files section (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/files)-
      together with a slightly emended version of his text (#68 was shown twice,
      with different shadings).

      Members may also be interested in a discussion that took place on the old
      Crosstalk in March '98 between Bill Arnal (who had a scheme somewhat like
      Gordon's), Steve Davies (who objected to it) and others. Andrew Bernhard has
      saved these fascinating and still-relevant discussions at:

      http://www.gospels.net/xtalk/thomas/index05.html

      Finally, I'm hoping that someone has a copy of Bill's paper "Rhetoric of
      Marginality" (in which he laid out his scheme). I'd like to be able to
      compare Gordon's scheme with Bill's, but I'm unable to locate Bill's paper.

      Mike Grondin
      The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
      http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm
      The Coptic Gospel of Thomas in Context
      http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/index.htm
    • Gordon Raynal
      Mike and all, I want to thank Mike on the list (I have done so off-list as well) for this work he s done. I write hear with the plea, that sometimes errors
      Message 2 of 17 , Mar 31, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Mike and all,

        I want to thank Mike on the list (I have done so off-list as well) for this
        work he's done. I write hear with the plea, that sometimes errors might
        show up as I'm not the world's greatest typist! So more eyes reading and
        asking questions is a help.

        I also want to second that I hope someone does have Bill Arnal's
        stratification. I'd really like to see it as well.

        Gordon Raynal
        Inman, SC
        ----------
        >From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
        >To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
        >Subject: Re: [GTh] Crosstalk Discussions
        >Date: 30, Mar 2004, 11:51 PM
        >

        >This is notice that I've uploaded a spreadsheet for Gordon's stratification
        >scheme to our Files section (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/files)-
        >together with a slightly emended version of his text (#68 was shown twice,
        >with different shadings).
        >
        >Members may also be interested in a discussion that took place on the old
        >Crosstalk in March '98 between Bill Arnal (who had a scheme somewhat like
        >Gordon's), Steve Davies (who objected to it) and others. Andrew Bernhard has
        >saved these fascinating and still-relevant discussions at:
        >
        >http://www.gospels.net/xtalk/thomas/index05.html
        >
        >Finally, I'm hoping that someone has a copy of Bill's paper "Rhetoric of
        >Marginality" (in which he laid out his scheme). I'd like to be able to
        >compare Gordon's scheme with Bill's, but I'm unable to locate Bill's paper.
        >
        >Mike Grondin
        >The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
        >http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm
        >The Coptic Gospel of Thomas in Context
        >http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/index.htm
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >--------------------------------------------------------------------
        >Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
        >To unsubscribe from this group,
        >send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • fmmccoy
        ... From: Gordon Raynal To: Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Crosstalk Discussions
        Message 3 of 17 , Mar 31, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Gordon Raynal" <scudi1@...>
          To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 4:19 PM
          Subject: Re: [GTh] Crosstalk Discussions


          > Mike and all,
          >
          > I want to thank Mike on the list (I have done so off-list as well) for
          this
          > work he's done. I write hear with the plea, that sometimes errors might
          > show up as I'm not the world's greatest typist! So more eyes reading and
          > asking questions is a help.
          >
          > I also want to second that I hope someone does have Bill Arnal's
          > stratification. I'd really like to see it as well.
          >


          Dear Gordon Raynal:

          On 8-2-02, I made a nine part posting on there possibly being three layers
          to GThomas. The first of the nine posts can be accessed at:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/message/4987

          In any event, the fourth part posting includes this excerpt, which gives
          some information on Arnal's stratification of GThomas:

          In "The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism, Gnosticism, and Sayings
          Gospels" (Harvard Theological Review, 88:4, 1995), Bill Arnal postulates the
          existence of two stratum in GTh. The earlier (see p. 478) is "the sapiential
          stratum" and it includes GTh 3. 5. 6. 9. 14. 16. 20. 26. 31, 32, 34-36, 42,
          45, 47, 54, 55, 57, 63-65, 71, 74, 76, 89, 95-98, 107, 109, and 110. The
          later (see p.479) is "the gnostic-leaning stratum" and it includes Gth 11,
          13, 15, 18, 21-22, 27-28, 49-50, 51, 60, 61, 83, 84, 101, 105, 108, 11, and
          114.

          I hope this helps.

          Incidentally, the fourth post, from which this excerpt comes, is a great
          embarrasment to me to this day because, in it, I inadvertently referred to
          April DeConick as "he". After Tom's recent compliment of me (thank you
          Tom, you are way too kind!), remembrance of gross mistakes like this one,
          that I way too frequently make, help to bring me back to reality.

