jjramsey

Yes. Q is a hypothetical text, and we can only estimate its contents based on the overlaps in Matthew and Luke that aren't in Mark. Finding layers in a text that we don't even have is a fool's game.

Amaleq13

I agree it is a highly speculative venture but I would stop short of suggesting Kloppenborg is a fool.

How do you explain the commonalities and divergences between Q and GTh?

jjramsey

Offhand, Gnosticism in general seems to be derivative. "Resurrection" historically implied a body, either when the Jews affirmed it or the Greeks (and also the Sadducees) denied it. Yet the Gnostics used "resurrection" in a spirtual sense that suggests that they were redefining terms from Judaism in their own way. GTh is, I'm sure, also derivative. The textual details of how it was derived, and whether it was derived from Q or more directly from the Synoptics or something else, are probably lost to us.

Amaleq13

I'm not sure how this addresses my question but since Christianity, itself, is derivative of Judaism and similarly redefined it their own way, I'm not sure why this says anything significant about Gnosticism.

As opposed to them both being derivative of the source for their common sayings? What makes you so certain?

I think Crossan offers a good comparison of the texts. I'll reread it to refresh my memory.

Steven Carr

Perhaps they derived that view from Paul, who regarded the body and the spirit as having different fates. One could be saved, and the other not.

1 Cor. 5:5 ' 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the body may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

youngalexander

Hi, k_smith123
I am sorry that we have ignored you. Been a bit busy with our own argument and then GDon went and started another thread as well. Also I suspect that most have not heard such a discussion before either, altho some of the Mods may have - they being far more knowledgeable coves than us mortals.

Crossan is rather big on Cynic contributions to Jesus thort and altho that is not the same it well may be that you have a point re Sophists, but it is all a little too detailed for me.

Have you read The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark ? I have not as yet, but is on the list. You might find it illuminating re your ideas.

jjramsey

This review

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2000/2000-09-16.html

does not look promising. Also, given that Mark's Greek isn't too wonderful, I doubt that he got his Greek knowledge from a Hellenistic education.

The NRSV translation is more enlightening:

Paul is not using the word for "body", soma, but the word for "flesh", sarx. N.T. Wright has his faults, but he pointed out that unlike the Church Fathers, Paul used "soma" and not "sarx" to refer to the body that would rise in the resurrection. Note too that in 1 Corinthians 15:44ff, Paul refers to a spiritual body (soma), not a pure spirit.

I meant that GTh is derivative of a more Jewish apocalyptic Christianity. The details of its textual relationship to Q have been obscured by the sands of time. We have references to JtB and his fiery message. We have the content of Jesus' parables, which often distinguished between sheep and goats, wheat and tares, etc., which are consistent with JtB's message. We have implications, both in and out of the Gospels, that there had been expectation of the end coming soon. Jesus calling himself "Son of Man" is probably a cryptic reference to Daniel. There had been a tradition of Jewish apocalyptic. I doubt that apocalypticism was tacked on later.

Toto

Richard Carrier was a bit more positive here Review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark.