Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Thomas Tradition in Urban Tyre?

Expand Messages
  • Ted Weeden
    ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/message/4987 ... (snip) Frank, first, regarding the way you categorize ethnically your proposed strata: while one
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 18, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Frank McCoy wrote on Thursday, December 12, 2002:

      > Ted Weeden wrote:

      > >Another probing question "to stir the pot." I have
      > > been struck lately by what I can only gauge as (1)
      > > an anti-Judean-cult orientation in the Gospel of
      > > Thomas and (2) the existence of an ideological
      > > dissonance resulting from the Gospel's high esteem or
      > > James the Just vis-a-vis the Gospel's anti-Judean-cult
      > > orientation

      > Dear Ted Weeden:

      > I suggest that there are three strata to GThomas: (1)
      > Proto-Thomas--the earliest strata which reflects the
      > perspective of upper class Gentile Tyrians, which was
      > written c. 60 CE and which consists of GTh 2-10,
      > 31-48, 61-65, and 89-99, (2) Pre-Thomas--an
      > intermediate strata which reflects the perspective of
      > middle to lower class Jewish Tyrians, which was
      > written c. 75 CE and which consists of GTh 1, 25-30.
      > 53-60, 66-79, and 105-111, and (3) Latest Strata--the
      > latest strata which reflects the perspective of middle
      > to lower class Gentile Tyrians, which was perhaps
      > written c. 90 CE and which consists of GTh 11-24,
      > 49-52, 80-88, 100-104, and 112-114. For further
      > information, please see an eight part posting that
      > begins here:


      > It is in the two Gentile strata (i.e., Proto-Thomas
      > and the Latest Strata) that one finds a rejection of
      > the Law and of ritual purity. So, in this excerpt
      > from your posting, all the listed examples are from
      > these two strata:


      Frank, first, regarding the way you categorize ethnically your proposed
      strata: while one might conclude, with respect to your first and third
      strata, that Gentiles would be likely to have material which rejects the Law
      and ritual purity, that does not necessarily and indisputably obtain. Jews,
      too, in the first century could be opposed to aspects of the Law and ritual
      purity. Two Jews, who did oppose certain aspects of the Law and ritual
      purity were the Galilean "Jew," Jesus, and the Jew of Tarsus, Paul.

      With respect to Jesus, GTh. 64 (the Great Feast), 89 (washing the outside of
      cups), 96 (the Yeast or Leaven), 99 (Jesus' dismissal of his family),
      sayings which you place in your first stratum and claim as Gentile in
      orientation, and GTh. 14:4 (eating whatever is served) and 14:5
      (non-defilement via any food), sayings which you locate in your third
      stratum and claim as Gentile in orientation, are all widely attributed in
      their original form to the historical Jesus (cf., e.g., Robert Funk, Roy
      Hoover and the Jesus Seminar, _The Five Gospels_, where all of these
      respective sayings have been voted "pink"). Moreover, it was *Jews* who
      first heard these sayings proclaimed by Jesus and passed them on to other
      *Jews*, long before they likely were shared with Gentiles.

      With respect to the Jew of Tarsus, Paul, there can hardly have been anyone
      in the early Jesus movement more *Jewish* than he, if "pedigree" and
      successful strict observance of the Law are the measures of true
      Jewishness--- at least that is what he tells us in his letters. Namely: he
      calls himself a Hebrew of Hebrew, a descendant of the tribe of Benjamin and
      a Pharisee. He avers that he was circumcised on the eighth day, the
      indelible sign of Jewishness, and that he was righteously and blamelessly
      faithful to the Law (Phil. 3:5f.). You cannot be more *holy* (cf. Lev.
      11:44) then that, unless you are a priest or Levite (see Bruce Malina, _The
      New Testament World_, 3rd ed., 159f.).

