Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Skip to search.
 

Re: a hybrid hypothesis

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    Brian Wilson asks whether there might be any arguments against putting together ... This view has been maintained from time to time. The three most prominent
    Message 1 of 18 , Oct 8, 1998
      Brian Wilson asks whether there might be any arguments against putting together
      the following in "a hybrid hypothesis":
      >
      > (i) Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, (ii) Matthew and Luke copied from
      > Q, and (iii) Luke copied from Matthew.

      This view has been maintained from time to time. The three most prominent
      defenders of this kind of view are Simons (1880), Morgenthaler (1971 etc.) and
      Gundry (various). The main thing that I see wrong with it is that Luke's use
      of Matthew makes the postulation of a Q unnecessary. Q is taken by most
      theorists, after all, to be the logical consequence of the theory of Matthew's
      and Luke's independent use of Mark.

      > Putting the same question another way - how does an advocate of the 2DH
      > know that Luke did not also copy from Matthew, and how does an advocate
      > of the FH know that Matthew and Luke did not also interact with Q ?

      Advocates of the 2DH "know" that Luke did not also copy from Matthew because as
      soon as one has admitted Lukan knowledge of Matthew, Q becomes unnecessary and
      dispensable. It is therefore important to most Q theorists vigorously to
      defend the independence of Matthew and Luke. Advocates of the Farrer Theory
      "know" that Matthew and Luke did not also interact with Q because they have
      seen that Q is based on the assumption of the independence of Matthew and Luke,
      with which they disagree.

      Advocates of the Morgenthaler-Gundry position would need to find strong, fresh
      reasons for arguing for the existence of a Q document alongside Luke's use of
      Matthew. As far as I can see, Gundry's main reason for believing in Q is that
      Luke sometimes seems to have a more primitive form of a double tradition
      logion than does Matthew, an argument that has not always been dealt with
      adequately by adherents of the Farrer Theory, but which is nevertheless capable
      of a strong answer. I intend to attempt to write one up in due course; in the
      mean time I have sketched out some of the issues (there are more) at
      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/faq.htm#original.

      Mark
      -------------------------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham
      Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre

      --------------------------------------------

      Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      Synoptic-L Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Mark Goodacre wrote (SNIP) - ... But if the Farrer Hypothesis holds that Matthew interacted with oral tradition in order to produce the double tradition in
      Message 2 of 18 , Oct 8, 1998
        Mark Goodacre wrote (SNIP) -
        > Advocates of the Farrer Theory "know" that Matthew and Luke did not
        >also interact with Q because they have seen that Q is based on the
        >assumption of the independence of Matthew and Luke, with which they
        >disagree.
        >
        But if the Farrer Hypothesis holds that Matthew interacted with oral
        tradition in order to produce the double tradition in his gospel, does
        it not then all depend on how we define Q ?

        Some contributors to this list have defined Q as the non-Markan material
        common to Matthew and Luke irrespective of its source. If Q is so
        defined, and if, on the Farrer Hypothesis, Matthew interacted with oral
        tradition in order to produce the double tradition in his gospel, on the
        same hypothesis must not the oral tradition with which Matthew
        interacted have included Q ? How could it not have done so?

        Some scholars re-name the "Two Document Hypothesis" as the "Two Source
        Theory" (indeed this name is recommended for this List). I believe "Two
        Source Theory" is to accommodate those who advocate that Q may have been
        oral, rather than documentary.

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WISON

        E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE: *** RECENTLY UPDATED ***

        SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
        10 York Close, Godmanchester,
        Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
      • Brian E. Wilson
        Mark Goodacre wrote (SNIP) - ... But if the Farrer Hypothesis holds that Matthew interacted with oral tradition in order to produce the double tradition in
        Message 3 of 18 , Oct 8, 1998
          Mark Goodacre wrote (SNIP) -
          > Advocates of the Farrer Theory "know" that Matthew and Luke did not
          >also interact with Q because they have seen that Q is based on the
          >assumption of the independence of Matthew and Luke, with which they
          >disagree.
          >
          But if the Farrer Hypothesis holds that Matthew interacted with oral
          tradition in order to produce the double tradition in his gospel, does
          it not then all depend on how we define Q ?

          Some contributors to this list have defined Q as the non-Markan material
          common to Matthew and Luke irrespective of its source. If Q is so
          defined, and if, on the Farrer Hypothesis, Matthew interacted with oral
          tradition in order to produce the double tradition in his gospel, on the
          same hypothesis must not the oral tradition with which Matthew
          interacted have included Q ? How could it not have done so?

          Best wishes,
          BRIAN WISON

          E-MAIL: brian@... HOMEPAGE: *** RECENTLY UPDATED ***

          SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
          10 York Close, Godmanchester,
          Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
        • Jeff Peterson
          ... The issue here is in part semantic and concerns what we mean by Q. Q is used both to designate a source hypothesized to account for matter shared by
          Message 4 of 18 , Oct 8, 1998
            At 6:01 PM 10/8/98, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
            >[I]f the Farrer Hypothesis holds that Matthew interacted with oral
            >tradition in order to produce the double tradition in his gospel, does
            >it not then all depend on how we define Q ?
            >
            >Some contributors to this list have defined Q as the non-Markan material
            >common to Matthew and Luke irrespective of its source. If Q is so
            >defined, and if, on the Farrer Hypothesis, Matthew interacted with oral
            >tradition in order to produce the double tradition in his gospel, on the
            >same hypothesis must not the oral tradition with which Matthew
            >interacted have included Q ? How could it not have done so?

