"Traditional Referentiality"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>EDWARDS

>I don't know if it's more a matter of forgetting or a matter of not

>considering it important.  Mack's book on Q (I forget the whole title now,

>but you've probably seen it anyway) addresses how such an early

>(hypothetical) document could have developed and served its purpose without

>mention of Jesus' death and other details.


Ed

I guess that'd be "The Lost Gospel"?

EDWARDS
That's the one.  You go schizo during finals, I have memory lapses.
Sometimes it sucks to be in the education business.

ED
One point that I don't recall Mack making is that it is commonplace in
various ancient documents for their authors simply to omit information that
his audience would have taken for granted.

<snip examples>

EDWARDS
I don't recall seeing Mack discuss this, either.  This would seem to support
early composition of Q/Thomas (within 20 or so years of 30 CE?) followed by
Mark's expansion as time passed and the teachings found their way to people
without benefit of the traditions that the earlier writers took for granted.
I assume, though, that you're not saying the resurrection accounts were
excluded because of the principle of "traditional referentiality."

• Previous message: "Traditional Referentiality"
• Next message: "Traditional Referentiality"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]