      Yet, Paul, the consummate Jew, renounced the practice of circumcision (Rms.
      2:29; I Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:2-3; 6:15) and the observance of kashruth (Rms.
      14:20a; I Cor. 10:25; and cf., e.g. the Antioch incident, Gal. 2::11-14),
      etc., as having any salvific importance for either Gentile or Jew. He was
      even disconcerted by and objected to the Jewish ritualized practices of
      circumcision and kashruth because he believed such practices, in effect, set
      Jews apart from the rest of the human community, and thus frustrated the
      will of God for universal oneness of all people (so argued convincingly by
      Daniel Boyarin, _Paul, A Radical Jew_, passim: cf., e.g., 7-10, 52ff., 106,
      228)-- a theological, cultural and existential position which, from the
      perspective of Boyarin, a Talmudic scholar and observant Jew (1; cf.,
      228ff.), inevitably leads to "an eradication of the entire [Judaic] value
      system," (32), "a dismissal of Pharisaic/biblical Judaism entirely" (111;
      and see 228-260). So based on the sayings, which I have cited from the
      historical Jesus and the well-known position of Paul on the Law,
      circumcision and kashruth, it cannot, in my judgment, be categorically and
      indisputably held, that only Gentiles would have rejected the Law and purity
      rules in the first century. Thus, your contention that the first and third
      strata of the Thomas tradition in the Gospel of Thomas must be of Gentile
      orientation, according to your reconstruction, does not necessarily and
      indisputably obtain.

      And now, Frank, on your locating the Thomas tradition in urban Tyre, I do
      not find such an urban setting can be supported by the text of the Gospel.
      You and I are, apparently, far a part in our understanding of the evolution
      and *Sitz im Leben* of the Thomas tradition(s). I find the reconstruction
      of the origin and evolution of the Thomas tradition leading finally to the
      Gospel, as presented by Thomas scholars such as James M. Robinson, Helmut
      Koester and Stephen Patterson, to be the most resonant with the text itself
      and the one I find most cogent.
      In their reconstruction of the "Thomas" people, for example, the Thomas
      people are not a settled urban community of believers. In fact, I find
      virtually little in Thomas that reflects an urban setting of upper class
      people, as your posit in your earliest stratum of Thomas. But I do find
      rural imagery (e.g., the sowing of seed [9], the harvesting of grapes
      [45:1], the prophet's rejection by his own village [31]), which one might
      expect from itinerants moving from village to village. Robinson, Koester and
      Patterson's profile of the Thomas people represents "Thomas" people as
      wandering, homeless (GTh 86), social radicals with a disdain for this world
      and its culture. This social radicalism, as Patterson points out (_The
      Fifth Gospel_, 46f.), caused the Thomas people to reject conventional family
      life, to sever family relationships (GTh. 55), to venerate the poor and
      hungry (GTh. 54; 69:2), to dismiss wealth as useless (GTh. 63:1-3), and to
      disdain social and pietistic distinctions which separate the clean and
      unclean and make purity the validating sign of human worth and
      communal/cultic acceptance (GTh. 14:5). This profile--- and it could be
      fleshed out more--- hardly comports with an urban lifestyle, and certainly
      not that of people of urban upper class which you suggest are behind your
      earliest stratum of the Thomas tradition.

      As far as provenance is concerned, Robinson, Koester and Patterson do not
      see the Thomas people as having migrated to the west and the city of Tyre
      but to eastern Syria, where the tradition of Thomas Christianity evolved.
      As Patterson (_Fifth Gospel_, 40, cf., 39f.) reconstructs the history of the
      Thomas movement, he thinks it is possible that "the _Gospel of Thomas_ was
      originally assembled . . . in Christian circles active in and around
      Jerusalem [I am skeptical of this]. . . . Later it may have been
      transported to the east, where it became the basis for the subsequent
      flowering of the Thomas tradition in Syria."