            The issue here is in part semantic and concerns what we mean by "Q." Q is
            used both to designate a source hypothesized to account for matter shared
            by Matthew and Luke and lacking in Mark on the assumption of Marcan
            priority and to identify the Synoptic material thus accounted for. One
            simply needs to be clear in which sense the abbreviation is being used; I
            suppose that if Q is an abbreviation for Quelle, its proper use is limited
            to 2ST adherents, but given its majority status (which means that all
            discussion of the Synoptic problem of necessity involves dialogue with
            2ST), other source theorists continue using it as convenient shorthand for
            what Matthew and Luke share that isn't paralleled in Mark.

            To Brian's question, then: there's no judgment on the origin of the Q
            matter inherent in the FH. As Mark has pointed out, Farrer himself
            suggested that much of it was derived from oral tradition, while Goulder
            treats virtually all of it as Matthaean redaction of Mark in light of the
            OT, and Sanders and Goodacre have returned to Farrer's understanding (with
            Sanders also allowing for written sources -- perhaps even two notebooks of
            them!). But it doesn't quite work on FH to say that Matthew's sources
            "included Q" -- Q is simply the designation of that non-Marcan material in
            Matthew (however derived) which Luke incorporated into his project.

            >
            >Some scholars re-name the "Two Document Hypothesis" as the "Two Source
            >Theory" (indeed this name is recommended for this List). I believe "Two
            >Source Theory" is to accommodate those who advocate that Q may have been
            >oral, rather than documentary.

            It is interesting to think about the terminology; since the first source in
            the Two Source theory is written (Mark) I generally assume that the "Two
            Source" terminology envisions two written sources. But there is no king in
            Synoptic studies, and every student does what is right in their own eyes.

            Cheers,

            Jeff

            Jeffrey Peterson
            Institute for Christian Studies
            Austin, Texas, USA
          • Stevan Davies
            BRIAN ... JEFF ... STEVE On crosstalk we ve managed to solve this terminological problem by speaking of NMM as material in Mt that is not in Mark and leaving Q
            Message 5 of 18 , Oct 8, 1998
              BRIAN
              > >Some contributors to this list have defined Q as the non-Markan material
              > >common to Matthew and Luke irrespective of its source. If Q is so
              > >defined, and if, on the Farrer Hypothesis, Matthew interacted with oral
              > >tradition in order to produce the double tradition in his gospel, on the
              > >same hypothesis must not the oral tradition with which Matthew
              > >interacted have included Q ? How could it not have done so?

              JEFF
              > The issue here is in part semantic and concerns what we mean by "Q." Q is
              > used both to designate a source hypothesized to account for matter shared
              > by Matthew and Luke and lacking in Mark on the assumption of Marcan
              > priority and to identify the Synoptic material thus accounted for. One
              > simply needs to be clear in which sense the abbreviation is being used; I
              > suppose that if Q is an abbreviation for Quelle, its proper use is limited
              > to 2ST adherents, but given its majority status (which means that all
              > discussion of the Synoptic problem of necessity involves dialogue with
              > 2ST), other source theorists continue using it as convenient shorthand for
              > what Matthew and Luke share that isn't paralleled in Mark

              STEVE
              On crosstalk we've managed to solve this terminological problem by
              speaking of NMM as material in Mt that is not in Mark and leaving
              Q to be material in Mt and Lk that is not in Mark. (NonMarkanMatthew)

              Mark G is entirely right that if Mt ---> Lk was known to be a fact
              nobody would think that Lk also was using Q. But then "where did
              NMM come from?" would become a very significant question.
              I've argued that NMM scholarship would end up drawing most of
              the same conclusions as Q scholarship does vis a vis early
              Christianity.

              Steve
            • Yuri Kuchinsky
              ... Mark, Alfred Loisy also accepted this version of events, of course. ... As other posters already remarked, this seems to be merely a function of precise
              Message 6 of 18 , Oct 10, 1998
                On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Mark Goodacre wrote:

                > Brian Wilson asks whether there might be any arguments against putting
                > together the following in "a hybrid hypothesis":

                > > (i) Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, (ii) Matthew and Luke copied from
                > > Q, and (iii) Luke copied from Matthew.
                >
                > This view has been maintained from time to time. The three most
                > prominent defenders of this kind of view are Simons (1880),
                > Morgenthaler (1971 etc.) and Gundry (various).

                Mark,

                Alfred Loisy also accepted this version of events, of course.

                > The main thing that I see wrong with it is that Luke's use of Matthew
                > makes the postulation of a Q unnecessary. Q is taken by most
                > theorists, after all, to be the logical consequence of the theory of
                > Matthew's and Luke's independent use of Mark.

                As other posters already remarked, this seems to be merely a function of
                precise definition. If we merely replace the label "Q" with "NMM
                (NonMarkanMatthew)", it seems like the basic problem of determining what
                this Q/NMM was remains unaffected.

                > > Putting the same question another way - how does an advocate of the 2DH
                > > know that Luke did not also copy from Matthew, and how does an advocate
                > > of the FH know that Matthew and Luke did not also interact with Q ?
                >
                > Advocates of the 2DH "know" that Luke did not also copy from Matthew
                > because as soon as one has admitted Lukan knowledge of Matthew, Q
                > becomes unnecessary and dispensable.

