Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 07-11-2004, 05:27 PM

"""""A number of much later sources portray Peter as a follower of Jesus but Paul only portrays Peter as an early and prominent believer in the Risen Christ."""""""

Amaleq, you are totally misrepresenting me. Within 20 years of Paul's writing at least two sources independently mention Peter (Mark and Thomas). Pluso ther traditions (John and Special L) from the the 2nd and 3rd stratums.

This widespread independent attestation (of both source and form) tells me that belief that Peter was a follower of Jesus goes back to the first stratum when Peter was alive and being written about by Paul who met him.

That is what MA means in the most literal sense. When something receives MA it means it PREDATES both sources. Independent source and form attestation ca 70 c.e. (Thomas and Q in my source reconstruction) pushes this notion about Peter back earlier. Add in John and special material in the Gospels and some material in Acts and we have very widespread attestation.

You "much later" comment is your own opinion. I stand secure on my dating of GMark to ca 70 c.e. and I also happen to place Thomas in the first century.

Not to mention that Mark programmaticaly denigrates Peter and slashes him without mercy. Thus not only do we have contemprary primary data that a)Peter existed and b) was pivotal leader in the early church, we also have the "common toi friend and foe criterion and extremely good multiple attestation of source and form that c) Peter was a follower of Jesus.

Of course, I also note c easily coheres with b and a even if exp0lainable in other ways. I could also note that Thomas and GJohn also undermine Peter a bit. Three sources all with undermine-Peter themes all place him as a follower of Jesus.

Of course I also note in my criteria that this can easily be deemed an "incidental detail" as a religious leader//movement start with actual followers is well, normal practice.

Can you name any negative criteria that speak against Peter existing and being a follower of Jesus? I doubt it.

Now I also note that granted all the slightly later attestation and Peter's important when Paul was writing it is only factual that Paul knew Peter was a follower of the HJ.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 07-11-2004, 05:29 PM

"""""""I follow Kirby in this reasoning and have referred to him before in trying to convince Vinnie this is a specious methodology:""""""""

If Kirby thinks thel ine of reasoning in my last post is flawed (granting my source stratification) then let him come forth and say so. Or provide me a link to where he critiques specifically this type of material // my methodology.

I, of course, think my method is rock solid

Vinnie

Amaleq13 · 07-11-2004, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Within 20 years of Paul's writing at least two sources independently mention Peter (Mark and Thomas).

While I think it is reasonable to suspect that portions of Thomas may date as early as Mark, I know of no reliable methods for identifying which specific portions nor exactly how old. It is misleading and disingenuous to treat Thomas as though it can be dated this securely.

So all you really have "within 20 years of Paul" is a single story that depicts a guy named Peter as one of Jesus' closest disciples.

The author of the story has taken the names of the three prominent leaders of the Jerusalem group and applied them to Jesus' closest disciples but we have nothing from Paul to suggest this is a historically accurate depiction.

Vinnie · 07-11-2004, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

While I think it is reasonable to suspect that portions of Thomas may date as early as Mark, I know of no reliable methods for identifying which specific portions nor exactly how old. It is misleading and disingenuous to treat Thomas as though it can be dated this securely.

That is of course your own source stratification which I do not agree with. I think the brunt of Thomas is a first century text. If it has layers (two with a possible third late redaction), which it very well may one is probably very early and shared a source with some early Q material and the other comes before the end of the first century. My terminus ad quem for Thomas (substantially the whole doc) is ca 110 c.e.

The fact that Thomas has access to the same sayings, parables and teachings that are found independently in Q, Mark, Special L, Special M and so on is telling to me. Thomas shows how some of the same materials were also taken different ways and shows no dependence upon these sources. THat is one of the linchpins of my judgement, that I find Thomas to be independent of these sources. Thus, it contains a ton of the same material and traditions as do Mark, Q, Special L and M (all second stratum sources for me).

Though certainty is not often to be had, it also looks like Thomas may preserve an earlier wording in some places. There is no plausible reason not to consider Thomas in the same category as these sources (all what I deem 2nd stratum). The same material that went into Q, the non PN portions of the gospels, parable and miracle collections and so forth all is where Thomas developed out of. Even if by some odd chance it was later in time it still has access to these same materials and independent "lines of transmission" are whats really importan as my paper discusses in the stratums section.