      But if the Thomas tradition had its initial birth with Christian itinerants
      in the area of Jerusalem, why, the question might be asked, would they have
      moved east instead of west to Asia Minor or Tyre, as you suggest?
      Patterson reports (_The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus_, 167f.) that Jim
      Robinson gives a very plausible explanation for the migration of these
      itinerants eastward to Syria. Robinson surmises that if this small-town
      and village movement of wandering itinerant radicals were to expand their
      ministry beyond Palestine itself, it had to take into consideration
      linguistic realities. Only in the eastern Syrian region, the area where
      Thomas Christianity evolved, would they have found local village dialects
      sufficiently similar to the ones in Palestine to make the communication of
      their proclamation to potential converts to the movement easy. In the
      cities, such as in Asia Minor (or Tyre in your scenario, Frank), the *lingua
      franca* would have been Greek, which would have been fine for an urban
      ministry. But that was not what the Thomas people were about. Their
      ministry was to rural village people. To be effective in communicating in
      western rural settings the itinerants would have had to master local
      dialects, which would have hindered them in the advancement of their
      kerygmatic cause. Thus they headed east to Syria and, therein, Thomas
      Christianity was born.

      > Ted, later in your post, you state:

      > > Compare now this anti-Judean-cultic orientation with
      > > the following saying about James, Jesus' brother:> > "The disciples said
      to Jesus: 'We know that you will
      > > depart from us. Who (then) will rule over us?' Jesus
      > > said to them: 'No matter where you came from, you
      > > should go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and
      > > earth came into being.'" (13).

      > > Now I know of no one in the early Jesus movements
      > > more supportive of and more defensive of the Judean
      > > cultic heritage than James, the brother of Jesus. Just
      > > ask Paul about that. How is it then that this
      > > ideological dissonance exists in the Gospel of
      > > Thomas: on the one hand, it is emphatically
      > > anti-Judean cult and on the other, and opposite, hand,
      > > it extravagantly extols James, the most noted defender
      > > of the Judean cultic heritage in the early Church?
      > >
      > > Any thoughts?

      > (Frank-continued)
      > While much of Acts 15 is likely the invention of Luke,
      > I think that there is a historical kernel of truth,
      > i.e., that there was a Jerusalem Church Council
      > meeting where James decreed that Gentile believers,
      > with only a few exceptions, need not obey the Law. If
      > James made such a decree, this explains why, in the
      > incident at Antioch, the emissaries from James tried
      > to make only the Jewish believers there obedient to
      > the Law.

      William Walker at the fall meeting of the Jesus Seminar made a strong case
      for any historical kernel, behind Luke's construction of the proceedings of
      the Jerusalem Council, being accounted for as result of Luke deriving it
      directly from Gal. 2.

      > So, ISTM, it is likely that James' position was that
      > Gentile believers do not have to obey the Law, but
      > that Jewish believers do.

      I am not convinced that James was even that "liberal."

      > As reconstructed above, the Gentile members of the
      > Thomas community apparently did not obey the Law, but
      > the Jewish members did. That is to say, the Thomas
      > community apparently acted within the limits set by
      > James and, so, could apparently claim to be in
      > comformity with James' decisions as respects> observance of the Law.
      > Also, I think we need to take into account the
      > immediately following first part of GTh 13


      > I see this as an implied criticism of GMatthew, which
      > I think was in circulation at the time of the Latest
      > Strata.

      I would agree.

      > What is said in GTh 12 can be viewed as a put-down to
      > the Matthean exaltation of Peter. Actually, James,
      > rather than Peter, was appointed to be the head of the
      > Church. Further, even if Peter was the founder of the
      > Church, he was still of lesser status to James: for
      > the very Cosmos came into existence for his sake.

      Whether GTh. 12 is early Thomas (so Patterson) or late Thomas (so you), the
      fact of the matter is that, in my view, there remains in the Gospel of
      Thomas, as it presently stands an unresolved dissonance between the anti-Law
      components of the Gospel I have detailed, and, in particular, the
      anti-circumcision--- i.e., physical circumcision (GTh. 53), the sine qua non
      of Jewish identity, holiness, and oneness with God, as God's people (so
      Boyarin, _Paul_, 36f.)--- stance, and the exalted status of James, the
      consummate pro-Law authority, who alone can give to believers among Thomas
      people the "imprimatur" to what is acceptable faith and praxis.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.