          Regards,

          Frank McCoy
          1809 N. English Apt. 15
          Maplewood, MN USA 55109
        • Michael Grondin
          ... the ... sapiential ... 42, ... and ... What about 1,2,4,7,8,10,12,17,19,23,24,25 ...? If split-strata like some of Gordon s, would need details for full
          Message 4 of 17 , Mar 31, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Frank McCoy wrote:
            > In "The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism, Gnosticism, and Sayings
            > Gospels" (Harvard Theological Review, 88:4, 1995), Bill Arnal postulates
            the
            > existence of two stratum in GTh. The earlier (see p. 478) is "the
            sapiential
            > stratum" and it includes GTh 3. 5. 6. 9. 14. 16. 20. 26. 31, 32, 34-36,
            42,
            > 45, 47, 54, 55, 57, 63-65, 71, 74, 76, 89, 95-98, 107, 109, and 110. The
            > later (see p.479) is "the gnostic-leaning stratum" and it includes Gth 11,
            > 13, 15, 18, 21-22, 27-28, 49-50, 51, 60, 61, 83, 84, 101, 105, 108, 11,
            and
            > 114.

            What about 1,2,4,7,8,10,12,17,19,23,24,25 ...?
            If split-strata like some of Gordon's, would need details for full
            comparison.

            Mike Grondin
          • Gordon Raynal
            ... I appreciate this and do want to look at your work and Bill s in depth. As it is Lent/Easter time it will probably be after this season is over, but I ll
            Message 5 of 17 , Apr 1, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              >On 8-2-02, I made a nine part posting on there possibly being three layers
              >to GThomas. The first of the nine posts can be accessed at:
              >
              >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/message/4987
              >
              >In any event, the fourth part posting includes this excerpt, which gives
              >some information on Arnal's stratification of GThomas:
              >
              >In "The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism, Gnosticism, and Sayings
              >Gospels" (Harvard Theological Review, 88:4, 1995), Bill Arnal postulates the
              >existence of two stratum in GTh. The earlier (see p. 478) is "the sapiential
              >stratum" and it includes GTh 3. 5. 6. 9. 14. 16. 20. 26. 31, 32, 34-36, 42,
              >45, 47, 54, 55, 57, 63-65, 71, 74, 76, 89, 95-98, 107, 109, and 110. The
              >later (see p.479) is "the gnostic-leaning stratum" and it includes Gth 11,
              >13, 15, 18, 21-22, 27-28, 49-50, 51, 60, 61, 83, 84, 101, 105, 108, 11, and
              >114.
              >
              >I hope this helps.

              I appreciate this and do want to look at your work and Bill's in depth. As
              it is Lent/Easter time it will probably be after this season is over, but
              I'll print this and look at your work in the egroup files later on.

              Thank you for this help.
              >
              >Incidentally, the fourth post, from which this excerpt comes, is a great
              >embarrasment to me to this day because, in it, I inadvertently referred to
              >April DeConick as "he". After Tom's recent compliment of me (thank you
              >Tom, you are way too kind!), remembrance of gross mistakes like this one,
              >that I way too frequently make, help to bring me back to reality.

              I understand... and I hope that groups like this work to help us correct our
              misstakes!

              Gordon Raynal
              Inman, SC
            • fmmccoy
              ... From: Gordon Raynal To: Cc: Michael Ensley Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 9:32
              Message 6 of 17 , Apr 2, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Gordon Raynal" <scudi1@...>
                To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                Cc: "Michael Ensley" <mensley@...>
                Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 9:32 AM
                Subject: Re: [GTh] Crosstalk Discussions


                > >In "The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism, Gnosticism, and Sayings
                > >Gospels" (Harvard Theological Review, 88:4, 1995), Bill Arnal postulates
                the
                > >existence of two stratum in GTh. The earlier (see p. 478) is "the
                sapiential
                > >stratum" and it includes GTh 3. 5. 6. 9. 14. 16. 20. 26. 31, 32, 34-36,
                42,
                > >45, 47, 54, 55, 57, 63-65, 71, 74, 76, 89, 95-98, 107, 109, and 110. The
                > >later (see p.479) is "the gnostic-leaning stratum" and it includes Gth
                11,
                > >13, 15, 18, 21-22, 27-28, 49-50, 51, 60, 61, 83, 84, 101, 105, 108, 11,
                and
                > >114.
                > >
                > >I hope this helps.

