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

Re: [GTh] Morton Smith's competence

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 12:59 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Morton
    Message 1 of 52 , Oct 21, 2004
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
      To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 12:59 AM
      Subject: Re: [GTh] Morton Smith's competence

      > At 09:56 PM 10/21/2004 -0700, Peter Kirby wrote:
      >>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:48:09 -0500, Jack Kilmon wrote:
      >>> I would also want to add that the foxing of the 250 year old
      >>> flyleaves seen in the color photos interferes with the hand and the
      >>> hand is not written OVER the foxing.
      >>You mean the ones reproduced in _The Fourth R_, right? And is this also
      >>displayed in the photos provided by Smith in his books, or only in those
      >>that surfaced later?
      > I'm still trying to puzzle out what Jack was referring to.
      >>Has anyone commented on this before?
      > Don't know; it depends on what Jack meant.

      Foxing refers to the brown spots that gradually form on paper over extended
      periods of time. There are a number of causes, one being trace elements
      from paper pulping in older books and fluctuations in temperature. The ink
      itself can also cause foxing of the paper demonstrating a sort of brownish
      halo around the strokes.

    • fmmccoy
      ... From: Jack Kilmon To: Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Is Thomas a Source
      Message 52 of 52 , Oct 27, 2004
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
        To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 2:45 PM
        Subject: Re: [GTh] Is Thomas a Source Used by Matthew?
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "fmmccoy" <FMMCCOY@...>
        > To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
        > 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."

        Hi Jack!

        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
        > community.

        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
        these sayings.

        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.

        Frank McCoy
        1809 N. English Apt 15
        Maplewood, MN USA 55109
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.