"Traditional Referentiality"

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

At 03:55 PM 12/14/98 -0500, D.R. Edwards wrote:

>>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."


Ed

Theoretically, that'd be possible; in the context of the texts in question
I wouldn't say so, because they contain no indication of any supernatural
goings-on.  They're mostly prescriptions for a somewhat eccentric code of
conduct.

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