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

a hybrid Hypothesis with oral Q?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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.