                But NMM looms large. So is this merely relabelling that goes on here?

                > It is therefore important to most Q theorists vigorously to defend the
                > independence of Matthew and Luke.

                I agree with Mark that, in this case, most Q theorists seem to be
                misguided.

                > Advocates of the Farrer Theory "know" that Matthew and Luke did not
                > also interact with Q

                But with NMM. Mt interacted with NMM for sure, and Lk probably, in my
                view.

                > because they have seen that Q is based on the assumption of the
                > independence of Matthew and Luke, with which they disagree.

                Such an assumption is clearly facile.

                > Advocates of the Morgenthaler-Gundry position would need to find
                > strong, fresh reasons for arguing for the existence of a Q document
                > alongside Luke's use of Matthew.

                Many good reasons are available. I like the argument from form. Sayings
                collections are a well attested literary form in classical antiquity. And
                this is where GTh comes in also. I think this would qualify as both
                "strong" and "fresh reason" for Q/NMM since GTh was unavailable at the
                time when the original Q hypothesis was formulated.

                Regards,

                Yuri.

                Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
              • Maluflen@aol.com
                Continuing the discussion of a hybrid hypothesis : MARK GOODACRE: Advocates of the Morgenthaler-Gundry position would need to find strong, fresh reasons for
                Message 7 of 18 , Oct 10, 1998
                  Continuing the discussion of "a hybrid hypothesis":

                  MARK GOODACRE: Advocates of the Morgenthaler-Gundry position would need to
                  find strong, fresh reasons for arguing for the existence of a Q document
                  alongside Luke's use of Matthew.

                  LEONARD: I agree with Mark here, and am glad that he is working on this.

                  But in response to the same statement of Mark, YURI wrote:

                  << Many good reasons are available. I like the argument from form. Sayings
                  collections are a well attested literary form in classical antiquity. And
                  this is where GTh comes in also. I think this would qualify as both
                  "strong" and "fresh reason" for Q/NMM since GTh was unavailable at the
                  time when the original Q hypothesis was formulated.>>

                  LEONARD: To which, the obvious response is: a posse ad esse non valet illatio.
                  It never ceases to amaze me that the existence of a second century Gnostic
                  document of a "sayings" type, the Gospel of Thomas, can be thought by anyone
                  to constitute PROOF for the existence of Q in the first century. And the fact
                  that Yuri, or anyone else for that matter, <likes> the argument from form
                  doesn't, unfortunately, add anything at all to its validity from a logical
                  point of view.

                  Leonard Maluf
                • Yuri Kuchinsky
                  On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 Maluflen@aol.com wrote: YURI wrote:
                  Message 8 of 18 , Oct 11, 1998
                    On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 Maluflen@... wrote:
                    YURI wrote:

                    <<Many good reasons are available. I like the argument from form. Sayings
                    collections are a well attested literary form in classical antiquity. And
                    this is where GTh comes in also. I think this would qualify as both
                    "strong" and "fresh reason" for Q/NMM since GTh was unavailable at the
                    time when the original Q hypothesis was formulated.>>

                    > To which, the obvious response is: a posse ad esse non valet illatio.
                    > It never ceases to amaze me that the existence of a second century
                    > Gnostic document of a "sayings" type, the Gospel of Thomas,

                    Leonard,

                    How do you know it is "a second century Gnostic document"? On what do you
                    base this?

                    > can be thought by anyone to constitute PROOF for the existence of Q in
                    > the first century. And the fact that Yuri, or anyone else for that
                    > matter, <likes> the argument from form doesn't, unfortunately, add
                    > anything at all to its validity from a logical point of view.

                    So, on the assumption that substantially GTh dates to the first century,
                    this would not be good support for Q?

                    Regards,

                    Yuri.

                    Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                    http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                    The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                    equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                  • Jim West
                    ... [snipped] ... [snipped- again] If I may just interject here on a conversation that is not mine- or as we say here in the South, I ain t got no dog in this
                    Message 9 of 18 , Oct 11, 1998
                      At 02:15 PM 10/11/98 -0400, yuri wrote:
                      >

                      >This sure seems to me, Leonard, like you've already decided that GTh is
                      >second century before looking at the evidence. Hardly an indication of
                      >adequate methodology.
                      >

                      [snipped]

                      >These are merely assertions of belief based apparently merely on cursory
                      >familiarity with the evidence. I invite you to consider Stevan Davies' The
                      >Gospel Of Thomas Homepage, please, to familiarize yourself with this
                      >subject adequately.
                      >
                      >http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
                      >
                      >This should give you enough material to read for a few days, Leonard. It
                      >would help your understanding of this problem if you consdered all this
                      >evidence fully.

                      [snipped- again]

                      If I may just interject here on a conversation that is not mine- or as we
                      say here in the South, "I ain't got no dog in this fight..."

                      I think it is improper, dear Yuri, for you to presume, as you do here, that
                      Leonard is unfamiliar with the material. It is dangerous to try to say what
                      others know or do not know...

                      I had the honor of meeting Leonard at the CBA meeting in Scranton and was
                      completely amazed at his depth of knowledge and eloquent speech and manners.

