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

Re: [GTh] Re: Probability of No Mark Parallels for 29 Sayings in Thomas

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    To Rick H.- Two things strike me about your response to Rick V s thesis: (1) While the sayings level may well be too coarse-grained, the subsayings level seems
    Message 1 of 56 , May 3, 2010
      To Rick H.-

      Two things strike me about your response to Rick V's thesis:

      (1) While the sayings level may well be too coarse-grained, the
      subsayings level seems too fine-grained. Take for example L33,
      which came quickly to hand as I was parsing thru T5G. It has
      three subsayings, the first of which is presented as having no
      Markan parallel, while the latter two are grouped together as
      having a Markan parallel. At the sayings level, this would count
      as one Markan "hit", while at the sub-sayings level, it would
      count as two Markan hits (out of three). Both seem somewhat
      inaccurate. It seems that the best thing to do, if one is going
      to use T5G as a base, is to count L33 as having two segments,
      one of which receives a Markan "hit". This is exactly what T5G
      did. (Alternatively, one might use Crossan's list of 132 saying-
      elements.)

      (2) Criticism of Rick V. for not being acquainted with certain
      technical literature might better be directed at the members of JSem
      who were responsible for T5G, which Rick is merely using as a
      statistical base. If the T5G methodology isn't adequate, that isn't
      Rick's fault - though one could certainly recommend that a different
      base be used. On the other hand, if the T5G methodology IS
      adequate, then it doesn't matter whether Rick is familiar with the
      relevant technical literature.

      Regards,
      Mike
    • ronmccann1@shaw.ca
      Hi Jack, Sorry you are feeling poorly. Hope you feel better soon. Whatever the outcome of these discussions, I just wanted to say that I much admire the fact
      Message 56 of 56 , May 7, 2010
        Hi Jack,
         
        Sorry you are feeling poorly. Hope you feel better soon.
         
        Whatever the outcome of these discussions, I just wanted to say that I much admire the fact that, as a historian, you picked up two historical references to two very, very early Chritian documents in Papias (The Matthean Logia and Mark's Notes) and have proposed that one was our Book of Q and the other the Gospel of Thomas.
        Quite an original idea, and well worth exploring.
        It's been been both interesting and stimulating trying to test out your intriguing proposal.
        Thanks.
         
        When you get back to this, I have a question.- Since the Matthean Logia is said to have been written down in Aramaic (actually, Papais calls it "Hebrew".) wouldn't back translating the Q parallel sayings in Thomas not also yield the sort of results you've found in the Markan sayings?
         
        Best Regards,
         
        Ron McCann
        Sasakatoon, Canada         PS Couldn't find a listing for a Kilmon in the phone book. Does yourr son go by a different name or like many of the younger set,  does he use only a cellphone?
         
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.