But by your own reasoning is it ENTIRELY disengenous to be a mythicist since this portion of the text of Thomas CANNOT, by your own admission, be dated securely. If this Thomas material is early as I suppose my argument is rock solid. Since you claim to not know (take an agnostic position) you should be an HJ Agnostic, not a mythicist.

Just like you take the strange position that Matthew could have attributed false prophecies to Jesus in the other thread on dating. When you opt for such strange possibilities, arguments from best explanation (which the JM is FOUNDED upon) are meaningless as you reduce the people of antiquity that we are discussing into unknowables. There is no point in even discussing such people with such strange, non reasonable viewpoints.

How can we even reasonably begin to discuss the ideas, viewpoints, meaning, reasoning and basis of statements from anonymous people who tend to be capable of saying or believing any stupid thing we care to rationalize? By saying false prophecies could be attributed to Jesus by Christians who worshipped and were peddling him way after the fact is to lose any manner of controllability in the field.

Such a stance is not compatible with mythicism or HJism. Only HJ-agnosticism. I thought you were a mythcist? If so your standards undercut themselves and reduce you into special pleading.

Vinnie

Rick Sumner · 07-11-2004, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Where do you find evidence of this?

I should have clarified. I meant the physical resurrection. And we find evidence of it all over--we can infer it even from the gospels, which answer in advance charges that they are recounting a ghost sighting.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13 · 07-11-2004, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Since you claim to not know (take an agnostic position) you should be an HJ Agnostic, not a mythicist.

If I have to be categorized, that is probably the more accurate. I think you are operating under the mistaken influence of Layman's need for me to be a mythicist "zealot" in order to fail to accept his arguments. That I have argued against what I consider misunderstandings of Doherty in no way changes the fact that I have also repeatedly stated that I agree with Carrier's estimation of his thesis' shortcomings.

Quote:

Just like you take the strange position that Matthew could have attributed false prophecies to Jesus in the other thread on dating.

Perhaps the position seems strange because you misunderstand it. I don't think the author or his audience ever considered the prophecies false because I don't think either considered the story to be a history lesson. There is no such thing as a false prophecy in theological fiction.

If you were being sarcastic when you said my observation was worthy of consideration, you should have included a smiley to that effect.

Amaleq13 · 07-11-2004, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

I should have clarified. I meant the physical resurrection. And we find evidence of it all over--we can infer it even from the gospels, which answer in advance charges that they are recounting a ghost sighting.

In advance? What makes you think they aren't dealing with already existing objections?

Ted Hoffman · 07-12-2004, 12:19 AM

Quote:

How can we even reasonably begin to discuss the ideas, viewpoints, meaning, reasoning and basis of statements from anonymous people who tend to be capable of saying or believing any stupid thing we care to rationalize? By saying false prophecies could be attributed to Jesus by Christians who worshipped and were peddling him way after the fact is to lose any manner of controllability in the field.

Emotive argument.

Quote:

My terminus ad quem for Thomas (substantially the whole doc) is ca 110 c.e.

The fact that Thomas has access to the same sayings, parables and teachings that are found independently in...

The fact?

1. In the absence of a narrative, how have you dated GThom?

2. Helmut Koester has stated that neither the Greek fragment or the Coptic translation preserved this gospel in its oldest form and underwent redaction under transmission. What reason have we to rely on GThom on its attributions to Jesus given the Coptic translation is dated c.350 and the Greek fragments c.200?

3. GoT 2 in the coptic translation contains a gnostic concept and GoT 53, which talks about circumcision, is quite unlikely to be a teaching of Jesus, but is a subject Paul dealt with. Doesnt this indicate that this was probably a gnostic document that was appropriated by later christians?

In 1 Cor 2:9, where Paul paraphrases Isaiah, Paul states: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him."

In Thomas 17, we find: "Jesus said, 'I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind.'"

Isn't the author falsely attributing the teachings of Paul to Jesus?

4. Given the fact that the GoT was a changing document that was redacted as observed by scholars, and has clear gnostic influences (hence no HJ at the core), don't you think it would seem wise to be skeptical of this document?

Vinnie · 07-12-2004, 07:21 AM

"""""1. In the absence of a narrative, how have you dated GThom?"""""

Several reasons contingent upon the dating of other works and sources (John, Q, Mk, MT, Lk, M, L). That I consider THomas to be independent of all these works and containing the same materials and some unique ones means it had access to these earlier traditions. The further we go the harder this becomes.