                      In short- I would not attempt to hazard such a thing as saying that he does
                      not know a particular issue when it comes to Gospel research.


                      Best to all.


                      Jim
                      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                      Jim West, ThD
                      Quartz Hill School of Theology
                      jwest@...
                    • Maluflen@aol.com
                      In a message dated 98-10-11 10:16:34 EDT, yuku@globalserve.net writes:
                      Message 10 of 18 , Oct 11, 1998
                        In a message dated 98-10-11 10:16:34 EDT, yuku@... writes:

                        << Leonard, How do you know it [GTh] is "a second century Gnostic document"?
                        On what do you base this? >>

                        Frankly, I have been careful not to waste much time on GTh, but what I have
                        read of it certainly supports what I think is the common scholarly view that
                        it dates from the second century and evidences a type of Gnostic thinking that
                        belongs to that, as opposed to the preceding, century. It certainly seems to
                        me that its authors knew and are adapting our canonical Gospel tradition in a
                        way that suits their heretical purposes.

                        << So, on the assumption that substantially GTh dates to the first century,
                        this would not be good support for Q?>>

                        It could I suppose be said that Q "substantially dates to the first century",
                        if by that you mean it employs CONTENTS form first century sources (our
                        canonical Gospels, at least). But, no, I don't see how that would advance the
                        cause of Q, as classically understood. Please enlighten me.

                        Leonard Maluf
                      • Yuri Kuchinsky
                        ... This sure seems to me, Leonard, like you ve already decided that GTh is second century before looking at the evidence. Hardly an indication of adequate
                        Message 11 of 18 , Oct 11, 1998
                          On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 Maluflen@... wrote:
                          > In a message dated 98-10-11 10:16:34 EDT, yuku@... writes:
                          >
                          > << Leonard, How do you know it [GTh] is "a second century Gnostic
                          > document"? On what do you base this? >>

                          > Frankly, I have been careful not to waste much time on GTh,

                          This sure seems to me, Leonard, like you've already decided that GTh is
                          second century before looking at the evidence. Hardly an indication of
                          adequate methodology.

                          > but what I have read of it certainly supports what I think is the
                          > common scholarly view that it dates from the second century and
                          > evidences a type of Gnostic thinking that belongs to that, as opposed
                          > to the preceding, century. It certainly seems to me that its authors
                          > knew and are adapting our canonical Gospel tradition in a way that
                          > suits their heretical purposes.

                          These are merely assertions of belief based apparently merely on cursory
                          familiarity with the evidence. I invite you to consider Stevan Davies' The
                          Gospel Of Thomas Homepage, please, to familiarize yourself with this
                          subject adequately.

                          http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html

                          This should give you enough material to read for a few days, Leonard. It
                          would help your understanding of this problem if you consdered all this
                          evidence fully.

                          > << So, on the assumption that substantially GTh dates to the first
                          > century, this would not be good support for Q?>>

                          > It could I suppose be said that Q "substantially dates to the first
                          > century",

                          But that's merely part of definition of Q.

                          > if by that you mean it employs CONTENTS form first century sources
                          > (our canonical Gospels, at least).

                          I use Q as it is commonly defined. You, on the other hand, have merely
                          asserted your own beliefs once again.

                          > But, no, I don't see how that would advance the cause of Q, as
                          > classically understood. Please enlighten me.

                          You seem even less familiar with this whole subject that I could even
                          imagine, Leonard. Obviously you had problems understanding the question
                          I've asked you. Here it is again, in a more extended form.

                          If one assumes that GTh dates to the first century, or that most of the
                          sayings in GTh date to the first century, i.e. roughly to the time of
                          canonical gospels composition, could then GTh be seen as providing good
                          support for Q?

                          I hope the above is sufficiently clear now.

                          Regards,

                          Yuri.

                          Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                          http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                          The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                          equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                        • Maluflen@aol.com
                          I suppose we could continue this discussion a bit for the edification of the list: YURI: Leonard, How do you know it [GTh] is a second century Gnostic
                          Message 12 of 18 , Oct 11, 1998
                            I suppose we could continue this discussion a bit for the edification of the
                            list:

                            YURI: Leonard, How do you know it [GTh] is "a second century Gnostic
                            document"? On what do you base this?

                            LEONARD: Frankly, I have been careful not to waste much time on GTh,

                            YURI: This sure seems to me, Leonard, like you've already decided that GTh is
                            second century before looking at the evidence. Hardly an indication of
                            adequate methodology.

                            LEONARD: No, not BEFORE looking at the evidence. Precisely BY a cursory look
                            at the evidence it seemed clear to me that the document was of little
                            relevance to an understanding of the four Gospels, because so obviously late.
                            I would say the same, e.g., about the orthodox letters of Ignatius, etc. I
                            think this is good methodology, but I am of course open to EVIDENCE that the
                            Gospel of Thomas is really a first century work, or goes back to a first
                            century work other than our canonical Gospels. And that's why I asked you to
                            enlighten me (I didn't anticipate lunar illumination, whereby I am sent off to
                            another web-page for the information..).

                            (LEONARD: but what I have read of it certainly supports what I think is the
                            common scholarly view that it dates from the second century and
                            evidences a type of Gnostic thinking that belongs to that, as opposed
                            to the preceding, century. It certainly seems to me that its authors
                            knew and are adapting our canonical Gospel tradition in a way that
                            suits their heretical purposes.)

