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

RE: [GTh] Paralleomania

Expand Messages
  • Richard Hubbard
    My apologies for the long delay in this reply. ... impossible, merely on ... other. ... verbatim ... the ... be here, Rick. When I first started to reply to
    Message 1 of 18 , May 14, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      My apologies for the long delay in this reply.

      I had written:
      |......Even when it is virtually certain that portions of two different
      |documents exhibit undeniable similarity on multiple levels, it is
      impossible, merely on
      |the basis of the similarity, to determine whether one borrowed from the
      other.
      |Moreover, in certain cases, even when there is, for example, nearly
      verbatim
      |agreement between Thomas and other literature, that does not mean that
      the
      |connection is anything more than coincidental.

      In response to the last sentence, Judy asked:

      |I would be very interested in what you think the "certain cases" would
      be here, Rick.

      When I first started to reply to this question, and tried to think it
      through, I realized "I don't understand everything I think I know" about
      those "certain cases". I've had some time to ponder the matter and I'm
      no closer to being able to give a definitive answer than I was when I
      started. I do know this however: Not all parallels are created equal.
      Despite this, there seems to be a tendency to regard them as if they
      *are** equal. As you point out, "... verbatim strings that are more than
      say 15 words long and don't contain stock phrases are almost certainly
      not coincidental...". With both those points, I fully concur. On the
      other hand, as an example, there instances such as L 71 where Jesus is
      made to say, " I will destroy [this] house, and no one will be able to
      build it ...." With the exception of Davies, the major commentators
      regularly correlate this logion with Jn 2:20 ("Destroy this temple, and
      in three days I will raise it up"), Mt 26:1; 27:40, and Mk 14:58, 15:29
      . My "gut instinct" makes me suspicious about whether this is a parallel
      at all, but more to the point, even if it **is** a legitimate parallel
      it seems to me that it is of a different flavor than other parallels.
      Finding a way to describe that "different flavor" is what has me
      flummoxed.

      While I haven't yet found it, I have a hunch that lurking somewhere in
      the secondary literature, someone has described some objective method
      for "grading" textual correlations. Any ideas? Have you run across
      anything?

      Rick




      |-----Original Message-----
      |From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com]
      |Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 9:56 AM
      |To: Richard Hubbard; gthomas@yahoogroups.com
      |Subject: {Disarmed} RE: [GTh] Paralleomania
      |Importance: Low
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |Rick says:
      |
      |My Comment: Even when it is virtually certain that portions of two
      different
      |documents exhibit undeniable similarity on multiple levels, it is
      impossible, merely on
      |the basis of the similarity, to determine whether one borrowed from the
      other.
      |Moreover, in certain cases, even when there is, for example, nearly
      verbatim
      |agreement between Thomas and other literature, that does not mean that
      the
      |connection is anything more than coincidental.
      |
      |I would be very interested in what you think the "certain cases" would
      be here, Rick.
      |My research suggests that it is highly unlikely that verbatim strings
      that are more than
      |say 15 words long and don't contain stock phrases are almost certainly
      not
      |coincidental, although it doesn't prove that one copied the other. Mind
      you, our
      |originality detection software suggested that I might have been quoting
      another
      |source (in a business journal, if I remember correctly) when I said
      something like "In
      |view of the available data, it seems highly likely that ..." because,
      you know, other
      |authors had said this too. J
      |
      |Judy
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |--
      |
      |Judy Redman
      |PhD Candidate, School of Humanities
      |University of New England
      |Armidale 2351 Australia
      |ph: +61 2 6773 3401
      |mob: 0437 044 579
      |web: http://judyredman.wordpress.com/
      |email: [ mailto:jredman@... ]jredman2@...
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
    • kurt31416
      Judy previously mentioned: ... verbatim strings that are more than say 15 words long and don t contain stock phrases are almost certainly not
      Message 2 of 18 , May 14, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Judy previously mentioned:
        "... verbatim strings that are more than say 15 words long and don't contain stock phrases are almost certainly not coincidental...".

        And Rick made the following comment and request:
        "...While I haven't yet found it, I have a hunch that lurking somewhere in the secondary literature, someone has described some objective method for "grading" textual correlations. Any ideas? Have you run across anything?"

        I'd humbly like to add the request, while some may be running through their recollections, that I'd find it very informative if anyone recalls a proposed objective method, (by the same word length, or whatever), of "grading" whether it comes from a common oral vs. written source.

        (With the transparent motivation of supporting the Occam's Razor theory that Mark, Matthew, Luke and Dialog of the Savior all used a Christianized version of proto-Thomas, and there is no Q, just some sayings (and sections such as 67-98) Mark didn't like or didn't see for some reason.)

        Thanks in advance,
        Richard Van Vliet
      • kurt31416
        What about Paralleophobia? What kind of Jesus is left, if we only look at Thomas, and ignore all the other parallels about Jesus? That should probably also
        Message 3 of 18 , May 14, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          What about Paralleophobia?

          What kind of Jesus is left, if we only look at Thomas, and ignore all the other parallels about Jesus? That should probably also include anything from after Jesus since that could have come from those parallels. That means also excluding all Christian etc. writings, because it wouldn't be the same Jesus.

          I claim it is a very different Jesus than the generally accepted historical Jesus, and even a very different Jesus than the generally accepted notion of the Jesus of Thomas.

          It would be a "doubting Thomas" miracle if Christian bias hasn't crept into Biblical scholarship. (After all, the preference of those making kernels sure seems to overwhelmingly favor sayings paralleled in the Christian Bible.) Looking at Thomas, ignoring post-Jesus parallels, all pre-concieved notions of Jesus, and looking at the differences, would list the candidates for that bias.

          For instance, lots of swords, fire and war, killing, in Thomas, and no turn the other cheek, love your enemy. A rather violent Jesus by comparison. A surprisingly violent Jesus, that also shows up in the Christian Gospels too, telling them by buy swords, having swords and of course, leaving Temple flunkies with only one ear. Those with two ears, had better listen.

          Richard Van Vliet
        • Judy Redman
          ... verbatim ... the ... be here, Rick. and Rick said: Not all parallels are created equal. Despite this, there seems to be a tendency to regard them as if
          Message 4 of 18 , May 14, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment

            Rick said:

            |Moreover, in certain cases, even when there is, for example, nearly
            verbatim
            |agreement between Thomas and other literature, that does not mean that
            the
            |connection is anything more than coincidental.

            I replied:

            |I would be very interested in what you think the "certain cases" would
            be here, Rick.

            and Rick said:

            Not all parallels are created equal.
            Despite this, there seems to be a tendency to regard them as if they
            *are** equal. As you point out, "... verbatim strings that are more than
            say 15 words long and don't contain stock phrases are almost certainly
            not coincidental...". With both those points, I fully concur. On the
            other hand, as an example, there instances such as L 71 where Jesus is
            made to say, " I will destroy [this] house, and no one will be able to
            build it ...." With the exception of Davies, the major commentators
            regularly correlate this logion with Jn 2:20 ("Destroy this temple, and
            in three days I will raise it up"), Mt 26:1; 27:40, and Mk 14:58, 15:29
            . My "gut instinct" makes me suspicious about whether this is a parallel
            at all, but more to the point, even if it **is** a legitimate parallel
            it seems to me that it is of a different flavor than other parallels.
            Finding a way to describe that "different flavor" is what has me
            flummoxed.

