Comments on: Interview with Stevan Davies on the Gospel of Thomas (Part II)

By: Forthcoming Interviews « PEJE IESOUS

Forthcoming Interviews « PEJE IESOUS — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:38:55 +0000

[...] that I’ve already posted interviews with Nick Perrin (here and here), Stevan Davies (here, here, and here), Stephen Patterson (here, here, and here), and Ismo Dunderberg (here and here). In the [...]

By: Bloggers and the Gospel of Thomas? « The Golden Rule

Bloggers and the Gospel of Thomas? « The Golden Rule — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:35:04 +0000

[...] with experts on the Gospel of Thomas – see his interviews with Dr. Nicholas Perrin, Dr. Stevan Davies, and Dr. Stephen Patterson. I have learned from the expertise of several other scholars [...]

By: phil_style@hotmail.com

phil_style@hotmail.com — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:36:22 +0000

“From its content we don’t have datable anything except that it assumes James, who died in 62 AD, is still alive (cf. saying 12).”

Saying number 12 merely ‘records’ Jesus telling poeple to go to James after he leaves. How does this assume James is still alive, at the time of composition of the document?

By: phil_style

phil_style — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:48:38 +0000

Oh, and is there a literary law that states “lists of sayings must predate narratives”?

How many historical examples do we have to prove this transition is normative?

By: phil_style

phil_style — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:43:45 +0000

The whole ‘science’ of dating these texts is so unbelievably speculative to those of us who work in the natural sciences. One scholar argues that thomas was written before Q. another argues Q never existed. One argues John is late, based on the conclusions of the guy who said Q came before Mark, another one says John has large sections of indenpedant work, and thus predates Mark. So what does this guy make of Q?

As soon as conclusion A is reached, all the other dominos B-Z have to be reshuffled. Then someone questions conclusion F and vaiours other dominos G-Z get shufffled again, not realising that half of thoes dominos were only in the position they were in becasue of conclusion A.

Who’s holding all this together in a matrix to keep track of it? Has anyone realised that the whole thing seems like a big mess? Or is it just me?

By: Frank McCoy

Frank McCoy — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:41:55 +0000

This is fantastic! Professor Davies’ views are very thought-provoking. I wonder why he doesn’t dispense with the purely hypothetical Q and adopt the attitude that Matthew used Mark and Thomas as sources and Luke used Matthew and Mark and Thomas as sources–the good old Occam’s razor. He seems open to the idea that Thomas influenced more of the Synoptic writers than just Mark at the close of his second part of his paper on the hypothesis that Mark using Thomas as a source, but in your interview with him, he doesn’t seem to be seriously entertaining this idea now. Did you get a chance to ask him about the possibility of Matthew and/or Luke using Thomas as a source–especially given that he deems it to be pre-Markan?

By: The Divine Conspiracy Blog » Blog Archive » Stevan Davies II

The Divine Conspiracy Blog » Blog Archive » Stevan Davies II — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:07:58 +0000

[...] II of the Stevan Davies interview is now online. (See previous post on this subject here.) Posted in Theology | No Comments » [...]