                            YURI: These are merely assertions of belief based apparently merely on cursory
                            familiarity with the evidence. I invite you to consider Stevan Davies' The
                            Gospel Of Thomas Homepage, please, to familiarize yourself with this
                            subject adequately.

                            LEONARD: I don't see where "belief" enters in here (you may remove the word
                            "heretical" from the above if you wish). Most other second century documents,
                            even quite orthodox ones, I would evaluate as likewise but marginally relevant
                            for NT study for the same reason that I reject the relevance of GTh. And
                            might you do us the courtesy of summarizing Stevan Davies' arguments for me in
                            a few salient points?

                            snip

                            YURI: I use Q as it is commonly defined. You, on the other hand, have merely
                            asserted your own beliefs once again.

                            LEONARD: Could you give us your definition of Q please? Sounds like it must be
                            interesting. I thought Q was simply defined as the source of the Gospel
                            material that is common to Matt and Lk, but has no parallel in Mark --
                            material which, of course, needs no further explanation (hence no "Q") once it
                            is seen that Luke is fully familiar with the Gospel of Matt. And I thought,
                            too, that this is how "Q is commonly defined", as opposed to being my own
                            idiocyncratic definition.

                            (LEONARD: But, no, I don't see how that would advance the cause of Q, as
                            classically understood. Please enlighten me.)

                            YURI: You seem even less familiar with this whole subject that I could even
                            imagine, Leonard. Obviously you had problems understanding the question
                            I've asked you. Here it is again, in a more extended form.

                            If one assumes that GTh dates to the first century, or that most of the
                            sayings in GTh date to the first century, i.e. roughly to the time of
                            canonical gospels composition, could then GTh be seen as providing good
                            support for Q?

                            LEONARD: Why on earth would anyone ASSUME such a thing? And, no, even given
                            the literally preposterous assumption, I don't see how it provides good
                            support for the existence of Q (unless you are implying that GTh is itself Q,
                            or a close cousin), which still remains unnecessary once one correctly
                            understands the relationship of Luke's Gospel to Matthew's.

                            Leonard Maluf
                          • Yuri Kuchinsky
                            On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Jim West wrote: ... I think it is improper, dear Jim, for you to presume, as you do here, to lecture me on how I should interpret the
                            Message 13 of 18 , Oct 12, 1998
                              On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Jim West wrote:

                              ...

                              > I think it is improper, dear Yuri, for you to presume, as you do here,
                              > that Leonard is unfamiliar with the material.

                              I think it is improper, dear Jim, for you to presume, as you do here, to
                              lecture me on how I should interpret the reply of Leonard.

                              ...

                              > In short- I would not attempt to hazard such a thing as saying that he
                              > does not know a particular issue when it comes to Gospel research.

                              My reply was based on what Leonard said. I'm standing by what I said
                              previously. If anything, Leonard's subsequent reply only added weight to
                              my previous estimate of his state of familiarity with this problem.

                              Best to all,

                              Yuri.

                              Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                              http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                              The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                              equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                            • Yuri Kuchinsky
                              On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 Maluflen@aol.com wrote: ... I assure you that you were wrong. ... If you are not yet familiar with such evidence, it is perfectly clear
                              Message 14 of 18 , Oct 12, 1998
                                On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 Maluflen@... wrote:

                                ...

                                > YURI: This sure seems to me, Leonard, like you've already decided that GTh is
                                > second century before looking at the evidence. Hardly an indication of
                                > adequate methodology.

                                > LEONARD: No, not BEFORE looking at the evidence. Precisely BY a
                                > cursory look at the evidence it seemed clear to me that the document
                                > was of little relevance to an understanding of the four Gospels,
                                > because so obviously late.

                                I assure you that you were wrong.

                                > I would say the same, e.g., about the orthodox letters of Ignatius,
                                > etc. I think this is good methodology, but I am of course open to
                                > EVIDENCE that the Gospel of Thomas is really a first century work, or
                                > goes back to a first century work other than our canonical Gospels.

                                If you are not yet familiar with such evidence, it is perfectly clear that
                                you still have a lot to learn about this problem. I've given you a good
                                lead on where to look to advance your knowledge in this area.

                                Since you seem to be a beginner in this area, I really don't know where to
                                begin to help you. I've been engaged in this debate for a long time
                                already. So how about this opening of _The Christology And Protology of
                                the Gospel of Thomas_ from our friend Steve Davies? (Published in Journal
                                of Biblical Literature Volume 111, Number 4, Winter 1992.)

