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

[GTh] Re: Monograph on Marcion

Expand Messages
  • David
    Perhaps so, but I assume that by now you have seen my later post, which goes back to the source. However, it seems to me that Moll is himself doing something
    Message 1 of 17 , Aug 19, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Perhaps so, but I assume that by now you have seen my later post, which goes back to the source. However, it seems to me that Moll is himself doing something very similar to what I was doing: He comments on a 'review' (in a sense) of Marcion, without going back (as far as we can, anyway) to see what the original actually says. As Andrew Criddle comments that: "This is an important work both in its specific conclusions and in developing a methodology of making critical use of information in the heresiologists," then I submit that if commenting on a commentary (without reference to the source) can be "important," then commenting on a review should at least be seen as acceptable. Either we should always go back to the source (or, at least, as far as possible) in all cases, or commenting and/or drawing conclusions from some intermediate work should be considered OK in all cases.

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

      --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Carlson <stemmatic@...> wrote:
      >
      > I would be cautious about criticizing a book for apparent omissions based
      > entirely on a book review.
      >
      > Stephen
      > --
      > Stephen C. Carlson
      > Graduate Program in Religion
      > Duke University
      >
    • Bob Schacht
      ... What would it look like, to always go back to the source ? Would that mean ignoring the work of the Jesus Seminar and The Five Gospels? Would it mean
      Message 2 of 17 , Aug 19, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        At 10:53 AM 8/19/2011, David wrote:
        Perhaps so, but I assume that by now you have seen my later post, which goes back to the source. However, it seems to me that Moll is himself doing something very similar to what I was doing: He comments on a 'review' (in a sense) of Marcion, without going back (as far as we can, anyway) to see what the original actually says. As Andrew Criddle comments that: "This is an important work both in its specific conclusions and in developing a methodology of making critical use of information in the heresiologists," then I submit that if commenting on a commentary (without reference to the source) can be "important," then commenting on a review should at least be seen as acceptable. Either we should always go back to the source (or, at least, as far as possible) in all cases, or commenting and/or drawing conclusions from some intermediate work should be considered OK in all cases.

        What would it look like, to always "go back to the source"? Would that mean ignoring the work of the Jesus Seminar and The Five Gospels? Would it mean ignoring all the books on the Gospel of Thomas?

        I'd prefer to put it this way:
        I always prefer evidence-based exegesis to pure opinion. However, I sometimes value opinions that encourage me to look at new work on old sources, especially those that explain the reasons for their recommendation.

        But of course, this is my "opinion," so YMMV.

        Bob Schacht
        Northern Arizona University
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: GThomas On: Sources From: Bruce In reply to a comment of David Inglis, Bob Schacht asked: “What would it look like, to always go back to the source ?
        Message 3 of 17 , Aug 19, 2011
        • 0 Attachment

          To: GThomas

          On: Sources

          From: Bruce

           

          In reply to a comment of David Inglis, Bob Schacht asked: “What would it look like, to always "go back to the source"? Would that mean ignoring the work of the Jesus Seminar and The Five Gospels? Would it mean ignoring all the books on the Gospel of Thomas?”

           

          The simple answer to this is, Yes, it would. Historians have found that glancing back now and then at the thing one is talking about (or the thing the other person is talking about) is a refreshing exercise, tending to restore balance and instil relevance. Talk, as such, can easily wander from the path. People get excited about their own ideas, or involved in each other’s ideas, and such relationships take place in the present tense, far from the scene to which the ideas supposedly apply. There is much value in exchanging ideas with others, to be sure, but there is also a point at which a group becomes a mob (a point well known to the crowd control specialists). I don’t know that point exactly, but for reference meanwhile, just what is the current population of the Jesus Seminar?

          I still like what Ranke said about the use of “histories” (later people’s conclusions and interpretations, written up consecutively and attractively) in place of the source information on which they were, perhaps, based. It runs like this: “"Ich sehe die Zeit kommen, wo wir die neuere Geschichte nicht mehr auf die Berichte, selbst nicht der gleichzeitigen Historiker, ausser insoweit ihnen eine originale Kenntnis beiwohnte, geschweige denn auf die weiter abgeleiteten Bearbeitungen zu gründen haben, sondern aus den Relationen der Augenzeugen und den echtesten, unmittelbarsten Urkunden aufbauen werden." (Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, 1839).

          Recommended for consideration.

          E Bruce Brooks / University of Massachusetts at Amherst

          A propos, it seems as several recent messages to this list, though doubtless welcome for Mike’s monthly count, haven’t shed much light on a rather interesting text, the Gospel of Thomas. Let me take advantage of the lull to ask a question. It is this: Whenever in the 1c or 2c we think of the Gospel of Thomas as taking shape (that is, whether in Paul’s own time or in Marcion’s), that was a time when the teaching of Paul was more or less hotly controversial. Thinking of Paul’s most passionately urged doctrines (best derived, I doubt not, from Paul himself and not from Acts), what place do they have, or what refutation do they encounter, in GThos? Given that the passionate Paulinist Marcion was thought by his contemporaries to be tending toward a nonstandard view of things, is that same nonstandard tendency visible in GThos? Or a different one?

          The Synoptic connections of GThos have been much attended to (and thanks again to Rick for his systematic overview). What about the Pauline ones? Valantasis 14 has some suggestions (including some 1 Cor links, but these I think are real or candidate Jesus sayings). Would any Thomasically experienced person care to put it all in a paragraph?

