Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 05-07-2006, 12:55 AM

What are the views on wiki?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

Do not the early/late discusions depend on when gnosticism arose? If around 140's does that not make the gospels later than that?

I thought gnosticism was much earlier, - the wisdom literature for example - and really goes back to expressions of awe, secret knowledge and psychological perspectives.

Possibly a separate thread, but is Q a device needed by HJists, and using Occam, becomes unnecessary from an MJ perspective?

Are there loads of assumptions here that lead onto conclusions, but if you question those assumptions you get very different results?

Quote:

There is currently much debate about when the text was composed, with scholars generally falling into two main camps: an early camp favoring a date in the 50s before the canonical gospels and a late camp favoring a time after the last of the canonical gospels in the 100s. Among critical scholars, the early camp is dominant in North America, while the late camp is more popular in Europe (especially in the U.K. and Germany).

Vorkosigan · 05-07-2006, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

IIRC, I think he sees a lot of the sayings as originating from a stock of cynic sayings and anecdotes but I had assumed he still saw an intermediate stage between the cynics and their use by Mark. Does he see Mark himself as the sole adapter of the sayings to a Jesus narrative? I guess he can answer that for himself.

Michael, do you think there was a pre-Matthean Q source?

No, I think the writer of Mark was the adapter of the sayings from the common pool. I have made a case for Markan creativity being in Q, but it is not a strong one. It is much easier to demonstrate Thomas knows the canonicals than it is to demonstrate that Q depends on Mark.

Quote:

"However, this 2nd century date and the gnostic character of the final document do not answer the question of whether some early source of authentic sayings of Jesus, perhaps even earlier and more original than what we find in the Synoptics, might be preserved in the Gospel of Thomas. The debate on this point has been lively and varied, and it is not likely to come to rest soon." (p.127)

That's the comment that sets up his discussion of the case -- it is introductory, not conclusory. Meier's discussion is really good.

Michael

Vorkosigan · 05-07-2006, 05:27 AM

Quote:

It makes so much more sense to me that wisdom sayings precedes the gospel myth.

Certainly, as they all predate Christianity. But it doesn't make sense to me that they predate the Gospel Myth as Christian sayings. Certainly they were running around in other forms before that.

So the interesting question is why people accepted this novel presentation of old sayings. What about the repackaging was interesting? Why did the writers feel that they should add sayings to a narrative, or envision sayings that needed a narrative?

It is a bit like Babylon 5 or Battlestar Galactica, where common English sayings are tweaked to give them a fresh metaphor.

Michael

Rick Sumner · 05-07-2006, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

So the interesting question is why people accepted this novel presentation of old sayings. What about the repackaging was interesting? Why did the writers feel that they should add sayings to a narrative, or envision sayings that needed a narrative?

I think they accepted it in many instances because they'd like to attribute the profound to figures they consider important. For example, I doubt that either Jesus or Hillel coined the golden rule, or that either defined the law by two commandments. Yet it makes a very succinct--and accurate--description of Judaism as the relationship between man and man, and man and God. Were I a Jew or Christian in antiquity (or even now, for that matter), I'd like to think that the originator of the saying was someone important to my belief system.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

fatpie42 · 05-07-2006, 08:13 AM

oooh

The only Crossan I've come across is his work on parables. The idea that Thomas' work was ceased upon by gnostics and additions were made is interesting, but what would be interesting still would be the 'intentions' of the later additions.

I noticed someone mentioning Bultmann earlier. I was able to take a look at Bultmann's commentary on the gospel of John recently and his explanations for some of the possible additions are very interesting. For example a verse which claims that people gathered round Jesus "because he had performed miracles" is thought by Bultmann to be a later addition to explain the setting.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-07-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

It makes so much more sense to me that wisdom sayings precedes the gospel myth.

The most oppressive inertia in all of this area is the fallacy of the "big bang" Jesus Christ superstar origin to Christianity.

If you are willing if only for purposes of argument to set that aside then there are MANY, (not just ONE) itinerant preachers running around - none of which are the linear progenitor to Christianity

"Jesus says" is so easily understood as a metaphorical device: "God's salvation says..."

It can be uttered by all itinerant preachers themselves, it can be uttered by individuals about itinerant preachers or about nobody in particular, and existing wisdom sayings can have this prefix attached to them as they take on a "confucious says" type of collective wisdom.

The "kingdom of God is at hand" flavor of Thomas, without a church heirarchy is a clue to me that it is early. I can't improve upon Diogenes the Cynic's comments about its lack of soteriology & etc.

From an existing setting such as this it is exceptionally easy to have a metamorphasis to a Jesus Christ. A spiritual conception initially, but ultimately a retroactive historical persona that provides a fake linear descent of authority to the phonies consolidating power over disparate groups.

There is great irony in that the creation of Jesus as Christ is the lever by which the faith of the masses can be harnessed for the ends of those that hunger for power.