                > I appreciate this and do want to look at your work and Bill's in depth.
                As
                > it is Lent/Easter time it will probably be after this season is over, but
                > I'll print this and look at your work in the egroup files later on.
                >
                > Thank you for this help.


                Dear Gordon Raynal:

                I think I made a mistake in the above. In the final sequence of "108, 11,
                and 114", judging by my hand-written notes, the middle saying should be 111
                rather than 11.

                Also, Mike has asked the question about how Arnal classified the sayings
                not listed above. It's been over a year since I read Arnal's paper, so I
                don't know how trustworthy my recollections about it are. In any event, to
                the best of my recollection, he didn't classify them. So, to the best of my
                recollection, he made decisions only about the above listed sayings and left
                the rest in an ambiguous situation.

                > >Incidentally, the fourth post, from which this excerpt comes, is a great
                > >embarrasment to me to this day because, in it, I inadvertently referred
                to
                > >April DeConick as "he". After Tom's recent compliment of me (thank you
                > >Tom, you are way too kind!), remembrance of gross mistakes like this
                one,
                > >that I way too frequently make, help to bring me back to reality.

                > I understand... and I hope that groups like this work to help us correct
                our
                > misstakes!

                I would like to add two points. First, April DeConick has written a paper
                that I consider a "must read" for those doing research on the question of
                whether there are layers of tradition in GThomas. It is, "The Original
                Gospel of Thomas" (Vigiliae Christianae, LVI: 2, 2002, pp.167-199).

                Second, your "misstakes" is a mis-take!

                Regards,

                Frank McCoy
                1809 N. English Apt. 15
                Maplewood, MN 55109
              • William Arnal
                ... That is exactly right. I tried to charactertize each stratum in terms of the sayings that I felt could be assigned to each with some confidence. The
                Message 7 of 17 , Apr 2, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi everyone! Frank McCoy wrote:

                  >Also, Mike has asked the question about how Arnal classified the sayings
                  >not listed above. It's been over a year since I read Arnal's paper, so I
                  >don't know how trustworthy my recollections about it are. In any event, to
                  >the best of my recollection, he didn't classify them. So, to the best of
                  >my
                  >recollection, he made decisions only about the above listed sayings and
                  >left
                  >the rest in an ambiguous situation.

                  That is exactly right. I tried to charactertize each "stratum" in terms of
                  the sayings that I felt could be assigned to each with some confidence. The
                  remaining sayings could be anything -- later add-ons, yet another stratum,
                  or (my personal preference) material that does belong to one or another of
                  the two strata I isolated, but which do not show sufficient evidence to
                  assign with certainty. Thomas is a pain, in part because it's not organized
                  into coherent discourses, and this makes it awfully hard, at times, to even
                  venture guesses as to the import of individual sayings. One of Kloppenborg's
                  main principles for discerning redaction in Q was the juxtaposition of units
                  in terms of thematic organizing principles. If this can be done in Thomas at
                  all, it only applies to a very small handful of sayings.

                  Frank added:

                  >I would like to add two points. First, April DeConick has written a paper
                  >that I consider a "must read" for those doing research on the question of
                  >whether there are layers of tradition in GThomas. It is, "The Original
                  >Gospel of Thomas" (Vigiliae Christianae, LVI: 2, 2002, pp.167-199).

                  Absolutely! This is the most recent RIGOROUS attempt to stratify Thomas (in
                  print, that is: I'm not implying that Gordon's lacks rigour!). I think it
                  would be instructive, though, to read April's piece alongside mine, since
                  there are marked *methodological* differences between the two. I'm not all
                  that committed, anymore, to the actual stratification I proposed. But I
                  remain committed to the METHOD I applied to arrive at that stratification,
                  and continue to think that that method is superior to that used either by
                  April or by Gordon. But I say this without prejudice to the results, i.e.,
                  which actual stratification is more likely to be right, if any.

                  regards and happy spring to all,
                  Bill
                  ______________________
                  William Arnal
                  University of Regina

                  _________________________________________________________________
                  MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE*
                  http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
                • Gordon Raynal
                  Hi Frank, ... Thanks for the clarification. ... Is this online anywhere? ... thanks:)! Gordon
                  Message 8 of 17 , Apr 2, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Frank,

                    >I think I made a mistake in the above. In the final sequence of "108, 11,
                    >and 114", judging by my hand-written notes, the middle saying should be 111
                    >rather than 11.
                    >
                    >Also, Mike has asked the question about how Arnal classified the sayings
                    >not listed above. It's been over a year since I read Arnal's paper, so I
                    >don't know how trustworthy my recollections about it are. In any event, to
                    >the best of my recollection, he didn't classify them. So, to the best of my
                    >recollection, he made decisions only about the above listed sayings and left
                    >the rest in an ambiguous situation.