Its actually two-prongued. The further we go the harder it becomes to maintain independence as possible and the further we go the harder to imagine oral access to all these early traditions.

Hence my reasoning is that Thomas can be dated no later than 110 c.e. The first layer no earlier than 50 c.e. to allow some time for development. That THomas shares parallels with at least 4 second stratum sources leads me to put it in this area. It used the same stage of tradfition each of them took a different way. Mark developed from various pericopes and pre gospel collection, Q Developed, there were special L and M traditions developing and here I place Thomas. As we know Matthew and Luke later used Mark, Q and special traditions ca 90. Thomas made use of these materials independent of all this.

""""""2. Helmut Koester has stated that neither the Greek fragment or the Coptic translation preserved this gospel in its oldest form and underwent redaction under transmission. What reason have we to rely on GThom on its attributions to Jesus given the Coptic translation is dated c.350 and the Greek fragments c.200?"""""""

200 is the earliest. But it was found in Egypt. Those like Patterson argue for Syrian provenance. Though not proven it seems more probable. Patterson also suggest that we should probably allow two generations for a text like Thomas to go from Syria to Egypt. So in his and other scholar's estimation the 200 c.e. find places the maximum dating for THomas as ca 140.

3. GoT 2 in the coptic translation contains a gnostic concept and GoT 53, which talks about circumcision, is quite unlikely to be a teaching of Jesus, but is a subject Paul dealt with. Doesnt this indicate that this was probably a gnostic document that was appropriated by later christians?

The Gospel of THomas is not a Gnostic text. It has rudimentary gnosticism at best. I also rrefer you to Wisdom in Corinth for GThomas like Christian beliefs in the 50s:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/wisdomincorinth.html

I never said all Thomas' teachings go back to Jesus. Hardly.

Quote:

In 1 Cor 2:9, where Paul paraphrases Isaiah, Paul states: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him."

In Thomas 17, we find: "Jesus said, 'I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind.'"

Isn't the author falsely attributing the teachings of Paul to Jesus?

First on a common sense level: No. The author probably didn't know of Paul's letter or care. That Paul parapharsed Isaiah means Jesus and others did not? How did Paul acquire a monopoly on parapharasing Isaih.

More thoroughly, it probably stems from the same type of collection that Q 10:23-24 and Paul's reference does. As you will note Paul is dealing with a wisdom//sayings group in Corinthians 1-4 (see my paper above). Hence this is dealing with them, possibly using their own material and beliefs to recast his view of Jesus. He did so by calling Jesus cross events "a hidden mystery predetermined . . . ".

Quote:

4. Given the fact that the GoT was a changing document that was redacted as observed by scholars, and has clear gnostic influences (hence no HJ at the core), don't you think it would seem wise to be skeptical of this document?

Q was redacted. Matthew changed. Mark changed. John changed. All the texts changed. Thomas is by no means special here. Sure Thomas evolved and changed but my view is that the 2nd layer, if you believe in one, occured 70-ish. That is when I date Thomas as a generally finished composition to.

Also, the Peter saying is linked to the James saying//second layer as somehow the authority is switching. Thus this is part of the second layer. Not same late meaningless addition out of the blue.

Also against too late a dating of THomas:

Quote:

) Stevan Davies has written, "The Christology, or Jesusology, of Thomas is complex but it does not stem from decades of Christian theological speculation. It derives from a naive application of manifold Wisdom speculations to Jesus. The lack of Manichean or Marcionite dualism, the absence of any mythology of Sophia's fall or Christ's ascent or descent through hostile realms populated by inimical Archons indicate that Thomas' sophiological Christology existed prior to or in ignorance of what many call gnosticism."1

And though not without some considerations to be met:

Quote:

3) Patterson has argued the sayings collection genre seems to have declined ca. 100 a.d. when narrative gospels became more popular. "As one moves into the second century the biograhy like the Gospels such as one finds in the New Testament come more and more to dominate the scene. To the extent that the sayings collection survived, it did so primarily among emering gnostic groups, which tended to recast it in the form of a dialogue between the resurrected Lord and his former students (perhaps explaining why it was shunned by non--gnostic groups). At any rate, the Gospel of Thomas must have its origins before the end of the first century, when such collections were still thought useful."3

Though Thomas was used widely in the 2d century it seems the creation of a text such as it fits more smoothly in the first century. Gnostics in the 2d tended to recast sayings as dialogues. Thomas does not do this.