        • Bob Schacht
          ... I am startled to realize that you apparently think I was arguing against going back to the source *ever*. Please note the use of the word always in the
          Message 4 of 17 , Aug 19, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            At 12:46 PM 8/19/2011, E Bruce Brooks wrote:

            To: GThomas
            On: Sources
            From: Bruce
             
            In reply to a comment of David Inglis, Bob Schacht asked: �What would it look like, to always "go back to the source"? Would that mean ignoring the work of the Jesus Seminar and The Five Gospels? Would it mean ignoring all the books on the Gospel of Thomas?�
             
            The simple answer to this is, Yes, it would. Historians have found that glancing back now and then at the thing one is talking about (or the thing the other person is talking about) is a refreshing exercise, tending to restore balance and instil relevance. ...

            I am startled to realize that you apparently think I was arguing against going back to the source *ever*. Please note the use of the word "always" in the first sentence of my quoted statement, and what it means for the sentence as a whole. Of course I am in favor of such "refreshing exercises". But in order to avoid attempting to re-invent the wheel, especially after so much of study, it also ought to be relevant to see what other scholars and their critics have already written about your subject of interest, to avoid repeating their mistakes.

            Bob Schacht
            Northern Arizona University
          • David
            Absolutely! I didn t say to always go back to the source ONLY, as I m fully aware that seeing what others have said or written can have great value. However,
            Message 5 of 17 , Aug 19, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Absolutely! I didn't say to always go back to the source ONLY, as I'm fully aware that seeing what others have said or written can have great value.

              However, that wasn't in any case really the point I was trying to make. Instead, I was saying that that you shouldn't sometimes complain about people commenting on something based on a review or commentary (i.e. an intermediate source) in some circumstances but not others.

              Either always allow that this can have value, or always insist on people going to the original source (or as close to it as possible) before making any comment.

              David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

              --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, Bob Schacht <bobschacht@...> wrote:
              >
              > At 12:46 PM 8/19/2011, E Bruce Brooks wrote:
              >
              > >To: GThomas
              > >On: Sources
              > >From: Bruce
              > >
              > >In reply to a comment of David Inglis, Bob Schacht asked: "What
              > >would it look like, to always "go back to the source"? Would that
              > >mean ignoring the work of the Jesus Seminar and The Five Gospels?
              > >Would it mean ignoring all the books on the Gospel of Thomas?"
              > >
              > >The simple answer to this is, Yes, it would. Historians have found
              > >that glancing back now and then at the thing one is talking about
              > >(or the thing the other person is talking about) is a refreshing
              > >exercise, tending to restore balance and instil relevance. ...
              >
              > I am startled to realize that you apparently think I was arguing
              > against going back to the source *ever*. Please note the use of the
              > word "always" in the first sentence of my quoted statement, and what
              > it means for the sentence as a whole. Of course I am in favor of such
              > "refreshing exercises". But in order to avoid attempting to re-invent
              > the wheel, especially after so much of study, it also ought to be
              > relevant to see what other scholars and their critics have already
              > written about your subject of interest, to avoid repeating their mistakes.
              >
              > Bob Schacht
              > Northern Arizona University
              >
            • andrewcriddle
              ... ... As Andrew Criddle comments that: This is an important work both in its specific conclusions and in developing a methodology of making critical
              Message 6 of 17 , Aug 20, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "David" <davidinglis2@...> wrote:
                >
                <SNIP>
                >
                As Andrew Criddle comments that: "This is an important work both in
                its specific conclusions and in developing a methodology of making critical use of information in the heresiologists," then I submit
                that if commenting on a commentary (without reference to the
                source) can be "important," then commenting on a review should at
                least be seen as acceptable.
                >
                <SNIP>
                >
                > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
                >


                Hi David

                Just to clarify:

                When I said "This is an important work both in its specific conclusions and in developing a methodology of making critical use of information in the heresiologists," I was referring to Catherine Osborne's work "Rethinking early Greek philosophy; Hippolytus of Rome and the presocratics."

                I can't comment on Moll's methodology not having read the book.

                Andrew Criddle
              • David
                Apologies for the misunderstanding over which work you were referring to. David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
                Message 7 of 17 , Aug 22, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Apologies for the misunderstanding over which work you were referring to.

                  David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                  --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "andrewcriddle" <sarban@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "David" <davidinglis2@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > <SNIP>
                  > >
                  > As Andrew Criddle comments that: "This is an important work both in
                  > its specific conclusions and in developing a methodology of making critical use of information in the heresiologists," then I submit
                  > that if commenting on a commentary (without reference to the
                  > source) can be "important," then commenting on a review should at
                  > least be seen as acceptable.
                  > >
                  > <SNIP>
                  > >
                  > > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  > Hi David
                  >
                  > Just to clarify:
                  >
                  > When I said "This is an important work both in its specific conclusions and in developing a methodology of making critical use of information in the heresiologists," I was referring to Catherine Osborne's work "Rethinking early Greek philosophy; Hippolytus of Rome and the presocratics."
                  >
                  > I can't comment on Moll's methodology not having read the book.
                  >
                  > Andrew Criddle
                  >
                • Mike Grondin
                  ... Thanks, David. Far from being considered unnecessary, such corrections are encouraged here, and are considered a mark of honesty, integrity, collegiality,
                  Message 8 of 17 , Aug 22, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    [David to Andrew Criddle]:
                    > Apologies for the misunderstanding over which work you were referring
                    to.
                     
                    Thanks, David. Far from being considered unnecessary, such corrections are
                    encouraged here, and are considered a mark of honesty, integrity, collegiality,
                    and commendably ethical scholarly behavior.
                     
                    Mike Grondin
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.