            And I respond:

            I think that there are definitely different kinds of parallels.

            1.       There are the ones where the author either has a copy of a particular text or knows it by heart and deliberately uses the same words. In this case, the older text is a source for the newer one. In this kind of case, there will be significant verbatim strings of words, together with some differences in setting, interpretation etc.  If the second text is non-canonical and the first is canonical, most people will talk about the second being dependent, but I am unhappy with this, because I don’t see people saying “Matthew is dependent on Mark” – they talk about sources.

            2.       There are the ones where the author is familiar with a particular tradition (maybe written, maybe oral) but doesn’t have a copy and doesn’t know it by heart and is using what s/he remembers. In this case, there will be minimal verbatim correspondence (and most of it will probably be in stock phrases), but the gist will be the same and the point will be similar. In this case, the relationship between the two texts is not as close, but you could still say that the first is the source of the second.

            3.       There are the ones where some of the same key words are used and the general thread of the story is the same, but there are significant differences in the point/outcome and significant differences in the details of the narrative. With this kind of parallel, it is much more difficult to argue that the parallelism is because one is used as the source of the other. It may be pure co-incidence, or it may be that the two are familiar with a common source, and I think that what you decide depends on how unusual the texts are. So, for example, S8 – the wise fisher has a parallel in Matt 13: 47-48 and at least five others from about the same period. There are several other stories about fishers in contemporary literature that don’t have enough in common with Matt to be considered as parallels, but they show that people often told stories about fishers to make points. Not at all surprising in a society where fishing formed a large part of the economy. I don’t think that Matt is the source for Thos or vice versa – I think they are about two different points and just happen to use a fishing story to illustrate them.

            So, I guess I am trying to make a distinction between parallels which are passages with similarities and parallel passages that are related to one another because the author of one was familiar with the other and used it as a source in some way. I think I agree with you, Rick, that the S71 does *not* have the same origins as the canonical texts, although I haven’t looked at it closely.


            While I haven't yet found it, I have a hunch that lurking somewhere in
            the secondary literature, someone has described some objective method
            for "grading" textual correlations. Any ideas? Have you run across
            anything?

            If there is, I haven’t found it, although I haven’t been looking for parallels – rather I have been reading about dependence and independence because I think this is a very muddy area too.

            Judy



            Rick

            |-----Original Message-----
            |From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com]
            |Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 9:56 AM
            |To: Richard Hubbard; gthomas@yahoogroups.com
            |Subject: {Disarmed} RE: [GTh] Paralleomania
            |Importance: Low
            |
            |
            |
            |
            |
            |
            |
            |Rick says:
            |
            |My Comment: Even when it is virtually certain that portions of two
            different
            |documents exhibit undeniable similarity on multiple levels, it is
            impossible, merely on
            |the basis of the similarity, to determine whether one borrowed from the
            other.
            |Moreover, in certain cases, even when there is, for example, nearly
            verbatim
            |agreement between Thomas and other literature, that does not mean that
            the
            |connection is anything more than coincidental.
            |
            |I would be very interested in what you think the "certain cases" would
            be here, Rick.
            |My research suggests that it is highly unlikely that verbatim strings
            that are more than
            |say 15 words long and don't contain stock phrases are almost certainly
            not
            |coincidental, although it doesn't prove that one copied the other. Mind
            you, our
            |originality detection software suggested that I might have been quoting
            another
            |source (in a business journal, if I remember correctly) when I said
            something like "In
            |view of the available data, it seems highly likely that ..." because,
            you know, other
            |authors had said this too. J
            |
            |Judy
            |
            |
            |
            |
            |
            |
            |--
            |
            |Judy Redman
            |PhD Candidate, School of Humanities
            |University of New England
            |Armidale 2351 Australia
            |ph: +61 2 6773 3401
            |mob: 0437 044 579
            |web: http://judyredman.wordpress.com/
            |email: [ mailto:jredman@... ]jredman2@...
            |
            |
            |
            |
            |
            |
            |
            |
            |
            |
            |
            |
            |

          • Bob Schacht
            At 05:32 PM 5/14/2010, Judy Redman wrote: [snip] ... That together with some differences in setting, interpretation, etc. recalls Crossan s way of talking
            Message 5 of 18 , May 14, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              At 05:32 PM 5/14/2010, Judy Redman wrote:

              [snip]

              I think that there are definitely different kinds of parallels.

              1.       There are the ones where the author either has a copy of a particular text or knows it by heart and deliberately uses the same words. In this case, the older text is a source for the newer one. In this kind of case, there will be significant verbatim strings of words, together with some differences in setting, interpretation etc.

              That "together with some differences in setting, interpretation, etc." recalls Crossan's way of talking about parallels. He distinguishes the "frame" of a saying from its "content." I haven't seen a study of this, but the way Crossan talks about it, "frame" and "content" are virtually independent in the synoptic gospels.

              Of course, with Thomas, we typically don't have as much "frame" information as we have in the synoptic gospels. This helps favor GThomas as a source, because if a saying has no frame, and you're writing a narrative, you have to supply a frame. If GThomas  is derived from the synoptics, you have to argue for a systematic stripping of frame information, and explain why.

              The "fact" that frame and content seem so independent is an argument for the existence of a sayings source.

               If the second text is non-canonical and the first is canonical, most people will talk about the second being dependent, but I am unhappy with this, because I don’t see people saying “Matthew is dependent on Mark” – they talk about sources.

              2.       There are the ones where the author is familiar with a particular tradition (maybe written, maybe oral) but doesn’t have a copy and doesn’t know it by heart and is using what s/he remembers. In this case, there will be minimal verbatim correspondence (and most of it will probably be in stock phrases), but the gist will be the same and the point will be similar. In this case, the relationship between the two texts is not as close, but you could still say that the first is the source of the second.

              3.       There are the ones where some of the same key words are used and the general thread of the story is the same, but there are significant differences in the point/outcome and significant differences in the details of the narrative. With this kind of parallel, it is much more difficult to argue that the parallelism is because one is used as the source of the other. It may be pure co-incidence, or it may be that the two are familiar with a common source, and I think that what you decide depends on how unusual the texts are. So, for example, S8 – the wise fisher has a parallel in Matt 13: 47-48 and at least five others from about the same period. There are several other stories about fishers in contemporary literature that don’t have enough in common with Matt to be considered as parallels, but they show that people often told stories about fishers to make points. Not at all surprising in a society where fishing formed a large part of the economy. I don’t think that Matt is the source for Thos or vice versa – I think they are about two different points and just happen to use a fishing story to illustrate them. ...

              The Jesus Seminar has always tried to distinguish between information shared by two documents (sources) only, and information shared by the general culture (presumably this means many documents, or documents written to reflect popular ideas, rather than the author's POV). Thus, a saying that reflected an attitude common to Jews of the era was not considered as a genuine saying of Jesus, merely because it could not be distinctively Jesus. Which means that the "distinctive Jesus" comes across as non-Jewish or anti-Jewish.

              Just think about what this means. Suppose Jesus loved to use Jewish proverbs. By the Jesus Seminar method, any time Jesus used a Jewish proverb, they'd make it grey or black. So a Jewish proverb-loving Jesus would be methodologically excluded.

              The methodological corollary to all this is that the strength of a hypothetical parallel is proportional to its rarity in contemporary Jewish discourse.

              Most of this covers the same ground as Judy was writing above, in different words.

