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

Re: a hybrid Hypothesis with oral Q?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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

      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

      Best wishes,


      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 2 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 Kuchinsky || Toronto


        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.