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

Re: [GTh] Crosstalk Discussions

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Raynal
    Hi Frank, ... Thanks for the clarification. ... Is this online anywhere? ... thanks:)! Gordon
    Message 1 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
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.