Vinnie

I view more posts per page in my user cp thus this is still only the third page for me. Can you give me a post number?

Vinine

Ted Hoffman

#1702552

Amaleq13

On further consideration, there is even less reason to accept "multiple attestation" than I thought.

Paul identifies a prominent member of the Jerusalem group as a guy named "Peter". He is never identified as a former follower of a living Jesus but only as a believer in the Risen Christ. A man named "Cephas" is also identified as the first to witness the Risen Christ. Both names are used in the letter to the Galatians (Cephas once, Peter five times) but it is not made clear that they are one and the same individual. In 1 Corinthians, the name "Cephas" is used exclusively.

Mark identifies a guy named "Simon" as one of Jesus' closest disciples and depicts Jesus giving him the nickname "Peter".

Thomas has a single saying (a second reference is identified as a late addition) where a disciple named "Simon Peter" is depicted as having less understanding of Jesus than Thomas.

Without an indication from Paul that his Jerusalem Peter was actually named "Simon", even the appearance of shared names cannot be relied upon as an example of multiple attestation. When the fact that Paul also identifies a guy named "Cephas" who may or may not be AKA "Peter" is added to the mix, our confidence in the alleged multiple attestation can only diminish.

Ted Hoffman

I second Amaleq above. More below. But first, a little backtracking:

Amaleq wrote:
Vinnie responded:
He has not provided any source stratification. He is questioning your overweening confidence in zealously and narrowly dating Thomas in the first century like you do (60-80 C.E.) in the absence of any sound method or clear basis.
Demonstrate it.
Telling you what?
Show us how you determined that GThom "shows no dependence upon these sources" and how this helps you date Thomas.
False dichotomy noted. Thank you. We need the plausible reason for considering Thomas in the 2nd stratum.
Please concentrate on your own aruments. Do not attempt to co-opt other parties or do any lobying.

Points to bear in mind:
* Paul does not locate Jesus in a specific time frame
* Paul potrays Peter as a believer in a risen Christ

1. Thomas cannot be confidently dated due to lack of narrative. It has also been heavily redacted so we cannot know whether the reference to Peter was there originally (unless you can clearly rule it out). We could at best place it within the first century because use of narratives seems to have started towards the end of the first century, but even this is challenged by the presence of the PN before the reign of Pilate and Caiphas (Theissen's argument).
Anything more specific than 50-140, like "within 20 years of Paul's writing" is tenuous and without any factual basis. In any event, Vinnie's ally Patterson places it in the vicinity of 70-80 C.E.

I think that it would be best if you clearly stated your:
(a) Reasons for setting the terminus ad quems and terminus a quos for the documents in the first two strata, and perharps the third one too.

(b) How you manage to rule out dependence and prove independence between the documents especially the documents that come later like John.

I think its great that you list your assumptions. But, IMO, you could do well to indicate all the evidence your assumptions are based on (i.e. - why aren't your assumptions facts? and why are they valid assumptions).
This will make your methodology rigorous, based on evidence as opposed to assumptions and will force you to countenance areas where you are stretching the evidence thin to protect an earlier assimption.

Thats just my opinion. Take it for whatever its worth.

2. I don't know why you mention John yet its not an entirely independent source. For example the Temple incident John 2: 15-16, Mark 11:17 and many parallels with Luke. The fact that John did not faithfully transmit these traditions DOES NOT MEAN that he did not use them to weave his own theology. That John Differs Substantially from the Synoptics, does not make it independent of them IMO especially given the parallels and its lateness. Unless you can rule out John's dependence on the synoptics.

3. Extending the 2 DH assumption, by using M and L (in addition) to argue MA is illegitimate IMO. Its stacking one conjecture on top of another. At best, you get a house of cards. I would encourage you to string facts, not inferences or assumptions.

Remember that, using this inference-laden approach or assumption-based (as opposed to fact-based approach) one can prove just about anything.

4. And remember, from the start of this thread, the Pauline eschatology in Thessalonians, that is also apparent in Matthew, can be traced back to Daniel. Now, since you are using the existence of a HJ as a working hypothesis, you notice that already you have created an artificial bedrock (first stratum) that your methodology cannot penetrate.

How do you hope to insure yourself against locking yourself in your own prison and throwing away the keys?
How have you managed to rule out that some purported sayings of Jesus were a contemporization of sayings by prophets?

If you have not, how secure is your said strata and methodology?

Amaleq13

I forgot to address this in my initial response but could you clarify which specific passages you consider independently located in Q and Special L/Special M?

I thought the special material in Mt/Lk was not found in Q.

Ted Hoffman

*Bump*
Any answers forthcoming?