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

[gthomas] GThomas' original composition

Expand Messages
  • laurac@ix.netcom.com
    Hi, this is Keith! I was originally under the assumption that the Gnostic version of Jesus was the original version, and that the historical Jesus was altered
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 6, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, this is Keith!
      I was originally under the assumption that the Gnostic version of Jesus was the original version, and that the historical Jesus was altered in the writing of the synoptics. This led me to believe that GThomas was originally composed before the synoptics. But yesterday I was reading an article which said that the reason most scholars place it's composition in the mid-second century (A.D.140) is specifically BECAUSE they consider it to be a gnostic text. Is it true that many or most gnostic texts were originally composed in the mid-second century or later?

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
      Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
    • Stevan Davies
      ... Jesus was the original version, and that the ... Well, howdy Keith! Hardly anybody agrees with this point of view in the world of scholarship. One
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 6, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        > >Hi, this is Keith!
        > > I was originally under the assumption that the Gnostic version of
        Jesus was the original version, and that the
        > historical Jesus was altered in the writing of the synoptics.

        Well, howdy Keith!
        Hardly anybody agrees with this point of view in the world of
        scholarship. One prominent view, held e.g. by Stephen Patterson,
        is that there was first a collection of "wisdom sayings" that one
        group took and added on quite a few "eschatological" sayings to
        produce Q, while another group added on quite a few "gnostic"
        sayings to produce Thomas. There's no solid reason why both
        processes of addition could not have happened ca 60 A.D.

        But one could wonder if the prevailing view of scholarship isn't
        subject to enormous "synoptic bias" which is to say that scholars,
        raised and taught since infancy about Jesus and his teachings
        find it natural to assume that what we have in the canonical texts
        is superior to what we find elsewhere. The fact that there is no
        "gnostic" Jesus in the synoptic texts (three versions of one text,
        Mark, when you get right down to it) does not rule out the
        possibility that the "gnostic" Jesus isn't more akin to the
        historical Jesus than the eschatological Jesus. Yet, while I'm
        sympathetic to that point of view personally, I must say that it
        just doesn't seem to work historically (the "gnostic" sayings in
        Thomas are just too diverse, for one thing).

        > This led
        me to believe that GThomas was originally
        > composed before the synoptics. But yesterday I was reading an article
        which said that the reason most scholars place
        > it's composition in the mid-second century (A.D.140) is specifically
        BECAUSE they consider it to be a gnostic text. Is
        > it true that many or most gnostic texts were originally composed in the
        mid-second century or later?

        Many or most gnostic texts seem to have been originally composed
        in the mid-second century or later. No doubt. But quite possibly
        some were composed earlier than that... Apoc. Adam and Eugnostos
        perhaps, also perhaps Apoc John. It's really difficult to date such
        texts especially since many of them, like Apoc John seem clearly to
        have gone through stages of editing of which the "Christian" stage is
        probably the latest.

        The idea that Thomas is "gnostic" in any second century sense
        has less going for it than people think anyhow... one has to use
        "gnostic" in a very vague sense to conclude Thomas is gnostic.
        And such arguments tend to work from the logic that sayings X Y Z
        are gnostic and therefore Thomas is gnostic as a whole. But yeah,
        if you went around the SBL convention and asked people at random
        most would probably say that since Thomas is gnostic it must be
        from the second century --- there doesn't seem to be anything
        that one can do about that.

        Steve


        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
        Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
      • Stevan Davies
        ... I hope somebody else will take a crack at this because find I usually have no clue. All I know is that Gnosticism is probably earlier than previous
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 6, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          > Steve mentions the dating of some of these writings. Can you give a
          > summary, for someone without an academic background in this field of study,
          > of how scholars arrive at the likely dates of origin. Thanks. Larry.

          I hope somebody else will take a crack at this because find I usually
          have no clue. All I know is that Gnosticism is probably earlier
          than previous generations of scholars thought it was. Why?

