tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post2867424413156661050..comments2024-03-15T10:01:59.405-07:00Comments on The Jesus Blog: British New Testament Conference 2013—Chris KeithAnthony Le Donnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-73052227094291655092013-09-06T01:19:39.512-07:002013-09-06T01:19:39.512-07:00Hey Jack. We each had (literally) ten minutes, so...Hey Jack. We each had (literally) ten minutes, so almost all the attention wen to the GTh and Sayings Collections issue. Gathercole mentioned in passing that he found the Egerton argument unpersuasive.<br /><br />I mentioned that I appreciated the application of Wirkungsgeschichte to such a wide period of time, since I think this is probably the biggest such attempt. But there was no real debate about the details of that because of the time constraints.Chris Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12007521996155910288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-60587728853379632702013-09-05T09:00:05.435-07:002013-09-05T09:00:05.435-07:00Chris,
Did any of the reviewers of Watson's b...Chris,<br /><br />Did any of the reviewers of Watson's book challenge his argument on the primitivity of the Egerton Gospel vis-a-vis John? Or what about his attempt to fashion a *Wirkungsgeschichte* into a support for a canonical approach?John C. Poiriernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-55541038570262975202013-09-05T06:41:55.118-07:002013-09-05T06:41:55.118-07:00Thanks for the reply. Both your response and Mark...Thanks for the reply. Both your response and Mark's Facebook thread on Q have given me lots that I need to think over.Mike Khttp://www.ntmark.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-60183631202372596132013-09-05T03:36:17.140-07:002013-09-05T03:36:17.140-07:00Mike, thanks for these comments. I think the argu...Mike, thanks for these comments. I think the argument for a pre-Synoptic sayings source has to be made on the evidence, and not the fact that some people might be uncomfortable with it, for whatever reason. Watson himself acknowledges that the only extant hard evidence for the genre is Thomas itself. At this point, I think it's imperative for his argument that he demonstrate the genre's complete independence from the Synoptics, and I don't think he's done that. Further, I'm not convinced that one can so easily separate the form and content of Thomas. I'm persuaded by Goodacre that the form/genre is itself a direct reaction to the Synoptics in the form of a decontextualization of the tradition. The issue becomes more interesting since he argues in the previous chapter against Q. In other words, he's for a pre-Synoptics sayings source, just not Q.<br /><br />There's a lot to consider in the arguments and I'd encourage everyone to read the book. But each of the panelists had problems with this particular issue.<br /><br />I wondered why Watson did not appeal to testimonia in his argument. Those collections are at least close to the genre he's proposing, since they're also traditions transmitted outside a narrative context (though, I would argue, still guided by a certain kind of narrative sensitivity).Chris Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12007521996155910288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-82529555910263348202013-09-04T17:25:05.460-07:002013-09-04T17:25:05.460-07:00Just found your blog and will be returning to bene...Just found your blog and will be returning to benefit from it - and enjoy it - often.<br /><br />Apple JamesApple Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07886410610642077825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-8475548255806378742013-09-04T10:45:59.608-07:002013-09-04T10:45:59.608-07:00I didn't get a chance to go to BNTC in the end...I didn't get a chance to go to BNTC in the end, but all of your panels seem like the ones I would have wanted to check out. I actually kind-of liked Watson's argument for a primitive sayings source, because sometimes it seems to me that some may be uncomfortable with a "Q" or an independent Thomas because they may dislike the implications of the amount of diversity argued in models such as Koester's/Robinson's trajectory approach (I hasten to add that I do not include Mark Goodacre in this assessment as he is explicit that he does not have this agenda and is just going where he feels the evidence leads). You make a fair point that the more a scholar thinks Thomas is dependent on the Synoptics (rather than just influenced by them through secondary orality like in Risto Uro's view), the less likely it may be that it reflects a pre-Synoptic genre, but what do you make of the possibility of primitive sayings collections (e.g., evidence of sayings of the Lord in the Pauline or catholic epistles, Papias on Matthew's logia, Jesus logia in the Apostolic Fathers or extra-canonical Gospel fragments, etc)?Mike Khttp://www.ntmark.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com