              What this says, of course, is that no study of parallels is complete without a study of related ideas in contemporary Jewish literature and culture.
              Which, of course, makes the job much more difficult.

              Bob Schacht
              Northern Arizona University
            • Rick Hubbard
              Judy wrote (in the last line to her post): I have been reading about dependence and independence because I think this is a very muddy area
              Message 6 of 18 , May 15, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Judy wrote (in the last line to her post):
                <much snipped>
                "I have been reading about dependence and independence because I think this
                is a very muddy area too."

                Muddy is such a kind word. Discombobulated might fit better.

                When I first began investigating this question a bit more thoroughly than I
                had in the past, I started with a book I happened to have on hand by Dale
                Allison: _The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q_ (Trinity Press, 2000). My
                presumption was that Allison would cogently define "intertextuality" and
                that he might also describe ways in which one might empirically identify the
                presence of literary correlations. I was a bit disappointed, however.
                Nevertheless, he did devote a few paragraphs in his introduction to a
                discussion of terminology that are useful, I think, as starting points.

                Allison concedes that the word "intertextuality" is used in different ways,
                and points out that, while in its "broadest sense it refers to all the
                potential relations between texts", he uses the term to refer to "deliberate
                literary borrowing, the sort of borrowing that a text encourages its
                audience to discover, and recognition of which enlarges meaning."

                Allison goes on to identify three specific categories of intertextuality- a)
                quotation, b) reference and c) allusion.

                A Quotation, as he uses the term is "the reproduction of several consecutive
                words from another text." He distinguishes between two different
                sub-categories: "Marked Quotations" are those in which the referent text is
                explicitly identified by acknowledgement. "Unmarked Quotations" are those
                for which there is no acknowledgement.

                An Explicit Reference, says Allison, is similar to an Unmarked Quotation in
                that it does not acknowledge a referent text, but instead "directs
                individuals to a text in their portable mental library. by mentioning it or
                some episode in it outright."

                An Allusion, as Allison uses the word, "exists when one text shares enough
                with another text, even without reproducing several consecutive words from
                it, to establish the latter as a subtext to which an audience is being
                implicitly directed."

                In addition, he acknowledges a fourth category of intertextuality that he
                calls Indirect Influence, but admits to not including it in his study.
                Indirect Influence, he says, "is how Q might depend on Jewish moral teaching
                that was inspired by scripture." (all from p. ix ff)

                Judy, by contrast, classifies things a bit differently. She says that:

                "1. There are the ones [parallels] where the author either has a copy of a
                particular text or knows it by heart and deliberately uses the same words."

                "2. There are the ones where the author is familiar with a particular
                tradition (maybe written, maybe oral) but doesn't have a copy and doesn't
                know it by heart and is using what s/he remembers."

                "3. There are the ones where some of the same key words are used and the
                general thread of the story is the same, but there are significant
                differences in the point/outcome and significant differences in the details
                of the narrative."

                My impression is that both Judy's and Allison's outlines have merit, but it
                is difficult (for me at least) to reconcile the two. I'm wondering if that
                is because issues of textual dependence/independence are a subset of
                properties within the larger genus of intertextuality. Maybe you have some
                thoughts about that as well?

                Rick Hubbard
              • Rick Hubbard
                Hi Bob- Thanks for the input. ... a ... Crossan ... synoptic ... I wonder if you happen to have ready-to-hand the citation for this Crossan s remarks? I
                Message 7 of 18 , May 15, 2010
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment

                  Hi Bob-

                  Thanks for the input.

                  You referred to Crossan by saying:

                  ||…Crossan's way of talking about parallels. He distinguishes the "frame" of a

                  ||saying from its "content." I haven't seen a study of this, but the way Crossan

                  ||talks about it, "frame" and "content" are virtually independent in the synoptic

                  ||gospels.

                  I wonder if you happen to have “ready-to-hand” the citation for this Crossan’s remarks? I would like to see what else he has to say on the matter.

                  Rick Hubbard

                   

                   

                   

                   

                   

                  ||-----Original Message-----

                  ||From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On

                  ||Behalf Of Bob Schacht

                  ||Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 10:48 PM

                  ||To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com

                  ||Subject: RE: [GTh] Paralleomania

                  ||

                  ||

                  ||

                  ||At 05:32 PM 5/14/2010, Judy Redman wrote:

                  ||

                  ||[snip]

                  ||

                  ||

                  ||

                  ||      I think that there are definitely different kinds of parallels.

                  ||

                  ||      1.       There are the ones where the author either has a copy of a

                  ||particular text or knows it by heart and deliberately uses the same words. In

                  ||this case, the older text is a source for the newer one. In this kind of case, there

                  ||will be significant verbatim strings of words, together with some differences in

                  ||setting, interpretation etc.

                  ||

                  ||

                  ||That "together with some differences in setting, interpretation, etc." recalls

                  ||Crossan's way of talking about parallels. He distinguishes the "frame" of a

                  ||saying from its "content." I haven't seen a study of this, but the way Crossan

                  ||talks about it, "frame" and "content" are virtually independent in the synoptic

                  ||gospels.

                  ||

                  ||Of course, with Thomas, we typically don't have as much "frame" information as

                  ||we have in the synoptic gospels. This helps favor GThomas as a source,

                  ||because if a saying has no frame, and you're writing a narrative, you have to

                  ||supply a frame. If GThomas  is derived from the synoptics, you have to argue

                  ||for a systematic stripping of frame information, and explain why.

                  ||

                  ||The "fact" that frame and content seem so independent is an argument for the

                  ||existence of a sayings source.

                  ||

                  ||

                  ||

                  ||      If the second text is non-canonical and the first is canonical, most people

                  ||will talk about the second being dependent, but I am unhappy with this,

                  ||because I don’t see people saying “Matthew is dependent on Mark” – they talk

                  ||about sources.

                  ||

                  ||      2.       There are the ones where the author is familiar with a particular

                  ||tradition (maybe written, maybe oral) but doesn’t have a copy and doesn’t know

                  ||it by heart and is using what s/he remembers. In this case, there will be minimal

                  ||verbatim correspondence (and most of it will probably be in stock phrases), but

                  ||the gist will be the same and the point will be similar. In this case, the

                  ||relationship between the two texts is not as close, but you could still say that the

                  ||first is the source of the second.

                  ||

                  ||

                  ||      3.       There are the ones where some of the same key words are used

                  ||and the general thread of the story is the same, but there are significant

                  ||differences in the point/outcome and significant differences in the details of the

                  ||narrative. With this kind of parallel, it is much more difficult to argue that the

                  ||parallelism is because one is used as the source of the other. It may be pure co-

                  ||incidence, or it may be that the two are familiar with a common source, and I

                  ||think that what you decide depends on how unusual the texts are. So, for

                  ||example, S8 – the wise fisher has a parallel in Matt 13: 47-48 and at least five

                  ||others from about the same period. There are several other stories about fishers

                  ||in contemporary literature that don’t have enough in common with Matt to be

                  ||considered as parallels, but they show that people often told stories about

                  ||fishers to make points. Not at all surprising in a society where fishing formed a

                  ||large part of the economy. I don’t think that Matt is the source for Thos or vice

                  ||versa – I think they are about two different points and just happen to use a

                  ||fishing story to illustrate them. ...