          To start with, as far as the gnostic material goes,
          there are reports in Irenaeus from around 180 of various gnostic
          groups. Irenaeus gives a history of gnosticism as he sees it
          that generally can be dated, and describes various gnostic
          points of view within that history that can be correlated with
          actual texts or points of view within texts. For example, he
          gives a version of the Apoc John. Thus, if Irenaeus can be counted
          on to be giving an accurate historical account, reasonably decent
          dates can be guessed at. Irenaeus' account is supplemented by
          the long later account of Hippolytus and with the accounts of
          other anti-heresy writers. So far so good.

          However.... there's a big problem.

          Irenaeus and the others have a view of Gnosticism that is
          extremely polemical and Christian-centric. Fundamentally,
          "Gnosticism arose as a variety of perversions of the true Christian
          teaching." Therefore two things: 1. There is no pre-Christian
          gnosticism and possibly no non-Christian gnosticism. 2. All
          gnosticism must have arisen after the establishment of true
          Christian teaching. Thus there cannot be much first century
          gnosticism (some is ascribed to the first century guy Simon
          Magus).

          However, the Nag Hammadi texts
          contain a splendid example of a non-Christian text "Eugnostos"
          that has systematically been transformed into a Christian text
          "Sophia of Jesus Christ." The Apocryphon of John seems to
          me obviously riddled with Christian interpolations and I am
          certain that there was a version of it that existed without
          Christian references. The Apocalypse of Adam has no Christian
          references.

          If the polemical view of Irenaeus etc. is found to be false
          [i.e. "it is not the case that all Gnosticism arose as perversions
          of Christian truth"] then the dating plan given by Irenaeus etc.
          is not at all reliable. Was there then a first century or earlier
          version of e.g. the Apoc John prior to its Christianization?
          [Its Christianization is what brought it into Irenaeus' purview,
          not what brought it into being.] Yeah. Probably. But when
          we sever ourselves from the anti-heretic writers' views of things
          we find ourselves floundering around when it comes to putting
          dates on things.

          And then, as always, there's the question of definition. "What
          do you mean by Gnosticism?" [My answer: things akin to the
          Apoc John.] But there are lots of other answers (hence
          the term is virtually meaningless) that will include such things
          as the positions of Paul's opponents in Corinth and the general
          perspective found in the Gospel of John.

          Possibly Gnostic scholarship tends to work from a "law of
          increasing complexity" so that the more convoluted a gnostic
          text is the later it is (this might be called the Pistis Sophia
          factor, that text being both incredibly convoluted and considered
          quite late). It might be suggested that the more Christian a
          gnostic text is the later it is (which rather reverses the order
          implicit in Irenaeus' theory).

          Steve Patterson... you there? What's your answer to Larry's
          question?

          Steve

          ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
          Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
        • betadavid@hotmail.com
          Re: GThomas original composition (April 6) I hope someone else takes a crack at this (SD) Dear Larry & Keith I m knew to this list Larry but I ll take a
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 6, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Re: GThomas' original composition (April 6)
            "I hope someone else takes a crack at this" (SD)


            Dear Larry & Keith

            I'm knew to this list Larry but I'll "take
            a crack at it."

            'Seems to me christian gnosticism is a "suburban"
            thing that grew up as what we'd more or less call
            the `middle classes` adopted christianity;
            in its various forms (or It's various forms).

            I don't exactly know why you're asking -which
            would flavour my response- but I'll say Gibbon
            (Decline & Fall) has a 'middle of the road'
            treatment of the question.

            Realize however that "middle of the road"
            -as far as christian gnosticism goes- is
            negative.

            BetaDavid

            PS. I'd date the document earlier than
            Gibbon did; within the bounds of radiometric
            dating and where debate is to be found.

            ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
            Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
          • laurac@ix.netcom.com
            Regarding: Gnosticism arose as a variety of perversions of the true Christian ... I believe that when he ( I assume Irenaeus) says perversions of the true
            Message 5 of 8 , Apr 7, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Regarding:
              "Gnosticism arose as a variety of perversions of the true Christian
              > teaching." Therefore two things: 1. There is no pre-Christian
              > gnosticism and possibly no non-Christian gnosticism.