                    Thanks for the clarification.

                    >I would like to add two points. First, April DeConick has written a paper
                    >that I consider a "must read" for those doing research on the question of
                    >whether there are layers of tradition in GThomas. It is, "The Original
                    >Gospel of Thomas" (Vigiliae Christianae, LVI: 2, 2002, pp.167-199).

                    Is this online anywhere?
                    >
                    >Second, your "misstakes" is a mis-take!

                    thanks:)!

                    Gordon
                  • Gordon Raynal
                    Hi Bill, Good to hear from you! So you survived the winter freeze:)! Is April s work available online? Can you easily send me your rigorous work? To
                    Message 9 of 17 , Apr 2, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Bill,

                      Good to hear from you! So you survived the winter freeze:)! Is April's
                      work available online? Can you easily send me your "rigorous work?"

                      To another matter, I'd like to hear your thoughts about the date and sitz of
                      early Thomas. Do you conceive it, like you conceive Q1, "very early" (as
                      from you "Jesus and the Village Scribes" work)?

                      Gordon
                    • William Arnal
                      ... And it was a BAD winter this year, for any number of reasons. ... The answer to both questions is, probably not. I am not aware of April s article being
                      Message 10 of 17 , Apr 3, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Gordon et al.:

                        >Good to hear from you! So you survived the winter freeze:)!

                        And it was a BAD winter this year, for any number of reasons.

                        >s April's
                        >work available online? Can you easily send me your "rigorous work?"

                        The answer to both questions is, probably not. I am not aware of April's
                        article being on-line, nor my own. I know that sometime within the last
                        couple years, someone had wanted to post my HTR piece on their website, so I
                        wrote to HTR about the copyright, and never got a response. I forget who
                        wanted to do this, and don't know whether they went ahead with it anyway. I
                        doubt it.

                        >To another matter, I'd like to hear your thoughts about the date and sitz
                        >of
                        >early Thomas. Do you conceive it, like you conceive Q1, "very early" (as
                        >from you "Jesus and the Village Scribes" work)?

                        Well, since I'm no longer convinced I was right, it's hard to say. But yes,
                        my inclination was to regard the foundational layer as quite early. And I am
                        STILL inclined to date the complete Thomas, i.e., Thomas as we more or less
                        have it, as very early -- i.e., 40s to 60s or thereabouts. I have yet to be
                        convinced by any of the arguments placing Thomas late-ish.

                        cheers,
                        Bill
                        ______________________
                        William Arnal
                        University of Regina

                        _________________________________________________________________
                        Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium
                        http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
                      • Peter Kirby
                        ... Hello, I am the person who contacted you about posting the HTR article on the web. I am still interested in doing so (on the
                        Message 11 of 17 , Apr 3, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 11:03:04 -0600, William Arnal wrote:
                          > The answer to both questions is, probably not. I am not aware of
                          > April's article being on-line, nor my own. I know that sometime
                          > within the last couple years, someone had wanted to post my HTR
                          > piece on their website, so I wrote to HTR about the copyright, and
                          > never got a response. I forget who wanted to do this, and don't
                          > know whether they went ahead with it anyway. I doubt it.

                          Hello,

                          I am the person who contacted you about posting the HTR article on the web. I am still interested in doing so (on the http://www.christianorigins.com/ web site). Perhaps you could ask HTR again? It would be a great boon to all to have the article available on the web.

                          --
                          Peter Kirby (Student at Fullerton College, CA)
                          Web Site: http://www.peterkirby.com/
                        • Wade and April
                          ... From: William Arnal ... I ... I ... April s article is not online for free. It is available as a download for a charge from Brill s website for the
                          Message 12 of 17 , Apr 3, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "William Arnal"

                            > >Is April's
                            > >work available online? Can you easily send me your "rigorous work?"
                            >
                            > The answer to both questions is, probably not. I am not aware of April's
                            > article being on-line, nor my own. I know that sometime within the last
                            > couple years, someone had wanted to post my HTR piece on their website, so
                            I
                            > wrote to HTR about the copyright, and never got a response. I forget who
                            > wanted to do this, and don't know whether they went ahead with it anyway.
                            I
                            > doubt it.