                                [quote]

                                http://www.miseri.edu/davies/thomas/jblprot.htm

                                A consensus is emerging in American scholarship that the Gospel of
                                Thomas is a text independent of the synoptics and that it was compiled
                                in the mid to late first century. [[J.H. Sieber maintains the position
                                that "there is very little redactional evidence, if any, for holding
                                that our Synoptic Gospels were the sources of Thomas' synoptic
                                sayings. In the great majority of sayings there is no such evidence at
                                all....As of the date of this article (1988) almost all those who are
                                currently at work on Thomas have come to hold that it represents an
                                independent tradition" ("The Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament,"
                                in Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings [ed. J. Goehring et al.;
                                Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1990] 69, 70). C. Hedrick concludes: "I am
                                personally convinced that our present Coptic version of the Gospel of
                                Thomas was not derived from the synoptic Gospels. The evidence, in my
                                opinion, leads inevitably to that conclusion" ("Thomas and the
                                Synoptics: Aiming at a Consensus," SecCent 7/1 [1989-90] 56); cf. also
                                R. Cameron's arguments for Thomas's independence in Forum 2/2 [1986]
                                3-39). For a recent review of the discussion of Thomas's independence
                                and an extensive argument supporting Thomas's independence, see S.
                                Patterson, "The Gospel of Thomas Within the Development of Early
                                Christianity" (diss., Claremont, 1988). He concludes that "Thomas is
                                not linked to the synoptic gospels in any generative sort of way. The
                                material used by Thomas' author/editor did not come from the canonical
                                gospels, nor was its overall plan conceived along lines similar to
                                those which governed the formation of all four of the canonical
                                gospels. In this sense the Gospel of Thomas is to be considered
                                autonomous: it is to be understood in terms of its own reception and
                                treatment of the Jesus tradition, and the inner logic by which it
                                appropriates traditional material" (p. 147).

                                [end quote]

                                > And that's why I asked you to enlighten me (I didn't anticipate lunar
                                > illumination, whereby I am sent off to another web-page for the
                                > information..).

                                And that's why I gave you a good lead to the evidence that you say you
                                seek.

                                > YURI: These are merely assertions of belief based apparently merely on cursory
                                > familiarity with the evidence. I invite you to consider Stevan Davies' The
                                > Gospel Of Thomas Homepage, please, to familiarize yourself with this
                                > subject adequately.

                                > LEONARD: I don't see where "belief" enters in here (you may remove the
                                > word "heretical" from the above if you wish).

                                So now you know where "belief" entered in there.

                                > Most other second century documents, even quite orthodox ones, I would
                                > evaluate as likewise but marginally relevant for NT study for the same
                                > reason that I reject the relevance of GTh.

                                Please note you have not yet outlined a single reason for lateness of GTh
                                beyond statements of belief.

                                > And might you do us the courtesy of summarizing Stevan Davies'
                                > arguments for me in a few salient points?

                                Done already. I still recommend you look up Steve's page, since it
                                provides a very thorough and very balanced review of all the evidence,
                                including the opposite viewpoint.

                                > YURI: I use Q as it is commonly defined. You, on the other hand, have merely
                                > asserted your own beliefs once again.
                                >
                                > LEONARD: Could you give us your definition of Q please?

                                Standard definition, I assure you. Q = Synoptic Sayings Source. First
                                century.

                                > YURI: You seem even less familiar with this whole subject that I could even
                                > imagine, Leonard. Obviously you had problems understanding the question
                                > I've asked you. Here it is again, in a more extended form.
                                >
                                > If one assumes that GTh dates to the first century, or that most of the
                                > sayings in GTh date to the first century, i.e. roughly to the time of
                                > canonical gospels composition, could then GTh be seen as providing good
                                > support for Q?

                                > LEONARD: Why on earth would anyone ASSUME such a thing?

                                Such a question, Leonard, betrays your lack of familiarity with this area
                                of scholarship. Sorry.

                                > And, no, even given the literally preposterous assumption,

                                Such a view, Leonard, betrays your lack of familiarity with this area of
                                scholarship.

                                > I don't see how it provides good support for the existence of Q

                                I'm sorry to hear this. Steve's page will give you a large bibliography of
                                books to read. You've missed on a lot of recent academic work in this
                                area, Leonard, but it's never too late to learn new things.

                                > (unless you are implying that GTh is itself Q,

                                Incorrect.

                                > or a close cousin),

                                Now you're getting closer to my meaning, finally.

                                > which still remains unnecessary once one correctly understands the
                                > relationship of Luke's Gospel to Matthew's.

                                Your assumption only. For myself, I freely accept some level of Lk's
                                familiarity with Mt. I don't think this represents any kind of an argument
                                against Q. Perhaps a very flimsy argument only.

                                Regards,

                                Yuri.

                                Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                                http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                                The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                                equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                              • Maluflen@aol.com
                                More quibbling about q. (LEONARD: No, not BEFORE looking at the evidence. Precisely BY a cursory look at the evidence it seemed clear to me that the document
                                Message 15 of 18 , Oct 12, 1998
                                  More quibbling about q.

                                  (LEONARD: No, not BEFORE looking at the evidence. Precisely BY a
                                  cursory look at the evidence it seemed clear to me that the document
                                  [GTh] was of little relevance to an understanding of the four Gospels,
                                  because so obviously late.)

                                  YURI: I assure you that you were wrong.

                                  LEONARD: Your display of scholarship so far, Yuri, affords me less than full
                                  comfort from your "assurance".

                                  YURI: Since you seem to be a beginner in this area, I really don't know where
                                  to
                                  begin to help you.

                                  LEONARD: Don't trouble yourself, Yuri. I have made the conscious and wise
                                  decision to remain a beginner in this area, which doesn't appear to me to
                                  deserve further attention or initiation. The only thing I would add to this is
                                  that I am, of course, open to EVIDENCE that GTh is in fact something more than
                                  it appears to be, namely, a tendentious, marginal, second-century (probably
                                  late second-century) parody on Christian wisdom, using and abusing numerous
                                  sayings of Jesus that were the common property of second-century Christians as
                                  mediated, ultimately, through the Church's canonical gospels.

