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

Re: [GTh] Crosstalk Discussions

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , Apr 3 9:03 AM
    • 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 2 of 17 , Apr 3 1:10 PM
      • 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 3 of 17 , Apr 3 2:02 PM
        • 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 4 of 17 , Apr 3 8:16 PM
          • 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 5 of 17 , Apr 5 6:03 AM
            • 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 6 of 17 , Apr 5 6:15 AM
              • 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 7 of 17 , Apr 6 7:36 PM
                • 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 8 of 17 , Apr 6 9:26 PM
                  • 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.