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

Re: [GTh] Re: Is AD's Accretion-Dating Useful?

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    Hi Judy, ... What I d like to see is some support for this claim. Most of the historical developments in question seem to have no datable events associated
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Judy,

      On the dating issue, you wrote:
      > I don't think her [DeConick's] intention is to suggest that accretion A
      > is *necessarily* older than accretion B so much as to suggest that
      > accretion A is likely to have been added in response to events X
      > while accretion B is likely to have been added in response to events
      > Y and given that events X happened in 60-100 and events Y happened
      > in 80-120, accretion A *may well be* earlier than accretion B.

      ... and:
      > April traces the various accretions to particular historical events that
      > can be dated with some level of precision.

      What I'd like to see is some support for this claim. Most of the historical
      developments in question seem to have no datable events associated
      with them. The historical developments in question are summarized by
      AD as follows: for accretions-group 1 (60-100):

      "Accomodation to Gentiles and Early Eschatological Crisis
      (with shift to mystical dimension of apocalyptic thought)"

      For accretions-group 2 (80-120):

      "Death of Eyewitnesses, Christological Developments and Continued
      Eschatological Crisis (with incorporation of encratic and hermetic
      traditions)"

      (capitalization, or lack thereof, is AD's)

      Of the historical developments listed above, the only one that I'm aware
      of having any datable historical events associated with it is the death
      of eyewitnesses. Almost all of those would have been dead by 80 CE,
      and some very big names much earlier than that. Yet it was only on or
      after that date, according to AD, that this became a developmental
      factor. Maybe so, but I'd like to have seen some discussion.

      With respect to the other historical developments, AD may be right
      that group-1 developments would have tended to occur earlier than
      group-2 developments, but I have to confess that I'm unaware of
      any datable historical events associated with those developments, so
      I think it may be a developmental view, i.e., that some kinds of develop-
      ments would naturally (or causally) have occurred before others. That,
      at least, is the only justification I can imagine, but if that's what it is,
      I'm troubled that there's no extended explanation for assigning dates to
      these historical developments. (Barring the possibility that I've missed
      something, of course.)

      Regards,
      Mike G.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.