                  ||

                  ||

                  ||The Jesus Seminar has always tried to distinguish between information shared

                  ||by two documents (sources) only, and information shared by the general culture

                  ||(presumably this means many documents, or documents written to reflect

                  ||popular ideas, rather than the author's POV). Thus, a saying that reflected an

                  ||attitude common to Jews of the era was not considered as a genuine saying of

                  ||Jesus, merely because it could not be distinctively Jesus. Which means that the

                  ||"distinctive Jesus" comes across as non-Jewish or anti-Jewish.

                  ||

                  ||Just think about what this means. Suppose Jesus loved to use Jewish proverbs.

                  ||By the Jesus Seminar method, any time Jesus used a Jewish proverb, they'd

                  ||make it grey or black. So a Jewish proverb-loving Jesus would be

                  ||methodologically excluded.

                  ||

                  ||The methodological corollary to all this is that the strength of a hypothetical

                  ||parallel is proportional to its rarity in contemporary Jewish discourse.

                  ||

                  ||Most of this covers the same ground as Judy was writing above, in different

                  ||words.

                  ||

                  ||What this says, of course, is that no study of parallels is complete without a

                  ||study of related ideas in contemporary Jewish literature and culture.

                  ||Which, of course, makes the job much more difficult.

                  ||

                  ||Bob Schacht

                  ||Northern Arizona University

                  ||

                  ||

                  ||

                • Bob Schacht
                  ... Unfortunately, I do not have it ready to hand. It was probably based on something in The Birth of Christianity (my copy of which is unfortunately packed
                  Message 8 of 18 , May 15, 2010
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 04:57 AM 5/15/2010, Rick Hubbard wrote:
                     

                    Hi Bob-

                    Thanks for the input.

                    You referred to Crossan by saying:

                    ||…Crossan's way of talking about parallels. He distinguishes the "frame" of a

                    ||saying from its "content." I haven't seen a study of this, but the way Crossan

                    ||talks about it, "frame" and "content" are virtually independent in the synoptic

                    ||gospels.

                    I wonder if you happen to have “ready-to-hand” the citation for this Crossan’s remarks? I would like to see what else he has to say on the matter.

                    Rick Hubbard
                    Unfortunately, I do not have it ready to hand. It was probably based on something in The Birth of Christianity (my copy of which is unfortunately packed away somewhere), or from one of the Seminars Crossan did with XTalk (CrossTalk). I will try to check further, but it may be a few days.

                    Bob

                  • Judy Redman
                    I m sorry I haven t got back to this for several days - I had to give a lecture on the Gospel of Judas this morning and the research took longer than I had
                    Message 9 of 18 , May 18, 2010
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment

                      I’m sorry I haven’t got back to this for several days – I had to give a lecture on the Gospel of Judas this morning and the research took longer than I had expected or hoped.

                       

                       

                      Judy Redman wrote:

                      [snip]

                      I think that there are definitely different kinds of parallels.

                      1.       There are the ones where the author either has a copy of a particular text or knows it by heart and deliberately uses the same words. In this case, the older text is a source for the newer one. In this kind of case, there will be significant verbatim strings of words, together with some differences in setting, interpretation etc.

                      and Bob Schacht responded:


                      That "together with some differences in setting, interpretation, etc." recalls Crossan's way of talking about parallels. He distinguishes the "frame" of a saying from its "content." I haven't seen a study of this, but the way Crossan talks about it, "frame" and "content" are virtually independent in the synoptic gospels.

                      Of course, with Thomas, we typically don't have as much "frame" information as we have in the synoptic gospels. This helps favor GThomas as a source, because if a saying has no frame, and you're writing a narrative, you have to supply a frame. If GThomas  is derived from the synoptics, you have to argue for a systematic stripping of frame information, and explain why.

                      The "fact" that frame and content seem so independent is an argument for the existence of a sayings source.

                       

                      To which I reply:


                      I’m not familiar with Crossan’s argument here, but it makes sense. If someone finds the reference, I would be very interested. I will have a look over the next few days and see if I can find anything.


                      Then Bob writes:


                      The Jesus Seminar has always tried to distinguish between information shared by two documents (sources) only, and information shared by the general culture (presumably this means many documents, or documents written to reflect popular ideas, rather than the author's POV). Thus, a saying that reflected an attitude common to Jews of the era was not considered as a genuine saying of Jesus, merely because it could not be distinctively Jesus. Which means that the "distinctive Jesus" comes across as non-Jewish or anti-Jewish.

                      Just think about what this means. Suppose Jesus loved to use Jewish proverbs. By the Jesus Seminar method, any time Jesus used a Jewish proverb, they'd make it grey or black. So a Jewish proverb-loving Jesus would be methodologically excluded.

                      The methodological corollary to all this is that the strength of a hypothetical parallel is proportional to its rarity in contemporary Jewish discourse.

                       

                      and I respond:

                       

                      I think there are problems with the Jesus Seminar method at this point in that I don’t think that the fact that material is not “distinctive Jesus” necessarily means that it is not “authentic Jesus”, for the kinds of reasons that you’ve outlined, Bob. I think it would have been surprising if Jesus had not used familiar stories to illustrate his points at times. In addition, given that it seems that his original aim was to call people back to authentic Judaism, rather than to create a new religion, it would have been very surprising if he did not sometimes use Jewish teachings and Jewish examples.


                      And then he says:

                       

                      What this says, of course, is that no study of parallels is complete without a study of related ideas in contemporary Jewish literature and culture.
                      Which, of course, makes the job much more difficult.

                      And I agree wholeheartedly. J

                       

                      Judy

                      --

                      Judy Redman
                      PhD Candidate, School of Humanities
                      University of New England
                      Armidale 2351 Australia
                      ph:  +61 2 6773 3401
                      mob: 0437 044 579
                      web: 
                       http://judyredman.wordpress.com/
                      email: 
                       jredman2@...
                       

                       

                    • Rick Hubbard
                      Just a quick note: It occurs to me that not everyone is talking about the same thing. I, at least, am have been trying to focus on the broader issue of
                      Message 10 of 18 , May 18, 2010
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Just a quick note: It occurs to me that not everyone is talking about the
                        same thing.

                        I, at least, am have been trying to focus on the broader issue of
                        intertextuality from a "source critical" perspective. In this case my
                        interest lies in trying to devise some empirical method to describe how, and
                        to what degree, one text-segment may be related to another. This means that
                        the quest for textual correlations between the Gospel of Thomas must go
                        beyond the inventory of "parallels" catalogued by both T5G and Crossan.
                        Remember that both of those endeavors focused **primarily** on sayings
                        attributed to Jesus. Other textual correlations (including some the "framing
                        elements") between Thomas and other literature are often ignored by T5G
                        (although Crossan's analysis is much more thorough, ISTM).

                        Here is a case in point:
                        L. 17 reads "Jesus says: 'I will give you what no eye has seen,...'"

                        There are multiple correlations between this logion and:

                        (1) NHC I,1 (The Prayer of the Apostle Paul) where the text reads Jesus
                        says: "I will give you what no eye has seen,..".

                        (2) I Cor 2:9 the text says, "But, as it is written, "What no eye has
                        seen,.",.

                        (3)I Clement 34:8 includes this: For [the Scripture says], "Eye hath not
                        seen,.".

                        (4) Isaiah 64:4 which reads in part," From ages past no-one has heard, no
                        ear has perceived, no eye has seen."