Also the appeak to personal authority:

Quote:

5) The Appeal to authority. Patterson argues that"the collection must come from a period in which particular communities were still appealing to the authoritative position of particular apostles as a way of guaranteeing the reliability of its traditions. The incipit and the title certainly function in this way. But one might also point to Thom 12, which appeals to James, and to Thom 13, which appeals to the authority of Thomas, to illustrate the feature. In this sense the Gospel of Thomas is comparable to Matthew, in which the authority of Peter is asserted (Matt 16:13-20), or perhaps to the deutero-Pauline epistles, which appeal to Paul's authority in like manner. All of these texts derive from the last decades of the first century C.E.

It should be noted that Thomas does not appeal to the auothority of Thomas or James simply because they are "apostles." Thomas never treats "the twelve" as a rarefied concept, a venerated group. The authority of each apostle is not taken for granted by virtue of the status earned by simply through being part of "the twelve." In Thomas 13, for example, Thomas' answer is up as exemplary, but those of peter and Matthew are deprecated as inadequate. The text thus dates to a period in which authority was still personal, or dependent upn a leader's personal charisma and powers of persuasion, and not yet apostolic properly speaking. The latter dependes upon a nostalgia, in which "the apostles" have become venerated figures in the community's foundational stories, a view not shared by Thomas (cf. esp. Thom 43, 51, and 52). All of this would suggest a date close to Paul, who feels no compunction about maligning the reputation of an apostolic leader when he feels so compelled (cf. Gal 2:11-12), or to Mark, who often portrays the "disciples" as simple dunderheads. By contrast, at the end of the first century Luke can smooth over all theese difficulties to portray a single, harmonious, apostolic church guided and unified by the Holy Spirit.

Bernard muller has of course challenged this last one. I think it still holds some force, however.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman · 07-12-2004, 07:41 AM

Thanks Vinnie,
Now, how about a shot at the questions at the top of this page(4)?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-11-2004, 05:27 PM	#81
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	"""""A number of much later sources portray Peter as a follower of Jesus but Paul only portrays Peter as an early and prominent believer in the Risen Christ.""""""" Amaleq, you are totally misrepresenting me. Within 20 years of Paul's writing at least two sources independently mention Peter (Mark and Thomas). Pluso ther traditions (John and Special L) from the the 2nd and 3rd stratums. This widespread independent attestation (of both source and form) tells me that belief that Peter was a follower of Jesus goes back to the first stratum when Peter was alive and being written about by Paul who met him. That is what MA means in the most literal sense. When something receives MA it means it PREDATES both sources. Independent source and form attestation ca 70 c.e. (Thomas and Q in my source reconstruction) pushes this notion about Peter back earlier. Add in John and special material in the Gospels and some material in Acts and we have very widespread attestation. You "much later" comment is your own opinion. I stand secure on my dating of GMark to ca 70 c.e. and I also happen to place Thomas in the first century. Not to mention that Mark programmaticaly denigrates Peter and slashes him without mercy. Thus not only do we have contemprary primary data that a)Peter existed and b) was pivotal leader in the early church, we also have the "common toi friend and foe criterion and extremely good multiple attestation of source and form that c) Peter was a follower of Jesus. Of course, I also note c easily coheres with b and a even if exp0lainable in other ways. I could also note that Thomas and GJohn also undermine Peter a bit. Three sources all with undermine-Peter themes all place him as a follower of Jesus. Of course I also note in my criteria that this can easily be deemed an "incidental detail" as a religious leader//movement start with actual followers is well, normal practice. Can you name any negative criteria that speak against Peter existing and being a follower of Jesus? I doubt it. Now I also note that granted all the slightly later attestation and Peter's important when Paul was writing it is only factual that Paul knew Peter was a follower of the HJ. Vinnie

07-11-2004, 05:29 PM	#82
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	"""""""I follow Kirby in this reasoning and have referred to him before in trying to convince Vinnie this is a specious methodology:"""""""" If Kirby thinks thel ine of reasoning in my last post is flawed (granting my source stratification) then let him come forth and say so. Or provide me a link to where he critiques specifically this type of material // my methodology. I, of course, think my method is rock solid Vinnie

07-12-2004, 07:41 AM	#90
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Thanks Vinnie, Now, how about a shot at the questions at the top of this page(4)?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.