              I believe that when he ( I assume Irenaeus) says "perversions of the true Christain teaching" he means perversions of Jesus' teachings. All of the gnostic type sayings in GThomas existed long before Christain gnosticism, in the Hindu philosophies. I admittedly am NOT a scholar when it comes to eastern religions but I have a friend who lives in an ashram who I sometimes visit. He and I over the past 12 years, have had many discussions about such philosophies. Most of the material in GThomas that is considered to be gnostic: passages1,2,3,4,5,6,11,17,18,22,23,24,27,29,34,42,49,50,51,56,58,67,70,75,77,81,87,91, 106,108,110,111 and 112 are all things that are common in his religion (a form of Hinduism). To them these things are not mysterious. They believe in Pantheism and the world as a projection. This is what passage 29 is about (in my opinion). This is a common part of their belief: where most people just accept that conciousness is a product of the mind (or physical brain), they find this obsurd, and believe that the body is a product of conciousness (that is; the body is a projection, an illusion that's not real). For the Pantheist, one must break free of the illusion and see that everything is really ONE. I'm NOT proposing to know whether this is true or false, only that this is what they teach.
              He claims (though I have no idea how valid it is) that in their ancient texts, it is said that Jesus spent much of his early life in India and studied such things under various sages and gurus. After becoming a master (enlightened or whatever) he returned home and became a teacher.

              ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
              Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
            • Chris Cutler
              ... I have never heard anyone suggest that Hemes Trismegistus was Christian, not that the writings were not Gnostic. Wouldn t that make them non-Christian
              Message 6 of 8 , Apr 9, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                > Regarding:
                > "Gnosticism arose as a variety of perversions of the true Christian
                > > teaching." Therefore two things: 1. There is no pre-Christian
                > > gnosticism and possibly no non-Christian gnosticism.

                I have never heard anyone suggest that Hemes Trismegistus was Christian,
                not that the writings were not Gnostic. Wouldn't that make them
                non-Christian gnosticism?

                -------------------------
                Chris Cutler
                "Auditeur Libre"

                What liberates is the knowledge of who we were, what we became; where we
                were, whereinto we have been thrown; whereto we speed, wherefrom we are
                redeemmed; what birth is, and what rebirth." (Exc. Theod. 78.2)


                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
                Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
              • joe baxter
                laurac@ix.netcom.com wrote: All of the gnostic type sayings in GThomas existed long before Christian gnosticism, in the Hindu philosophies. I admittedly am
                Message 7 of 8 , Apr 9, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  laurac@... wrote:

                  "All of the gnostic type sayings in GThomas existed long before Christian
                  gnosticism, in the Hindu philosophies. I admittedly am NOT a scholar when it
                  comes to eastern religions but I have a friend who lives in an ashram who I
                  sometimes visit. He and I over the past 12 years, have had many discussions
                  about such philosophies. Most of the material in GThomas that is considered
                  to be gnostic:
                  passages1,2,3,4,5,6,11,17,18,22,23,24,27,29,34,42,49,50,51,56,58,67,70,75,77
                  ,81,87,91, 106,108,110,111 and 112 are all things that are common in his
                  religion (a form of Hinduism). To them these things are not mysterious. "


                  You are quite right. The sayings you refer to are frequently deemed
                  mysterious or obscure by western scholars. To a Hindu or a Buddhist, the
                  sayings are much less mysterious, and frequently the meaning is quite
                  obvious to them.

                  As for your list, I would also add 8, 15, 19, 30, 33, 37, 41, 52, 53, 59,
                  61, 71, 80, 86, 88, 98, 103, 104, 113 as meaningful within Hinduism or
                  Buddhism.