                            April's article is not online for free. It is available as a download for a
                            charge from Brill's website for the Vigiliae Christianae publication. The
                            website is at:
                            http://lysander.ingentaselect.com/vl=2184547/cl=16/nw=1/rpsv/cw/brill/00426032/contp1.htm
                            and her article is under "Volume 56, Number 2 2003."

                            Wade
                          • sarban
                            ... From: Michael Grondin To: Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:51 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Crosstalk
                            Message 13 of 17 , Apr 3, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
                              To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:51 AM
                              Subject: Re: [GTh] Crosstalk Discussions


                              > This is notice that I've uploaded a spreadsheet for Gordon's
                              stratification
                              > scheme to our Files section (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/files)-
                              > together with a slightly emended version of his text (#68 was shown twice,
                              > with different shadings).
                              >
                              I'd like to thank Gordon for his work and then comment on it.

                              After reading through the Crosstalk discussion the basis for the
                              three layers seems the following.
                              Layer 1 is mainly the material in Thomas that goes back to the
                              Historical Jesus/Very Early Church
                              Layer 2 is mainly the material that goes back to the Church of
                              AD 70 and before
                              Layer 3 is mainly the substantially Post AD 70 material.

                              My difficulty is that these layers can be taken in 2 ways, either
                              i/ in a Form Critical way in which we are talking of the dates of
                              the origin of the sayings considered as isolated sayings
                              or ii/ in a Source or Redacton Critical way in which we are talking
                              of the dates and composition of various hypothetical documents.
                              If taken in sense i/ This seems valid in principle, (I agree some of
                              the sayings go back to the very earliest chrch some are well after
                              AD 70 some come inbetween), and although I would question
                              some of the details, Gordon's assignations of sayings to layers seems
                              mostly plausible.
                              However, from the general nature of Gordon's discussion and specific
                              suggestions about changes in order of sayings between Layers 1
                              and 2, it seems clear that the layers are to be taken as Source
                              documents for Thomas or Redactions of Thomas and I have
                              problems with this.

                              It is unlikely IMHO that there ever was a pre-70 document
                              attributed to Thomas, containing mainly the material which is in
                              our Thomas and goes back to the earliest church, and arranging
                              this material in a way similar to our Thomas. I think it more likely
                              that the selection and ordering of this material into a document
                              attributed to Thomas is later than AD 70, although the individual
                              sayings in the original form of this document may well be much earlier.

                              Nor am I convinced that all the early material in Thomas was
                              present in early versions of Thomas and that the last stage in
                              the redaction of Thomas was the addition of gnosticizing material.
                              It seems likely IMO that the last 10 sayings of our Thomas has
                              had gnosticizing material added at a very late stage, (maybe mid
                              2nd century). However most of the gnosticizing material in
                              Thomas may have been present in much earlier forms of the
                              document and some very early material, (eg the parables in
                              sayings 63-65 which IMHO interrupt the flow of Thomas's
                              themes), may have been added at a late stage, under the influence
                              of the canonical synoptic gospels.

                              Gordon, I may be misunderstanding what you are saying in
                              which case I apologize and would appreciate clarification.
                              Otherwise it would help if you went into more detail about how
                              you distinguish evidence for the date of origin of a saying from
                              evidence for the date at which a saying was incorporated in a
                              document.

                              Andrew Criddle
                            • Gordon Raynal
                              Hi Andrew, Thank you for your note. This is a most busy week for me, but I do want to get to your post. I ll see how the week goes re: time to think this
                              Message 14 of 17 , Apr 5, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Andrew,

                                Thank you for your note. This is a most busy week for me, but I do want to
                                get to your post. I'll see how the week goes re: time to think this through
                                and write a decent reply. But I will get back to you.
                                Gordon Raynal
                                Inman, SC
                              • Gordon Raynal
                                Hi Bill, This is a hectic week for we preacher folk, but just a quick reply to this one. ... May you now thaw:)! ... I do hope I can read hers and yours at
                                Message 15 of 17 , Apr 5, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi Bill,

                                  This is a hectic week for we preacher folk, but just a quick reply to this
                                  one.

                                  >
                                  >>Good to hear from you! So you survived the winter freeze:)!
                                  >
                                  >And it was a BAD winter this year, for any number of reasons.

