Ben C Smith

Are you sure his book on the 4 other gospels discusses the gospel according to the Hebrews (I thought it was Thomas, Egerton, Peter, and Secret Mark)? Or are you referring to The Historical Jesus?

Ben.

motorhead

See my OP, and title of this thread.

Ben C Smith

Okay, thanks. It looked as though Zeichman expected to find the gospel of the Hebrews in Four Other Gospels:

Sorry for any confusion.

Ben.

Zeichman

Question: does he cite Patterson's study ANYWHERE in the Historical Jesus as the basis for his stratification of Thomas?
Answer: No.

I have no idea how closely Crossan's previous conclusions were to Patterson's, but for the Historical Jesus, Crossan does not cite him thusly, only for a study on the independence of Thomas from canonical documents (appendix i). He even admits how "crude" his stratification is there.

LATER (BoC) he commits to ARNAL's stratification, and to Patterson's study of Q and Thomas, but I don't think he has anything to say about a stratification by Patterson.

Scholars change their minds about things, and he, as of The Historical Jesus, did not justify his conclusions about the compositional history of Thomas, though he does so later.

Ben: I got a few things mixed up in my head, but yeah, for some weird reason I though Gos. Hebrews was in Four other Gospels, thinking you were refering to THJ. I misread your post and motorhead's.

motorhead

Just a follow up on this thread...I read the first 10 chapters of The Historical Jesus by Crossan, no problem. But I started to read chapter 11, which gets into analyzing Jesus, and I couldn't get through it. I had to stop reading.

I just cannot follow his argument and how he's building it. It also bothers me that a few times already he draws conclusions about a particular topic or writing without really explaining why he’s done so. Or he might say this author and this author agree with me, so I conclude this is the case. Huh?

In addition, I cannot get over his use of some of his alleged 30-60 sources. It’s not at all a conclusion or even a scholarly consensus that some of these writings are indeed from this era. If these sources are not from 30-60, then his whole analysis is doomed.

Any thoughts on this?

Zeichman

His early edition of Thomas is about the only controversial 1st stratum document that plays strongly in his reconstruction of the historical Jesus. If we date it to the next stratum, as many might, how would it effect his data?

Complexes 9, 20, 21,22, 34, [37], 38, 49, 46, [47], 48, [52], [54], 71, [73], 75, [77], 78, 81, [83], 87, 88, 90, [93], 98, [100], 105, 106, and 108 would all be pushed back at least one stratum (all are "authentic" except bracketed ones). Not one of his Thomas1 complexes is unattested elsewhere. A few Egerton and Gos. Hebrews complexes would also be pushed back due to lack of first stratum appearance, though they don't play as strongly in his reconstruction as do the Thomean ones.

It's also important to remember that many scholars find dubious his stratification of sources. Why does he pick the dates he does? The first stratum is thirty years, his next is twenty, the following is forty, and the last is thirty. Dale Allison suggests that the first divide should be drawn at 70 CE: the destruction of the temple. Additionally, why should Secret Mark, if it was composed as Crossan suggests, be paired with documents written twentysome years earlier, rather than with Mark, written ten years or so later?
And even if our first record of a particular complex later than the first stratum, it certainly does not necessitate, nor even suggest, that it is inauthentic, as Crossan rightly notes.

mens_sana

I thought I remembered Crossan citing Helmut Koester as being in agreement on the dating a number of times. He also cites his own works: In Parables; In Fragments; Sayings Parallels; etc. The citations are hard to find because they are in the text, rather than in footnotes. In the text, they refer to works in the bibliography (by author and date). About the only fast (?) way to find his arguments is to check the Author Index, go to the referenced page and from that page to the bibliography. I suppose Harper vetoed footnotes to keep the book 'popular' and because of printing expense.

robto

You're right - Patterson doesn't say anything about stratification. I should know better than to try to rely on my memory. My apologies.
His stratification (in HJ) is explained in the appendix, and relies completely on multiple attestation. This may be "crude" (as Crossan admits), but it's completely objective. So I still maintain that it's unfair to say it "serves almost only to confirm his beliefs."

Zeichman

You're right that I overstated it when I attributed it "only" to his beliefs, but it still clearly serves that purpose. I'm not convinced it's objective. He gives no justification for attributing any individual complexes (aside from Revealed to James) to this earlier stratum. Lumping MANY congenial sayings into a single stratum and denying the authenticity of all others inauthentic (complexes 205-209, 278-327 except 290, 295, 297, 303, 311, 320, 321, 324 [my copy does not list his assessment of 325]) seems to be an obvious attempt to sneak congenial sayings into the first stratum and validate his stratigraphical approach. This seems to more-or-less be a tradition-historical approach to the composition of Thomas, which reeks of bias and circular reasoning. Though he does place a few authentic sayings (why 303 is not part of complex 48 is beyond me) in the second stratum, there are precious few of them, confirming the idea that it is little other than a tradition-historical history. "Blessed the womb" for example, seems to defy the notion of Jacobian leadership, as it places faith OVER Jesus' family; why should it be placed in 1Thomas?

Simply said, Crossan needed to justify a lot of things that he did not.

Brooke

Not to mention that it remains unclear whether Secret Mark is anything more than a giant prank pulled by Morton Smith on the academic community!