                  "They believe in Pantheism and the world as a projection. This is what
                  passage 29 is about (in my opinion). This is a common part of their belief:
                  where most people just accept that consciousness is a product of the mind
                  (or physical brain), they find this absurd, and believe that the body is a
                  product of consciousness (that is; the body is a projection, an illusion
                  that's not real)."

                  While you are mostly correct here, the center of gravity of Hindu-Buddhist
                  belief does not subscribe to the view that the body is an illusion. Nor does
                  GThomas. Nor does Pantheism best describe their belief system. But these are
                  small points.


                  " He claims . . . . that in their ancient texts, it is said that Jesus spent
                  much of his early life in India and studied such things under various sages
                  and gurus. After becoming a master (enlightened or whatever) he returned
                  home and became a teacher. "

                  He is referring to the Himis scriptures. Unfortunately, only a few
                  individuals testify to having seen these scriptures. For the time being they
                  are unavailable. Either they have been destroyed, or they have been removed
                  from circulation. The third possibility, of course, is that they never
                  existed. However, several of the individuals who saw the manuscripts are
                  very credible individuals. Nonetheless, an unavailable manuscript really
                  doesn't support anything beyond speculation.

                  Most scholars believe that much of the Hindu-Buddhist material is the
                  product of the Thomasine community, as opposed to Jesus himself. This view
                  is apparently based upon the fact that Hindu-Buddhist influences do appear
                  in the Middle East during the first and second centuries C.E. This is
                  especially the case around Alexandria. In my opinion, this view is rather
                  uninsightful. First of all, most of these scholars have no grounding in
                  Hindu-Buddhist practice, so how can they understand anything about the
                  origin of these passages. They are beyond their depth. That is why they
                  call these passages obscure. So saying 34, [ Jesus said, "If a blind person
                  leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole."] is fulfilled.

                  Secondly, most HJ scholars tend to choose safe and skeptical lines of
                  dependent origination. It is extremely safe to suggest the passages came
                  from later influences.

                  Third, most HJ scholars have a synoptic bias. As a result, any view of Jesus
                  which conflicts with the synoptic paradigm is deemed non-historical.

                  Few HJ scholars have considered the possibility that the above noted
                  passages could have arisen out of self-knowledge. Mostly, this is a result
                  of their failure to understand a set and setting in Jesus' life out of which
                  the teachings could have arisen naturally.

                  Given the proper set and setting, the teachings certainly could have arisen
                  naturally. Hinduism and Buddhism are religions of auto-enlightenment. The
                  teachings arise through self-realization. Thus, given appropriate life
                  circumstances, the indicated teachings could have arisen without "Jesus
                  [having] spent much of his early life in India and [without his having]
                  studied such things under various sages and gurus."

                  Thus, understanding the appropriate set and setting is the key.

                  With kind regards,

                  Joe

                  >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  >eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
                  >Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
                  Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
                • laurac@ix.netcom.com
                  ... Keith. ... eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
                  Message 8 of 8 , Apr 10, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Regarding:
                    >
                    > While you are mostly correct here, the center of gravity of Hindu-Buddhist
                    > belief does not subscribe to the view that the body is an illusion. Nor does
                    > GThomas. Nor does Pantheism best describe their belief system. But these are
                    > small points.
                    >
                    > I assume that you're probably right, since most of what I know about eastern beliefs comes from the my friend Mike, who lives in an ashram. He belongs to what they call Syda (or Siddha) Yoga, and stydies under the Guru Swami Chidvilasinanda, who became a guru in 1981 when Baba Muktnanda died. I have no reason to doubt you when you say that most Hindu-Buddhist DON'T subscribe to the belief that the body and world is an illusion. But his particular sect does. They believe that conciousness is all that exists, and everything else is a manifestation of it. When GThomas says things like: when the two become one, when the up becomes the same as the down, the inside the same as the outside, etc., etc., I believe that it is POSSIBLE, (though I certainly don't know) that this is a way of saying: when you let go of the illusion of separateness, you will see that there is only ONE. In Syda Yoga, this is what one has to see to become enlightened.

                    Keith.

                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/gthomas
                    Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.