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

RE: [GTh] Morton Smith's competence

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... It isn t, and I didn t intend it to be. It s just part of a survey of which primary texts were literally at his fingertips in the years immediately
    Message 1 of 52 , Oct 22, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      At 02:47 AM 10/22/2004 -0400, David C. Hindley wrote:
      >I'm still not sure, though, how this is a clear warning sign of possible
      >forgery.

      It isn't, and I didn't intend it to be. It's just part of a survey
      of which primary texts were literally at his fingertips in the years
      immediately preceding his second visit to Mar Saba.

      >Just how extensive are these footnotes on secrecy in Clement of Alexandria?

      Not extensive at all. Just citations.

      >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.

      I didn't say he was.

      >Just curious. I have to suppose working at a research library has its
      >benefits with regard to access to these kind of articles.

      You could be right, but I don't work at a research library.

      Stephen Carlson


      --
      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- 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?

        (snip)

        > > Are there any sayings in Q1 that also have versions in GThomas but not
        in
        > > 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.