From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Fri Sep 09 2005 - 21:26:36 BST
[Same wrote]
> Not sure where those comments were headed. I agree with 90% of them. A few
> quibbles though:
[Case replies]
Isn't quibbling why we're here?
[Case wrote]
>>... However, at least a core of the Gospel of Thomas seems to derive from
>>an earlier time than the other extracanonical "gospels'.
[Sam quibbled]
> The criteria used to establish earlier/ later gets sense from the
> canonical gospels. So what are the grounds for saying that a 'core' is
> earlier? precisely that they agree with the canonical (synoptic) portrait.
[Case trys to back step]
I admit to being a bit hazy on Thomas at the moment. I had a good book on it
but can't lay hands on it right now. As I recall the argument went something
as you say but while there were core sayings common to the received gospels
there were slight difference in the reading that made it appear to at least
derive from the common ancestor. Whether this is the case or whether Thomas
is dependant on the gospels would seem up in the air. Or at least until I
can find that darn book...
[Case wrote]
>> Thomas is a "sayings" Gospel ala Q and before its discovery one argument
>> against Q was that was we had no example of a gospel made only of
>> sayings. But piled in layers on top of its core, Thomas is full of
>> mystical rambling that are clearly of later origin. The point is that
>> none of the gospels are first hand accounts. The Myth is that they are
>> eyewitness accounts. The church would be much better off to admit this
>> than to continue pretending.
[Sam quibbled]
> Well, this is - again - quite debatable. If you're interested, I'd
> recommend James Dunn's 'A new perspective on Jesus', which talks, inter
> alia, about the nature of oral tradition within an oral culture. Whilst
> there are - obviously - authorial insertions, the historical 'core' is
> pretty robustly attested. You could always try some of Tom Wright's stuff
> as well.
[Case replies]
I am familiar with the view that the oral tradition is very robust. this
would actually seem to lend support to the possibility that Thomas Matthew
and Luke derive from acommon ansestor. But this really highlights the notion
that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.
[Case wrote]
>> You can almost peg a biblical scholar's point of view by how they date
>> the Gospels. Very few serious scholars would date any of the gospels
>> before 70 AD.
[Sam quibbled]
> Not true. Most put Mark before 70, precisely for some of the reasons you
> mention (the destruction of the Temple, not mentioned in Mark, where the
> 'desolating sacrilege' refers to an event c. 40AD). The consensus dates
> are more like: 65-70 for Mark, 80-85 for Matthew, 85-95 for Luke, and a
> bit later for John (more debate there).
[Case responds]
We may have to agree to disagree here. I think Jesus's comment about no
stone left standing provides support for the post 70 date. I also think most
date it right around 70 plus or minus and a minus date puts you in the
prophetic school. While a plus lands you in the camp of the "liberals".
Color me liberal.
[Case wrote]
>> The reason for this is that THE most important event in Christian history
>> was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. From that tragedy both
>> Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism were born.
[Sam quibbled]
> ??? So the Acts of the Apostles were...? The destruction of Jerusalem was
> important, as much as anything else for the division it caused between
> Christians and Jews, but it was not "the most important event in Christian
> history".
[Case wrote]
Without the destruction of Jerusalem the actual followers of Jesus might
have been around to put the kabash on some the trash Paull was talking. It
is clear from Acts and Pauls letters that the "judaizers" were following him
around trying to correct his herasies. The first two chapters of Galacians
make this crystal clear. It also makes it clear that his beef was with
James, the brother of Jesus, Peter and the other disciples. Also near the
end of Acts it is these very "pillars" who want to feed him to the dogs but
turn him over to the Romans instead. When the Roman's finally put a stop to
the who jewish problem with their "final solution" Jesus's followers were
all dead or on the run and the only churches left to carry on the Chirtian
tradition were the gentile churchs established by Paul. Their theology was a
kind of Hegalian synthesis of Jewish and Hellenistic thought. None of this
would have occured without the Roman action of the 70s.
[Case wrote]
>> It is clear however that Christmas stories aside Jesus was raised and was
>> regarded by his neighbors as a bastard child.
[Sam qubbiled]
> ??? on what grounds?
The direct evidence is:
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses,
and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were
offended at him.
To call a man the son of his mother was to call him illegitimate. Notice how
Matthew softens the blow:
Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his
brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Indirect evidence would be something on the lines of Mary's neighbors
gossiping over the fence. "Did you hear were she says that kid came from?"
Whether or not we accept such a tale on faith; it is unlikely that his
neighbors would believe it.
[Sam wrote]
> Nice to find someone else on this list comfortable talking about 'Q'
> without further explanation :o)
[Case replied]
Roger that!
[Case adds]
The college in my town has a fine lecture series on religion. Many members
of the Jesus Seminar have given papers here including Ed Sanders, Crossan,
Borg, and Horsely. I keep hoping they will bring Sprong and Pagels but they
actually do keep it balanced with people like Howard Clark Kee, Noel
Freedman and James Charlesworth. It's cool 'cause I get them to sign my
books for me.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 09 2005 - 21:31:25 BST