- ... Philosophumena, HUCA 29 (1958): 273-313.Message 1 of 52 , Oct 21, 2004View SourceStephen Carlson says:
>>M. Smith, "The Description of the Essenes in Josephus and thePhilosophumena,"
HUCA 29 (1958): 273-313.<<
Sorry, I missed that one in the bibliography. When you said "an article on
Hippolytus's Refutation of All Heresies" I naturally thought the article was
only about this subject, not about the description of Essenes.
I'm still not sure, though, how this is a clear warning sign of possible
forgery. Several church fathers spoke of the Carpocratians (usually
borrowing the details of predecessors and embellishing them). Since this
article was about descriptions of Essenes, I don't imagine the discussion of
Carpocratians could have been very extensive, unless it was some sort of
comparison to the way Hippolytus described Essenes in order to contrast the
>>M. Smith, "The Image of God: Notes on the Hellenization of Judaism, withEspecial Reference to Goodenough's Work on Jewish Symbols," BJRL 40
Just how extensive are these footnotes on secrecy in Clement of Alexandria?
Smith was (or is) not the only person who has noted Clement's peculiar
attitudes towards gnosis, and who could or should by made privy to it.
Just curious. I have to suppose working at a research library has its
benefits with regard to access to these kind of articles.
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- ... From: Jack Kilmon To: Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Is Thomas a SourceMessage 52 of 52 , Oct 27, 2004View Source
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [GTh] Is Thomas a Source Used by Matthew?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "fmmccoy" <FMMCCOY@...>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 7:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [GTh] Is Thomas a Source Used by Matthew?
> > You appear to be saying that Mark had two separate note-books, one on
> > "Jesus
> > saids" and the other on "Jesus dids"--sort of anticipating the Jesus
> > Seminar
> > by over 2,000 years: for they first published a work on the sayings of
> > Jesus
> > (i.e., the Five Gsopels) and then one on the deeds of Jesus (i.e., The
> > Acts
> > of Jesus)!
> Papias calls them "sayings" and "doings."
In The History of the Church (Book 3, Sect. 39), Eusebius thusly cites from
a now-lost work of Papias, "This, too, the presbyter used to say, 'Mark, who
had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all
that he remembered of the Lord's sayings and doings." Since Mark's gospel
consists of "the Lord's sayings and doings", ISTM that Papias is speaking
about how Mark wrote his gospel, not about how he wrote two separate
notebooks--one on Jesus' sayings and the other on Jesus' doings. What makes
you so certain that Papias is speaking about two separate notebooks here?
> > Are there any sayings in Q1 that also have versions in GThomas but not
> > GMark? If yes, what is your explanation for this situation?
> This will take some research but if there are the explanation is that Mark
> simply did not use ALL of his "Jesus saids.." I think every early
> hagiographer "cherry picked" to support an agenda for his particular
If the hypothesis is that Mark's "Jesus said" notebook contained more than
just the sayings to be found in Mark's gospel, then the number of sayings
attributed to Jesus in the four canonical gospels and Thomas that it can be
postulated to have contained is apparently only limited by the sum total of
Jack, you hypothesise many documents that currently do not exist--two
notebooks by Mark, editions of Mark different from the canonical edition,
early editions of Thomas, and Q. Also, outside of possibly Q, you do not
postulate the text of any of them. So, outside of the Q hypothesis, we
have a bunch of hypotheses of postulated documents whose contents are big
mysteries. As such, I think that, outside of the hypothesise of the
postulated Q, these hypotheses are not, at this stage of the game, worthy
of scholarly consideration.
1809 N. English Apt 15
Maplewood, MN USA 55109