Re: a hybrid Hypothesis with oral Q?
- At 9:03 PM 10/8/98, Stevan Davies wrote:
>On crosstalk we've managed to solve this terminological problem byOne historiographic difference that Q makes (on the standard
>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
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
Institute for Christian Studies
Austin, Texas, USA
- On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 Maluflen@... wrote:
> YURI: Since you seem to be a beginner in this area, I really don'tAs you wish, Leonard.
> 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.Based on your self-admitted beginner's perception?
> The only thing I would add to this is that I am, of course, open toBut how can you both wish to remain a beginner, and yet be open to new
> EVIDENCE that GTh is in fact something more than it appears to be,
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 lateThese are merely statements of faith, Leonard. May I remind you that this
> 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
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 areThese are ad hominem comments, Leonard. They are speculations as to
> 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.
possible hidden motives of various researchers. Hardly a reasoned and
> YURI: Please note you have not yet outlined a single reason forI'm sorry to disagree.
> 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 documentIncorrect. For a good summary of various historical attestations of GTh,
> for which no confirmatory evidence of earliness exists.
which are excellent, please consult H. Koester, ANCIENT CHRISTIAN GOSPELS.
> Both manuscripts and external references to the Gospel of Thomas placeYour knowledge is imperfect in this area, Leonard, I'm sorry to say.
> its original composition at the very earliest in the second century,
> to my knowledge.
> LEONARD: Why on earth would anyone ASSUME such a thing?)Of course, Leonard.
> 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 GThSigh... Again, you misunderstand.
> date to the first century?
> This would prove a point I made above about GTh scholarship that someOh, well, let's begin from the beginning. I will try to explain it to
> may otherwise have thought unkind. I confidently repeat my challenge
> here: why should anyone ASSUME such a thing?
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