                        (5) NHC III,5 140:2 (DialSav) The Lord said, "[You have] asked me about a
                        saying [..that] which eye has not seen,."

                        (6) Martyrdom of Peter 10:2 ""[You} will obtain those things of which he
                        says to you: which eye has not seen nor ear heard..."

                        (7) Turfan Manichaean Fragment M 789 "I will give you what you have not seen
                        with the eye..."

                        (8) Testament of the Lord 1:28 "He said that he would give us, which eye
                        hath not seen ..."

                        (9) Testament of the Lord in Galilee 11 "And his power will be given to
                        them, which no eye has seen...."

                        (10) Apocryphal Gospel of John" You shall inherit the kingdom of heaven,
                        whose delights... no eye has seen.."


                        I took a quick look at T5G and they mention only I Cor 2:9 (and then only
                        for the purpose of comparison) and make no mention of items 1, 3 and 5-10
                        (above). In the body of the brief commentary, T5G does acknowledge that the
                        saying "ultimately derives" from Is 64:4. It is also noted that

                        My point is that if one scans GThom carefully for **every** piece of
                        evidence of "intertextuality" then T5G is not the final authority by any
                        means.

                        But here's the rub: once such evidence has been collected, how to critically
                        assess it in an objective manner is the next challenge.
                      • Bob Schacht
                        ... Rick, My problem with this is that your analysis is based on a truism: no eye has seen was probably a common turn of phrase that did not need to be
                        Message 11 of 18 , May 18, 2010
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 04:03 PM 5/18/2010, Rick Hubbard wrote:
                           

                          ...I, at least, am have been trying to focus on the broader issue of
                          intertextuality from a "source critical" perspective. In this case my
                          interest lies in trying to devise some empirical method to describe how, and
                          to what degree, one text-segment may be related to another. ...

                          Here is a case in point:
                          L. 17 reads "Jesus says: 'I will give you what no eye has seen,...'"

                          There are multiple correlations between this logion and:...


                          Rick,
                          My problem with this is that your analysis is based on a truism: "no eye has seen" was probably a common turn of phrase that did not need to be borrowed, and was easily re-invented. Your "text segments" need to be more distinctive than this for correlations to carry much weight.

                          Bob Schacht
                          Northern Arizona University
                        • Rick Hubbard
                          ... has ... borrowed, ... distinctive ... [||] Weight or not, these meet the precise definition of intertextuality as used by Allison (which I accept as a
                          Message 12 of 18 , May 18, 2010
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Bob Wrote:
                            ||
                            ||
                            ||Rick,
                            ||My problem with this is that your analysis is based on a truism: "no eye
                            has
                            ||seen" was probably a common turn of phrase that did not need to be
                            borrowed,
                            ||and was easily re-invented. Your "text segments" need to be more
                            distinctive
                            ||than this for correlations to carry much weight.
                            [||]

                            "Weight" or not, these meet the precise definition of "intertextuality" as
                            used by Allison (which I accept as a working definition until someone can
                            point me to another that is more descriptive- suggestions are invited).

                            In any case, the point I was trying to make is that T5G is not a reliable
                            source for identifying anything other than "Jesus Sayings". The book is not
                            suitable as a "roadmap" for source criticism although it is more than
                            adequate for the purpose for which it was written.

                            Rick

                            ||
                            ||Bob Schacht
                            ||Northern Arizona University
                            ||
                            ||
                            ||
                          • kurt31416
                            Hi Rick, And, not suprisingly, there s a parallel in the Mandaean Canonical Prayer Book too. And a close one. Mandaean Canonical Prayer Book 45b Thou hast
                            Message 13 of 18 , May 18, 2010
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi Rick,

                              And, not suprisingly, there's a parallel in the Mandaean Canonical Prayer Book too. And a close one.

                              Mandaean Canonical Prayer Book 45b
                              Thou hast shown us that which the eye of man hath not seen, and caused us to hear that which human ear has not heard.

                              If you come up with an objective system for measuring it, I suspect that will score rather high. In the final analysis, it all comes from Isaiah. The question is did Jesus say it.

                              Not surprising it's in the Hebrew Bible; on Funk's list 75% of the Jewish/Hebrew parallels are between 5 and 25 and then not another one until 63. An even longer shot than the the Mark gap.

                              Richard Van Vliet
                            • Bob Schacht
                              ... Rick, I have today located my copy of Crossan s The Birth of Christianity (BOC), so I can now attempt to provide a better answer for your questions. The
                              Message 14 of 18 , May 19, 2010
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                At 04:57 AM 5/15/2010, Rick Hubbard wrote:
                                 

                                Hi Bob-

                                Thanks for the input.
                                You referred to Crossan by saying:

                                ||…Crossan's way of talking about parallels. He distinguishes the "frame" of a
                                ||saying from its "content." I haven't seen a study of this, but the way Crossan
                                ||talks about it, "frame" and "content" are virtually independent in the synoptic
                                ||gospels.

                                I wonder if you happen to have “ready-to-hand” the citation for this Crossan’s remarks? I would like to see what else he has to say on the matter.

                                Rick Hubbard
                                Rick,
                                I have today located my copy of Crossan's The Birth of Christianity (BOC), so I can now attempt to provide a better answer for your questions.
                                The book has a subject index, thank goodness, but it does not always contain the terms one might be looking for.

                                First, you, Judy and others may be interested in some of Crossan's methodological sections, such as
                                • Common Literary Source, pp. 104f.
                                • Direct Literary Dependence, pp. 105-107
                                • Indirect Literary Dependence, pp. 107f.
                                • Method and Debate, pp. 118-120, which includes this:
                                  "My own principles for judging direct literary dependence are these: genetic relationship is established by the presence of individually specific order or content from independent into dependent text, and redactional confirmation is established by showing where, how, and why the dependent text changed the independent one. Indirect literary dependence is, of course, much more difficult for arguments in either direction, since genetic relationship is generally precluded in this case. All that is left is redactional confirmation of whatever option is chosen... "
                                  My first attempts to find his discussion of "frame" and "content" were not successful. My memory may well have been influenced by the Seminar that XTalk sponsored with Crossan on the BOC in 2001, which is still available online at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoC-Sem/?yguid=116139277. But I can't find it there, either.

