Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-31-2010, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Dividing up the world by lots need not have any relation to casting lots for clothing in Psalms 22:18 or during the crucifixion...

That is one postulate. Lets call it postulate (1).
The phrases bear no significant relation to each other.
Its all just a simple coincidence.

There is a second postulate (2).
The phrases employed by the authors were "copied".
The author of John copy/pastes the author of Psalms into John.
The author of Matthew paraphrases the author of Psalms into Matthew.

Many commentators tend to subscribe to the second postulate. ....

Commentators subscribe to the second postulate in certain cases where there is actual evidence of parallels. Not every similarity is evidence of copying.

There are 77 mentions of casting lots in the Bible. Which one do you claim inspired the gnostic author and why?

mountainman · 03-31-2010, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Commentators subscribe to the second postulate in certain cases where there is actual evidence of parallels. Not every similarity is evidence of copying.

There are 77 mentions of casting lots in the Bible. Which one do you claim inspired the gnostic author and why?

Opinion is of course quite varied - not sure where these comments were sourced, however ...

(1) Richard Lipsius suggested that Acts 1:23-36 together with Matthew 28:19 (Jesus’ commissioning the disciples) served as sources for the apostles’ dividing the world by lot. Relying on Pseudo-Prochorus, Lipsius claimed that the motif was present already the hypothetical periodoi Ioannou in the second century.30

(2) Dennis MacDonald has recently suggested that the Acts of Thomas was inspired by the Acts of Andrew and Matthias, whose opening scene, in turn, was modeled after Acts 1-2.31 That the apostles’ casting lots at the beginning of the Lucan Acts influenced the later apostolic Acts is an attractive hypothesis. There are, however, weak points in this theory.

I never quite worked out what Lipsius means when he refers to the "hypothetical periodoi Ioannou" But as you can see, the idea is not exactly new - that the "Gnostics" simply copied the "code of the new testament canon", which had itself been composed in part by copying the greek code of the LXX. Here follows some summary assessments of the "Gnostic Literature":

An Index of Summary Comments on "Gnostic Literature"

"insipid and puerile amplifications" [Ernest Renan]

"excluded by their later and radical light" [John Dominic Crossan]

"severely conditoned responses to Jesus ... usually these authors deny his humanity" [Robert M. Grant]

"they exclude themselves" [M.R. James]

"The practice of Christian forgery has a long and distinguished history" [Bart Ehrman]

"The Leucian Acts are Hellenistic romances, which were written to appeal to the masses" [Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard]

"The key point ... [NT Apocrypha] have all been long ago considered and rejected by the Church.

"The names of apostles ... were used by obscure writers to palm off their productions; partly to embellish and add to ... partly to invent ... partly to support false doctrines; decidedly pernicious, ... nevertheless contain much that is interesting and curious ... they were given a place which they did not deserve." [Tischendorf]

"Gnostic texts use parody and satire quite frequently ... making fun of traditional biblical beliefs"[April Deconick]

"heretics ... who were chiefly Gnostics ... imitated the books of the New Testament" [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

"enterprising spirits ... pretended Gospels full of romantic fables and fantastic and striking details, their fabrications were eagerly read and largely accepted as true by common folk who were devoid of any critical faculty and who were predisposed to believe what so luxuriously fed their pious curiosity." "the heretical apocryphists, composed spurious Gospels in order to trace backward their beliefs and peculiarities to Christ Himself." [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

"the fabrication of spurious Acts of the Apostles was, in general, to give Apostolic support to heretical systems, especially those of the many sects which are comprised under the term Gnosticism. The Gnostic Acts of Peter, Andrew, John, Thomas, and perhaps Matthew, abound in extravagant and highly coloured marvels, and were interspersed by long pretended discourses of the Apostles which served as vehicles for the Gnostic predications. The originally Gnostic apocryphal Acts were gathered into collections which bore the name of the periodoi (Circuits) or praxeis (Acts) of the Apostles, and to which was attached the name of a Leucius Charinus, who may have formed the compilation." [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

Toto · 03-31-2010, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

Opinion is of course quite varied - not sure where these comments were sourced, ...

Here's your source: “AS GOD COUNSELLED SOCRATES:” COMMISSION NARRATIVES IN COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE by István Czachesz, in Losonczi and Xeravits, Reflecting Diversity

Here's some parts you left out:

Quote:

3. THE CASTING OF LOTS AS AN EXAMPLE

It seems difficult to identify any continuous line of tradition or a common source behind those narratives. The tradition of the apostles’ dividing the world by casting lots is an illuminating example. . . <snip your examples>

That the apostles’ casting lots at the beginning of the Lucan Acts influenced the later apostolic Acts is an attractive hypothesis. There are, however, weak points in this theory. In the Lucan Acts we do not read about the division of the missionary fields. In the Acts of Thomas, where the division of the world occurs for the first time, both the act of casting lots and the prominent role of Peter are missing.

Moreover, there are a number of other literary parallels that may have inspired the writers of the apocryphal Acts. The idea of lots is widely represented in Jewish and Graeco-Roman sources. The division of the earth as well as the concept that these parts are inherited by “lot” have close parallels in the division of Canaan in Joshua 13-21.³² The actual “casting of lots” occurs in Joshua 18.10, but it was probably a secondary addition to the already existing geographical description of the land.³³ One’s favorable “lot,” “allotment,” and “inheritance” are closely related ideas that frequently occur in the Psalms.³⁴ The oracle of the lot is a well-known metaphor in the Dead Sea Scrolls.³⁵ The occurrence of the motif, however, is not restricted to Jewish literature. In the Iliad as well as in Akkadian and Hittite mythology, the gods cast lots to distribute the regions of the world among themselves.³⁶ The division of land into klēroi is reported several times in classical Greek literature.³⁷ Finally, the description of the territory of one’s mission was an essential part of Egyptian and Jewish commission stories.³⁸

emphasis supplied; citations omitted

mountainman · 04-01-2010, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Here's some parts you left out:

Quote:

3. THE CASTING OF LOTS AS AN EXAMPLE

It seems difficult to identify any continuous line of tradition or a common source behind those narratives. The tradition of the apostles’ dividing the world by casting lots is an illuminating example. . . <snip your examples>

That the apostles’ casting lots at the beginning of the Lucan Acts influenced the later apostolic Acts is an attractive hypothesis. There are, however, weak points in this theory. In the Lucan Acts we do not read about the division of the missionary fields. In the Acts of Thomas, where the division of the world occurs for the first time, both the act of casting lots and the prominent role of Peter are missing.

The author István Czachesz appears to have made a mistake when he says that "the act of casting lots " is missing from the Acts of Thomas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aTHOMAS

...and we divided the regions of the world, that every one of us should go unto the region that fell to him and unto the nation whereunto the Lord sent him.

According to the lot, therefore, India fell unto Judas Thomas, which is also the twin: but he would not go,

The Gnostic author appears to present a bunch of people who are instructed "by the Lord" According to the lot "that fell to him".

The Gnostic author appears to then present a Thomas who refuses to honor his lot.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.