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

Re: [GTh] Crosstalk Discussions

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , Apr 5, 2004
      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 2 of 17 , Apr 6, 2004
        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 3 of 17 , Apr 6, 2004
          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.