                                  May you now thaw:)!
                                  >
                                  >>s April's
                                  >>work available online? Can you easily send me your "rigorous work?"
                                  >
                                  >The answer to both questions is, probably not. I am not aware of April's
                                  >article being on-line, nor my own. I know that sometime within the last
                                  >couple years, someone had wanted to post my HTR piece on their website, so I
                                  >wrote to HTR about the copyright, and never got a response. I forget who
                                  >wanted to do this, and don't know whether they went ahead with it anyway. I
                                  >doubt it.

                                  I do hope I can read hers and yours at some point. Could you possibly snail
                                  mail your piece?

                                  >>To another matter, I'd like to hear your thoughts about the date and sitz
                                  >>of
                                  >>early Thomas. Do you conceive it, like you conceive Q1, "very early" (as
                                  >>from you "Jesus and the Village Scribes" work)?
                                  >
                                  >Well, since I'm no longer convinced I was right, it's hard to say. But yes,
                                  >my inclination was to regard the foundational layer as quite early. And I am
                                  >STILL inclined to date the complete Thomas, i.e., Thomas as we more or less
                                  >have it, as very early -- i.e., 40s to 60s or thereabouts. I have yet to be
                                  >convinced by any of the arguments placing Thomas late-ish.

                                  We agree on the former, but the latter interests me. I'd sometimes like to
                                  hear your thoughts about the sitz you see that led to that later layer(s) so
                                  early. When I look at what I consider to be the earliest layer, that social
                                  praxis looks to be changing in saying 6 and then saying 14:1-2 looks to be
                                  taking this in yet a new way. That latter redaction of the earliest layer
                                  fits nicely into the second century, but it fascinates me that you want to
                                  place such so early. When you have time and I have some time to talk this
                                  out, I'd like to do so.

                                  Good to hear from you.
                                  Gordon
                                • William Arnal
                                  ... I could, but it might be quicker to find a local university library that carries HTR. If you want, though, I ll mail it to you -- e-mail me off list with
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Apr 6, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hey Gordon, and everyone:

                                    >I do hope I can read hers and yours at some point. Could you possibly
                                    >snail
                                    >mail your piece?

                                    I could, but it might be quicker to find a local university library that
                                    carries HTR. If you want, though, I'll mail it to you -- e-mail me off list
                                    with you mailing address. And please, no requests from others! I'd run out
                                    of time, and postage, pretty quickly.

                                    >We agree on the former, but the latter interests me. I'd sometimes like to
                                    >hear your thoughts about the sitz you see that led to that later layer(s)
                                    >so
                                    >early. When I look at what I consider to be the earliest layer, that social
                                    >praxis looks to be changing in saying 6 and then saying 14:1-2 looks to be
                                    >taking this in yet a new way.

                                    Social praxis can change overnight, or in a year or two. It doesn't require
                                    decades. Paul's coail praxis changes from letter to letter. If we used the
                                    same techniques used to date Thomas to date Paul's letters, we'd end up
                                    dating letters like 1 Cor and Philippians to the second century, I suspect.

                                    >When you have time and I have some time to talk this
                                    >out, I'd like to do so.

                                    Sounds good. It's the end of term for me, so I don't have any more time at
                                    the moment to develop this stuff than you do. Later, then.

                                    cheers,
                                    Bill
                                    ______________________
                                    William Arnal
                                    University of Regina

                                    _________________________________________________________________
                                    Add photos to your messages with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE*
                                    http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
                                  • BitsyCat1@aol.com
                                    ... I think that many are overly cautious of Thomas because they still ascribe to the theory that there is Guilt by association. That is, because it was found
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Apr 6, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      In a message dated 04/06/2004 09:40:17 PM, warnal@... writes:

                                      > ... Thomas to date Paul's letters, we'd end up dating letters
                                      > like 1 Cor and Philippians to the second century, I suspect.


                                      I think that many are overly cautious of Thomas because they still ascribe
                                      to the theory that there is Guilt by association.

                                      That is, because it was found in the Nag Hummadi that it must then be late
                                      and Gnostic.

                                      As noted this is a false Premise.

                                      I would also note that Davies has suggested a pre existent Jewish Gnostic
                                      like Genre emerging in the first century.

                                      If this were so?

                                      The Jewish revolt in the 60s may have caused the dissolution and
                                      scattering of the proponents of this Genre and Belief system.

                                      Failing the initial movement This would then be taken up" after the
                                      Revolt" by the emerging Christian Church.

                                      That is it may be understandable that such would disappear, For a time
                                      only to emerge later..
                                      It might very well be expected.

                                      John Moon
                                      Springfield, Tenn 37172
                                      johnmoon3717@...


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.