                                • However, as I search around in my archives, while I cannot find any way to pin my distinction between frames and content on Crossan, instead, I may have to blame Bill Arnal, in such tidbits from email correspondence as this, regarding Q2 and Thomas, from 1996:
                                  If, as I believe, this tendency is
                                  consequence of Thomas having access to pre-Q2 unredacted traditions
                                  (which in a way begs the question, I suppose Mack would counter), the
                                  fact that they do NOT take developed chreia form in Thomas suggests that
                                  Q2 redacted them in this direction, whereas Mark already possesed chreiai
                                  in his pre-redactional tradition. There's no reason for Thomas to strip
                                  chreia frames from Q sayings and not from Markan material. And so this
                                  suggests a vault of pre-redactional Q2 oral sentence material, which
                                  means Q2 did NOT invent these traditions. Does that make sense?
                                   The same year, Carl Conrad had a discussion with Bill Arnal about Mark's Institutional Biases in which Carl wrote this:
                                  ... I would take issue with this judgment; 3:31-35 constitute the second
                                  half of the typical Marcan "frame" or "triptych" narrative wherein the
                                  inner narrative and the two halves of the "frame" cross-interpret each
                                  other: in this instance, Jesus' mothers and brothers are coming to fetch
                                  him because he appears to be out of his mind and is thus, presumably, an
                                  embarrassment to the family; within the house the question is raised (as in
                                  the Parables chapter, implicitly): who are the insiders and who are the
                                  outsiders?
                                  And then there's this comment by Bill Arnal about Thomas #114, on 5/23/1996:
                                   Second, I am not convinced at all that the saying is as misogynist
                                  as it initially appears. We tend to be shocked by the last sentence and
                                  so focus our attention on it, with the result that the context (the
                                  narrative frame) is ignored. Yet this narrative frame seems to constitute
                                  the whole purpose of the saying, at least in the form in which we have
                                  it. The fact that the saying is offered as a response to Peter's
                                  objection to Mary's presence indicates that it was viewed as SUPPORTING,
                                  not rejecting, the active involvement of women. Peter's objection that
                                  women are not worthy of life is explicitly denied here. The problem is,
                                  that the language used to convey this idea is exclusive/androcentric:
                                  "no, women are OK, because they're capable of being people just like men
                                  are." How this differs from such statements as "Jesus came to save
                                  mankind," or "Our Father," i.e., male being used to indicate generic
                                  human, eludes me.
                                  Then there is this dialogue Bill Arnal had with Stevan Davies on 3/10/1996, in which Bill comments,
                                  As Thomas 100 suggests (only: "they showed
                                  him a coin"), the explicit invocation of Caesar's portrait is probably
                                  secondary, intended to offer a more acceptable solution than that
                                  originally tendered. I do not, by the way, regard the synoptic version
                                  (i.e., context) as original: the narrative frame fits way too nicely with
                                  Mark's overall depiction of the Pharisees, and as you note, is missing in
                                  Thomas. But it does tell us something about general attitudes that such a
                                  question could be regarded as a "trap" rather self-evidently. Even
                                  Thomas' version, BTW, is suggestive. The structural difference between
                                  the last part of the saying ("give me what is mine") is striking and
                                  suggests to me a deliberate distinction between Jesus, on the one hand,
                                  and God and Caesar, on the other. GOD is not, aside form this saying,
                                  called "God" in Thomas, and my suspicion is that here the demiurge, the
                                  ruler of this world, is being associated with Ceasar, in contrast to
                                  Jesus.
                                  Bill also used the term in an article in TJT which he used in a commentary in an email in 2/27/1997 regarding the "cleansing of the temple" recounted in Mark 11:15-19:
                                  In this connection it should be noted that the Temple episode
                                  fits very well with Mark's redactional interests and with the
                                  composition of his gospel as a whole.13 It is essentially Jesus'
                                  first action on entering Jerusalem, and it symbolically
                                  illustrates not only Jesus' authority and fundamental opposition
                                  to the Temple as a symbol of Jewish religiosity (simply put,
                                  Jesus here stops the Temple from operating), but also foreshadows
                                  the destruction of the Temple envisioned in the apocalyptic
                                  speech in chapter 13, in the rending of the Temple veil at Jesus'
                                  death (Mark 15:38)14 and actually accomplished by the Romans in
                                  70 CE. Just to make it perfectly clear that such a foreshadowing
                                  is intended, Mark frames the account with his episode of the
                                  cursed fig tree (11:12-14 and 11:20-21): a typical Markan
                                  literary device, this framing interprets the Temple act as analogous
                                  to the cursing and destruction of a tree that displeased Jesus....
                                  The form critics tend to regard this story as a composite
                                  apophthegm, with vv. 18-19 and the first sentence of v.15 being
                                  viewed as Markan, and the Hebrew Bible quotation in v.17 as added
                                  to the core of the tradition secondarily.10 This creates the
                                  problem that the apophthegm ceases to be an apophthegm, and
                                  exhibits a development quite the opposite of the tendency of
                                  apophthegms to form as a result of the addition of narrative
                                  frames
                                  to originally independent sayings. Crossan solves this
                                  problem by imagining that the apophthegm originally consisted of
                                  the narrative frame plus the utterance predicting the Temple's
                                  destruction which now appears in the tradition as an independent
                                  saying. The saying was first separated off from its narrative
                                  context to circulate independently, and then replaced by a biblical proof-text.11
                                  This ties the discussion of narrative frames back to Crossan; Bill's footnote provides the reference, but I don't have that. Bill continues the discussion later with this observation:
                                  Just to make it perfectly clear that such a foreshadowing
                                  is intended, Mark frames the account with his episode of the
                                  cursed fig tree (11:12-14 and 11:20-21): a typical Markan
                                  literary device, this framing interprets the Temple act as analo-
                                  gous to the cursing and destruction of a tree that displeased
                                  Jesus.15

                                  Arnal also wrote (9/20/1997), commenting on comments by Stevan Davies,
                                  As for the generic analogy between Q and Thomas, not only
                                  do Steve's comments point to the problems with requiring absolute
                                  similarity to posit similar genre, there is also the issue of the
                                  overstatement involved in the characterization of any of the Q
                                  material as narratival. The mere presence of narrative is NOT a
                                  problem for the hypothesis, because a large chunk of Q, Q as a
                                  whole even, is a chreia collection, and so will have narrative
                                  frames
                                  by definition. Thomas is like this, as is a lot of other
                                  ancient literature. The story of the Centurion's *pais* is NOT a
                                  narrative, it is a chreia. Same goes for the messengers from
                                  John. The Temptation is moving in the direction of narrative, but
                                  it is the exception that proves the rule -- in spite of this
                                  move it retains a primary interest in DIALOGUE, and it stands
                                  toward the beginning of the collection as a way of establishing
                                  ethos and authority for Jesus. There are dialogues in Thomas
                                  (e.g., #13) that are just as narratival and complex as is the Q
                                  Temptation. And in case you are not yet totally confused, I'll leave you with a last bit from Bill Arnal that is relevant, this time from 8/7/2001:
                                  The problem I have with these arguments is that they are completely
                                  reversible. That is, such instances -- at least if we dismiss "secondary
                                  orality" and textual corruption (which I don't want to do, but other folks
                                  on this obviously have problems with them) -- show a linkage but BY NO MEANS
                                  indicate the direction of the linkage. Stevan Davies has already argued that
                                  Mark was in fact dependent on Thomas, rather than the reverse, and the
                                  juxtaposition of 65 and 66 was one of the phenomena he pointed to in support
                                  of this claim (arguing that it was Mark who combined the two thematically
                                  having encountered them as a random juxtaposition in Thomas, a trajectory
                                  that makes more sense prima facie AND in light of Thomas' redactional
                                  characteristics than does the reverse). The same could be argued with the
                                  "exo" in the story about Jesus' mother and brothers. In Thomas, the adverb
                                  is not of any apparent importance, but could be either part of received
                                  tradition or (more likely, I guess) part of the scene-setting of this
                                  particular response-chreia. Mark, then, encountering this saying and taking
                                  his cue from the "exo," provides it with a narrative frame in which Jesus is
                                  "in the house." Note that he puts Jesus in the house right at the start of
                                  this story (3:19), and takes him out again right at the end (4:1). Why is
                                  Jesus in the house for this unit? Because the form in which Mark received
                                  the unit -- from Thomas!!?? -- suggested such a narrative frame to him. This
                                  scenario makes more sense to me than the reverse. So perhaps advocates of
                                  Thomas' dependence on the synoptics should look at the reversibility of
                                  their arguments.
                                  Well, you get the idea. It looks like I have assimilated the notion of narrative frames from Bill Arnal, but also possibly from somewhere in Crossan's writings that I can no longer identify. If I can find anything more explicit about the connection (or lack thereof) between narrative frames and content, I'll post it later.

