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

Re: a hybrid hypothesis

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 18 , Oct 10, 1998
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 18 , Oct 11, 1998
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 18 , Oct 11, 1998
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 18 , Oct 11, 1998
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 18 , Oct 11, 1998
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 18 , Oct 11, 1998
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 18 , Oct 12, 1998
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 18 , Oct 12, 1998
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 18 , Oct 12, 1998
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 18 , Oct 13, 1998
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 18 , Oct 14, 1998
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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.