                                  YURI: I've been engaged in this debate for a long time already. So how about
                                  this opening of _The Christology And Protology of the Gospel of Thomas_ from
                                  our friend Steve Davies? (Published in Journal of Biblical Literature Volume
                                  111, Number 4, Winter 1992.)

                                  LEONARD: Thanks, Yuri, for this reference. I will check it out. Looks
                                  interesting.


                                  YURI: [quote] A consensus is emerging in American scholarship that the Gospel
                                  of
                                  Thomas is a text independent of the synoptics and that it was compiled
                                  in the mid to late first century.

                                  LEONARD: I suppose this shouldn't amaze me, but it does. After all, a majority
                                  of scholars also hold Markan priority.

                                  (snip)

                                  YURI: (Continuation of quote) "As of the date of this article (1988) almost
                                  all those who are currently at work on Thomas have come to hold that it
                                  represents an
                                  independent tradition"

                                  LEONARD: This is the problem I think. "almost all those who are currently at
                                  work on Thomas have come to hold...". I wickedly suspect that it is an
                                  original interest in Thomas, and what motivates that interest, that makes
                                  precisely these scholars (those currently at work on Thomas) predisposed to
                                  the conclusions they come to. I doubt that these scholars will be able to
                                  persuade a majority of scholars in the NT field of their conclusions by valid
                                  argumentation (i.e., other than by pointing to a consensus among themselves!)
                                  This is a very special class of scholars to begin with, the kind who would die
                                  (God bless them!) rather than abandon q, even if it is demonstrated that Lk
                                  knew Matt and that therefore the q hypothesis is logically superfluous.

                                  YURI: quoting S. Patterson, "The Gospel of Thomas Within the Development of
                                  Early Christianity" (diss., Claremont, 1988): "Thomas is not linked to the
                                  synoptic gospels in any generative sort of way. The material used by Thomas'
                                  author/editor did not come from the canonical gospels,

                                  LEONARD: thus far, simply an assertion -- granted, the conclusion of his work,
                                  which I would have to read.

                                  YURI: (continuing the quote): nor was its overall plan conceived along lines
                                  similar to those which governed the formation of all four of the canonical
                                  gospels.

                                  LEONARD: Certainly true, and also evident at a glance (i.e., not requiring
                                  extensive study of GTh).

                                  QUOTE CONTINUED: In this sense the Gospel of Thomas is to be considered
                                  autonomous...

                                  LEONARD: not quite a logical inference from the above. The logical inference
                                  from the fact that "its overall plan [is not] conceived along lines similar to
                                  those which governed the formation of all four of the canonical gospels" is
                                  that it is an ORIGINAL work, not that it is AUTONOMOUS, in the sense of
                                  independent of the canonical gospel tradition. It simply has a new literary
                                  form, presumably imposed on older materials, some of which seem to be our
                                  canonical gospels, creatively and/or perversely quarried and manipulated.

                                  YURI: Please note you have not yet outlined a single reason for lateness of
                                  GTh
                                  beyond statements of belief.

                                  LEONARD: I have in fact made no statements of belief. Furthermore, what is
                                  needed is reasons for the earliness of a document for which no confirmatory
                                  evidence of earliness exists. Both manuscripts and external references to the
                                  Gospel of Thomas place its original composition at the very earliest in the
                                  second century, to my knowledge. Therefore, I do not (yet) need to PROVE that
                                  it is late, by NT standards.

                                  YURI: definition of q: Standard definition, I assure you. Q = Synoptic Sayings
                                  Source. First century.

                                  LEONARD: I see. The definition of Q no longer requires a reference to material
                                  common to Matt and Lk. Interesting, as I thought it would be.

                                  (YURI: If one assumes that GTh dates to the first century, or that most of the
                                  sayings in GTh date to the first century, i.e. roughly to the time of
                                  canonical gospels composition, could then GTh be seen as providing good
                                  support for Q?

                                  LEONARD: Why on earth would anyone ASSUME such a thing?)

                                  YURI: Such a question, Leonard, betrays your lack of familiarity with this
                                  area
                                  of scholarship. Sorry.

                                  LEONARD: Are you sure you really want to stand by the implication of this
                                  response, namely, that one should ASSUME that most of the sayings in the GTh
                                  date to the first century? This would prove a point I made above about GTh
                                  scholarship that some may otherwise have thought unkind. I confidently repeat
                                  my challenge here: why should anyone ASSUME such a thing?

                                  Leonard Maluf
                                • Jeff Peterson
                                  ... One historiographic difference that Q makes (on the standard reconstructions lacking Q 22:64) relates to whether there were first- or second-generation
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Oct 13, 1998
                                    At 9:03 PM 10/8/98, Stevan Davies wrote:
                                    >On crosstalk we've managed to solve this terminological problem by
                                    >speaking of NMM as material in Mt that is not in Mark and leaving
                                    >Q to be material in Mt and Lk that is not in Mark. (NonMarkanMatthew)
                                    >
                                    >Mark G is entirely right that if Mt ---> Lk was known to be a fact
                                    >nobody would think that Lk also was using Q. But then "where did
                                    >NMM come from?" would become a very significant question.
                                    >I've argued that NMM scholarship would end up drawing most of
                                    >the same conclusions as Q scholarship does vis a vis early
                                    >Christianity.