This is similar to the views of Burton Mack. He thinks that the Jesus sayings originated or were adapted by small communities within a sort of quasi-cynic, counter-cultural movement in Galilee. More and more sayings were attributed to "Jesus" until there was a large stock of sayings which he believes was the basis for both the Markan sayings and Q as well as Thomas (IIRC, he applies the designation of "Q" to the entire CST). Mack is coy about whether he believes there was ever an HJ at the root of all this but basically claims it doesn't matter because it reflected a populist social movement rather than the unique teachings of a single individual. He seems to see "Jesus" as more of a type of preacher rather than a particular one, even though he doesn't (as far as I can tell) ever commit himself to a pure mythicist position.

I think Mack's position might be analogous to the sayings of the Tao Te Ching -- a collection of core traditional sayings (later redacted with commentaries and explanations similar to many of the Jesus sayings) all attributed to Lao Tze "The Old Sage," who was not a historical person but a personification of all the "Old sages" who had passed down those adages and folksy insights from antiquity.

Zeichman · 05-07-2006, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I think Mack's position might be analogous to the sayings of the Tao Te Ching -- a collection of core traditional sayings (later redacted with commentaries and explanations similar to many of the Jesus sayings) all attributed to Lao Tze "The Old Sage," who was not a historical person but a personification of all the "Old sages" who had passed down those adages and folksy insights from antiquity.

Mack's thoughts on Pre-Pauline Christ cults necessitate a single Historical Jesus, iirc.

He certainly commits himself to one in A Myth of Innocence (devoting a chapter to it), and implies that he accepts on in Who Wrote the New Testament? (p 46).

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-07-2006, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Mack's thoughts on Pre-Pauline Christ cults necessitate a single Historical Jesus, iirc.

He certainly commits himself to one in A Myth of Innocence (devoting a chapter to it), and implies that he accepts on in Who Wrote the New Testament? (p 46).

I haven't read Myth of Innocence, so I'll take your word for it. I have read Who Wrote the New Testament? and in that book -- as I said -- Mack is coy about HJ and says that it doesn't much matter. He definitely doesn't think the CST all came from a single person, in WWTNT he says that the "Q communities" kept adding so much stuff to it that it still became ultimately a collective of sayings even if there was once an authentic core from HJ.

rlogan · 05-07-2006, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Certainly, as they all predate Christianity. But it doesn't make sense to me that they predate the Gospel Myth as Christian sayings. Certainly they were running around in other forms before that.

So the interesting question is why people accepted this novel presentation of old sayings. What about the repackaging was interesting? Why did the writers feel that they should add sayings to a narrative, or envision sayings that needed a narrative?

It is a bit like Babylon 5 or Battlestar Galactica, where common English sayings are tweaked to give them a fresh metaphor.

Michael

Questions that are spot on, and bring us so much closer to the origins of Christianity than red herrings about "who Jesus was":

Quote:

why people accepted this novel presentation of old sayings.

Seems to me the sayings are not inspired by a Hebrew Bible perspective, and points to the grafting of a fake HB heritage onto Christianity as a later development.

Identifying the source of this heritage is important, I think. Mystery religion circles or whatever. I do think of them as "new" in that I do not see them accredited to ancient Hebrew, Egyptian, or other origin.

I see the concept of "Christ Crucified" as a revolutionary principle that worked its way into existing movements as best it could. And who do we select as the conceptual Christ who is crucified? There's a pretty good candidate in a pre-existing metaphorical Jesus.

rlogan · 05-07-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

This is similar to the views of Burton Mack. He thinks that the Jesus sayings originated or were adapted by small communities within a sort of quasi-cynic, counter-cultural movement in Galilee. More and more sayings were attributed to "Jesus" until there was a large stock of sayings which he believes was the basis for both the Markan sayings and Q as well as Thomas (IIRC, he applies the designation of "Q" to the entire CST). Mack is coy about whether he believes there was ever an HJ at the root of all this but basically claims it doesn't matter because it reflected a populist social movement rather than the unique teachings of a single individual. He seems to see "Jesus" as more of a type of preacher rather than a particular one, even though he doesn't (as far as I can tell) ever commit himself to a pure mythicist position.

I think Mack's position might be analogous to the sayings of the Tao Te Ching -- a collection of core traditional sayings (later redacted with commentaries and explanations similar to many of the Jesus sayings) all attributed to Lao Tze "The Old Sage," who was not a historical person but a personification of all the "Old sages" who had passed down those adages and folksy insights from antiquity.

This is a very attractive conceptualization, and especailly the part in bold.

What I see happening is that a pre-existing mileau has this "Christ" innovation injected into it.

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

05-07-2006, 08:13 AM	#35
fatpie42 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Britain Posts: 5,259	oooh The only Crossan I've come across is his work on parables. The idea that Thomas' work was ceased upon by gnostics and additions were made is interesting, but what would be interesting still would be the 'intentions' of the later additions. I noticed someone mentioning Bultmann earlier. I was able to take a look at Bultmann's commentary on the gospel of John recently and his explanations for some of the possible additions are very interesting. For example a verse which claims that people gathered round Jesus "because he had performed miracles" is thought by Bultmann to be a later addition to explain the setting.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.