                                  Bob Schacht

                              • Rick Hubbard
                                Thanks, Bob for taking the time to chase this down. As it turns out, when I pulled my copy of BOC and looked up your citations, I guess I ve been looking at
                                Message 15 of 18 , May 21, 2010
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Thanks, Bob for taking the time to chase this down. As it turns out, when I
                                  pulled my copy of BOC and looked up your citations, I guess I've been
                                  looking at this before, judging from the notes I made in the margins
                                  (probably right after the book came out). In any case, I find most
                                  interesting Crossan's observations about "indirect references." Those, it
                                  seems to me are the most problematic, not just in the specific terms of
                                  identifying literary dependence/independence but in the more general sense
                                  of judging what is evidence of "reminiscent" influence.

                                  Referring back to my earlier query about whether it is legitimate to call L
                                  71 a "parallel" with Jn 2:19, et al it seems to me that it would be
                                  difficult to do so on the basis of either a common oral matrix or, to again
                                  use Crossan's terminology, "genetic relationship" **or** "redactional
                                  confirmation." Maybe I'm not seeing this clearly, and if not, I'm open to
                                  correction, so feel free.

                                  Rick Hubbard

                                  ||-----Original Message-----
                                  ||From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On
                                  ||Behalf Of Bob Schacht
                                  ||Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 2:57 AM
                                  ||To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
                                  ||Subject: RE: [GTh] Narrative frames
                                  ||
                                  ||
                                  ||
                                  ||At 04:57 AM 5/15/2010, Rick Hubbard wrote:
                                  ||
                                  ||
                                  ||
                                  ||
                                  ||
                                  ||
                                  ||Hi Bob-
                                  ||
                                  ||Thanks for the input.
                                  ||You referred to Crossan by saying:
                                  ||
                                  ||||.Crossan's way of talking about parallels. He distinguishes the
                                  ||||"frame" of a saying from its "content." I haven't seen a study of
                                  ||||this, but the way Crossan talks about it, "frame" and "content" are
                                  ||||virtually independent in the synoptic gospels.
                                  ||
                                  ||I wonder if you happen to have "ready-to-hand" the citation for this
                                  Crossan's
                                  ||remarks? I would like to see what else he has to say on the matter.
                                  ||
                                  ||Rick Hubbard
                                  ||Rick,
                                  ||I have today located my copy of Crossan's The Birth of Christianity (BOC),
                                  so I
                                  ||can now attempt to provide a better answer for your questions.
                                  ||The book has a subject index, thank goodness, but it does not always
                                  contain
                                  ||the terms one might be looking for.
                                  ||
                                  ||First, you, Judy and others may be interested in some of Crossan's
                                  ||methodological sections, such as
                                  ||
                                  ||* Common Literary Source, pp. 104f.
                                  ||* Direct Literary Dependence, pp. 105-107
                                  ||* Indirect Literary Dependence, pp. 107f.
                                  ||* Method and Debate, pp. 118-120, which includes this:
                                  ||
                                  || "My own principles for judging direct literary dependence
                                  are these:
                                  ||genetic relationship is established by the presence of individually
                                  specific order
                                  ||or content from independent into dependent text, and redactional
                                  confirmation
                                  ||is established by showing where, how, and why the dependent text changed
                                  ||the independent one. Indirect literary dependence is, of course, much more
                                  ||difficult for arguments in either direction, since genetic relationship is
                                  generally
                                  ||precluded in this case. All that is left is redactional confirmation of
                                  whatever
                                  ||option is chosen... "
                                  ||
                                  || My first attempts to find his discussion of "frame" and "content"
                                  were not
                                  ||successful. My memory may well have been influenced by the Seminar that
                                  ||XTalk sponsored with Crossan on the BOC in 2001, which is still available
                                  online
                                  ||at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoC-Sem/?yguid=116139277
                                  ||<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoC-Sem/?yguid=116139277> . But I can't
                                  ||find it there, either.
                                  ||
                                  ||
                                  || However, as I search around in my archives, while I cannot find any
                                  way
                                  ||to pin my distinction between frames and content on Crossan, instead, I
                                  may
                                  ||have to blame Bill Arnal, in such tidbits from email correspondence as
                                  this,
                                  ||regarding Q2 and Thomas, from 1996:
                                  || If, as I believe, this tendency is
                                  || consequence of Thomas having access to pre-Q2 unredacted traditions
                                  || (which in a way begs the question, I suppose Mack would counter),
                                  the
                                  || fact that they do NOT take developed chreia form in Thomas suggests
                                  that
                                  || Q2 redacted them in this direction, whereas Mark already possesed
                                  chreiai
                                  || in his pre-redactional tradition. There's no reason for Thomas to
                                  strip
                                  || chreia frames from Q sayings and not from Markan material. And so
                                  this
                                  || suggests a vault of pre-redactional Q2 oral sentence material, which
                                  || means Q2 did NOT invent these traditions. Does that make sense?
                                  || The same year, Carl Conrad had a discussion with Bill Arnal about
                                  Mark's
                                  ||Institutional Biases in which Carl wrote this:
                                  || ... I would take issue with this judgment; 3:31-35 constitute the
                                  second
                                  || half of the typical Marcan "frame" or "triptych" narrative wherein
                                  the
                                  || inner narrative and the two halves of the "frame" cross-interpret
                                  each
                                  || other: in this instance, Jesus' mothers and brothers are coming to
                                  fetch
                                  || him because he appears to be out of his mind and is thus,
                                  presumably, an
                                  || embarrassment to the family; within the house the question is raised
                                  (as in
                                  || the Parables chapter, implicitly): who are the insiders and who are
                                  the
                                  || outsiders?
                                  || And then there's this comment by Bill Arnal about Thomas #114, on
                                  ||5/23/1996:
                                  || Second, I am not convinced at all that the saying is as misogynist
                                  || as it initially appears. We tend to be shocked by the last sentence
                                  and
                                  || so focus our attention on it, with the result that the context (the
                                  || narrative frame) is ignored. Yet this narrative frame seems to
                                  constitute
                                  || the whole purpose of the saying, at least in the form in which we
                                  have
                                  || it. The fact that the saying is offered as a response to Peter's
                                  || objection to Mary's presence indicates that it was viewed as
                                  SUPPORTING,
                                  || not rejecting, the active involvement of women. Peter's objection
                                  that
                                  || women are not worthy of life is explicitly denied here. The problem
                                  is,
                                  || that the language used to convey this idea is
                                  exclusive/androcentric:
                                  || "no, women are OK, because they're capable of being people just like
                                  men
                                  || are." How this differs from such statements as "Jesus came to save
                                  || mankind," or "Our Father," i.e., male being used to indicate generic
                                  || human, eludes me.
                                  || Then there is this dialogue Bill Arnal had with Stevan Davies on
                                  3/10/1996,
                                  ||in which Bill comments,
                                  || As Thomas 100 suggests (only: "they showed
                                  || him a coin"), the explicit invocation of Caesar's portrait is
                                  probably
                                  || secondary, intended to offer a more acceptable solution than that
                                  || originally tendered. I do not, by the way, regard the synoptic
                                  version
                                  || (i.e., context) as original: the narrative frame fits way too nicely
                                  with