                                    One historiographic difference that Q makes (on the standard
                                    reconstructions lacking Q 22:64) relates to whether there were first- or
                                    second-generation Christian communities in which Jesus' passion and
                                    resurrection were not remembered or at least not central. Since
                                    _Trajectories Through Early Christianity_, Q has been claimed as
                                    documenting this; take away a unitary Q that defines the contours of its
                                    community's christology, and NMM consists of anecdotes gathered from
                                    indeterminate sources documenting the career of the crucified and risen
                                    Messiah.

                                    Best wishes,

                                    Jeff

                                    Jeffrey Peterson
                                    Institute for Christian Studies
                                    Austin, Texas, USA
                                  • Yuri Kuchinsky
                                    ... As you wish, Leonard. ... Based on your self-admitted beginner s perception? ... But how can you both wish to remain a beginner, and yet be open to new
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Oct 14, 1998
                                      On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 Maluflen@... wrote:

                                      > YURI: Since you seem to be a beginner in this area, I really don't
                                      > know where to begin to help you.
                                      >
                                      > LEONARD: Don't trouble yourself, Yuri. I have made the conscious and
                                      > wise decision to remain a beginner in this area,

                                      As you wish, Leonard.

                                      > which doesn't appear to me to deserve further attention or initiation.

                                      Based on your self-admitted beginner's perception?

                                      > The only thing I would add to this is that I am, of course, open to
                                      > EVIDENCE that GTh is in fact something more than it appears to be,

                                      But how can you both wish to remain a beginner, and yet be open to new
                                      evidence? I see a contradiction here, Leonard.

                                      Of course I've already given you some suggested reading tips, on the
                                      chance that you may become dissatisfied with your status of a beginner at
                                      some point in the future.

                                      > namely, a tendentious, marginal, second-century (probably late
                                      > second-century) parody on Christian wisdom, using and abusing numerous
                                      > sayings of Jesus that were the common property of second-century
                                      > Christians as mediated, ultimately, through the Church's canonical
                                      > gospels.

                                      These are merely statements of faith, Leonard. May I remind you that this
                                      is a serious academic discussion list where we normally look at valid
                                      evidence, and present reasoned arguments?

                                      ...

                                      > LEONARD: This is the problem I think. "almost all those who are
                                      > currently at work on Thomas have come to hold...". I wickedly suspect
                                      > that it is an original interest in Thomas, and what motivates that
                                      > interest, that makes precisely these scholars (those currently at work
                                      > on Thomas) predisposed to the conclusions they come to.

                                      These are ad hominem comments, Leonard. They are speculations as to
                                      possible hidden motives of various researchers. Hardly a reasoned and
                                      balanced argument.

                                      ...

                                      > YURI: Please note you have not yet outlined a single reason for
                                      > lateness of GTh beyond statements of belief.
                                      >
                                      > LEONARD: I have in fact made no statements of belief.

                                      I'm sorry to disagree.

                                      > Furthermore, what is needed is reasons for the earliness of a document
                                      > for which no confirmatory evidence of earliness exists.

                                      Incorrect. For a good summary of various historical attestations of GTh,
                                      which are excellent, please consult H. Koester, ANCIENT CHRISTIAN GOSPELS.

                                      > Both manuscripts and external references to the Gospel of Thomas place
                                      > its original composition at the very earliest in the second century,
                                      > to my knowledge.

                                      Your knowledge is imperfect in this area, Leonard, I'm sorry to say.

                                      ...

                                      > LEONARD: Why on earth would anyone ASSUME such a thing?)
                                      >
                                      > YURI: Such a question, Leonard, betrays your lack of familiarity with
                                      > this area of scholarship. Sorry.
                                      >
                                      > LEONARD: Are you sure you really want to stand by the implication of
                                      > this response,

                                      Of course, Leonard.

                                      > namely, that one should ASSUME that most of the sayings in the GTh
                                      > date to the first century?

                                      Sigh... Again, you misunderstand.

                                      > This would prove a point I made above about GTh scholarship that some
                                      > may otherwise have thought unkind. I confidently repeat my challenge
                                      > here: why should anyone ASSUME such a thing?

                                      Oh, well, let's begin from the beginning. I will try to explain it to
                                      you very slowly once again.

                                      This is what I said in my last post,

                                      "If one assumes that GTh dates to the first century, or that most of the
                                      sayings in GTh date to the first century, i.e. roughly to the time of
                                      canonical gospels composition, could then GTh be seen as providing good
                                      support for Q?"

                                      This question was meant to establish the ground rules in this debate and
                                      no more. This question was meant to clarify your attitude as to what may
                                      constitute "GTh providing good support for Q" according to you. In other
                                      words, under what conditions, according to you, may GTh be seen as
                                      providing good support for Q?

                                      What I'm trying to establish here is that _if_ GTh is found to date
                                      substantially to the first century, i.e. _if_ it is found that it consists
                                      predominantly of precanonical material (which is my own view, and also the
                                      view of many respected scholars who actually investigated this problem),
                                      can GTh _in this case_ be seen as providing good support for Q?

                                      Can I explain it any clearer for you, Leonard? If you still don't
                                      understand, please don't hesitate to get back to me.

                                      Yuri.

                                      Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                                      http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                                      The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                                      equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.