                                  || Mark's overall depiction of the Pharisees, and as you note, is
                                  missing in
                                  || Thomas. But it does tell us something about general attitudes that
                                  such a
                                  || question could be regarded as a "trap" rather self-evidently. Even
                                  || Thomas' version, BTW, is suggestive. The structural difference
                                  between
                                  || the last part of the saying ("give me what is mine") is striking and
                                  || suggests to me a deliberate distinction between Jesus, on the one
                                  hand,
                                  || and God and Caesar, on the other. GOD is not, aside form this
                                  saying,
                                  || called "God" in Thomas, and my suspicion is that here the demiurge,
                                  the
                                  || ruler of this world, is being associated with Ceasar, in contrast to
                                  || Jesus.
                                  || Bill also used the term in an article in TJT which he used in a
                                  commentary
                                  ||in an email in 2/27/1997 regarding the "cleansing of the temple" recounted
                                  in
                                  ||Mark 11:15-19:
                                  || In this connection it should be noted that the Temple episode
                                  || fits very well with Mark's redactional interests and with the
                                  || composition of his gospel as a whole.13 It is essentially Jesus'
                                  || first action on entering Jerusalem, and it symbolically
                                  || illustrates not only Jesus' authority and fundamental opposition
                                  || to the Temple as a symbol of Jewish religiosity (simply put,
                                  || Jesus here stops the Temple from operating), but also foreshadows
                                  || the destruction of the Temple envisioned in the apocalyptic
                                  || speech in chapter 13, in the rending of the Temple veil at Jesus'
                                  || death (Mark 15:38)14 and actually accomplished by the Romans in
                                  || 70 CE. Just to make it perfectly clear that such a foreshadowing
                                  || is intended, Mark frames the account with his episode of the
                                  || cursed fig tree (11:12-14 and 11:20-21): a typical Markan
                                  || literary device, this framing interprets the Temple act as analogous
                                  || to the cursing and destruction of a tree that displeased Jesus....
                                  || The form critics tend to regard this story as a composite
                                  || apophthegm, with vv. 18-19 and the first sentence of v.15 being
                                  || viewed as Markan, and the Hebrew Bible quotation in v.17 as added
                                  || to the core of the tradition secondarily.10 This creates the
                                  || problem that the apophthegm ceases to be an apophthegm, and
                                  || exhibits a development quite the opposite of the tendency of
                                  || apophthegms to form as a result of the addition of narrative
                                  || frames to originally independent sayings. Crossan solves this
                                  || problem by imagining that the apophthegm originally consisted of
                                  || the narrative frame plus the utterance predicting the Temple's
                                  || destruction which now appears in the tradition as an independent
                                  || saying. The saying was first separated off from its narrative
                                  || context to circulate independently, and then replaced by a biblical
                                  proof-
                                  ||text.11
                                  || This ties the discussion of narrative frames back to Crossan; Bill's
                                  footnote
                                  ||provides the reference, but I don't have that. Bill continues the
                                  discussion later
                                  ||with this observation:
                                  || Just to make it perfectly clear that such a foreshadowing
                                  || is intended, Mark frames the account with his episode of the
                                  || cursed fig tree (11:12-14 and 11:20-21): a typical Markan
                                  || literary device, this framing interprets the Temple act as analo-
                                  || gous to the cursing and destruction of a tree that displeased
                                  || Jesus.15
                                  ||
                                  ||
                                  || Arnal also wrote (9/20/1997), commenting on comments by Stevan
                                  Davies,
                                  || As for the generic analogy between Q and Thomas, not only
                                  || do Steve's comments point to the problems with requiring absolute
                                  || similarity to posit similar genre, there is also the issue of the
                                  || overstatement involved in the characterization of any of the Q
                                  || material as narratival. The mere presence of narrative is NOT a
                                  || problem for the hypothesis, because a large chunk of Q, Q as a
                                  || whole even, is a chreia collection, and so will have narrative
                                  || frames by definition. Thomas is like this, as is a lot of other
                                  || ancient literature. The story of the Centurion's *pais* is NOT a
                                  || narrative, it is a chreia. Same goes for the messengers from
                                  || John. The Temptation is moving in the direction of narrative, but
                                  || it is the exception that proves the rule -- in spite of this
                                  || move it retains a primary interest in DIALOGUE, and it stands
                                  || toward the beginning of the collection as a way of establishing
                                  || ethos and authority for Jesus. There are dialogues in Thomas
                                  || (e.g., #13) that are just as narratival and complex as is the Q
                                  || Temptation.
                                  || And in case you are not yet totally confused, I'll leave you with a
                                  last bit
                                  ||from Bill Arnal that is relevant, this time from 8/7/2001:
                                  ||
                                  || The problem I have with these arguments is that they are
                                  completely
                                  || reversible. That is, such instances -- at least if we
                                  dismiss
                                  ||"secondary
                                  || orality" and textual corruption (which I don't want to do,
                                  but other
                                  ||folks
                                  || on this obviously have problems with them) -- show a linkage
                                  but BY
                                  ||NO MEANS
                                  || indicate the direction of the linkage. Stevan Davies has
                                  already
                                  ||argued that
                                  || Mark was in fact dependent on Thomas, rather than the
                                  reverse,
                                  ||and the
                                  || juxtaposition of 65 and 66 was one of the phenomena he
                                  pointed to
                                  ||in support
                                  || of this claim (arguing that it was Mark who combined the two
                                  ||thematically
                                  || having encountered them as a random juxtaposition in Thomas,
                                  a
                                  ||trajectory
                                  || that makes more sense prima facie AND in light of Thomas'
                                  ||redactional
                                  || characteristics than does the reverse). The same could be
                                  argued
                                  ||with the
                                  || "exo" in the story about Jesus' mother and brothers. In
                                  Thomas, the
                                  ||adverb
                                  || is not of any apparent importance, but could be either part
                                  of
                                  ||received
                                  || tradition or (more likely, I guess) part of the
                                  scene-setting of this
                                  || particular response-chreia. Mark, then, encountering this
                                  saying and
                                  ||taking
                                  || his cue from the "exo," provides it with a narrative frame
                                  in which
                                  ||Jesus is
                                  || "in the house." Note that he puts Jesus in the house right
                                  at the
                                  ||start of
                                  || this story (3:19), and takes him out again right at the end
                                  (4:1). Why
                                  ||is
                                  || Jesus in the house for this unit? Because the form in which
                                  Mark
                                  ||received
                                  || the unit -- from Thomas!!?? -- suggested such a narrative
                                  frame to
                                  ||him. This
                                  || scenario makes more sense to me than the reverse. So perhaps
                                  ||advocates of
                                  || Thomas' dependence on the synoptics should look at the
                                  reversibility
                                  ||of
                                  || their arguments.
                                  ||
                                  || Well, you get the idea. It looks like I have assimilated the notion
                                  of
                                  ||narrative frames from Bill Arnal, but also possibly from somewhere in
                                  Crossan's
                                  ||writings that I can no longer identify. If I can find anything more
                                  explicit about
                                  ||the connection (or lack thereof) between narrative frames and content,
                                  I'll post
                                  ||it later.
                                  ||
                                  || Bob Schacht
                                  ||
                                  ||
                                  ||
                                  ||
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.