Re: [GTh] Authorship and Dating GTh
- Forum members,Based on what I was taught from Prof. Walter Russell the first step in determining authorship/dating is to use an author-centric, top-down hermeneutical process in order to glean the author’s purpose in writing the text. Professor Russell teaches hermeneutics as a graduate level course at Biola University in Southern California.I would like to interest a few members of this forum to use this method on GTh.The Process is called TEXT MAPPING:1-The first step is to simply repeatedly read the text in total without study in order to gain an overall understanding of the author’s argument. The basic question is: “What is the author’s intended overall message or point.”2-The second step is to map how the paragraphs of the text work together to present and support the author’s argument. This is a process that is iterative with step 1. If a paragraph doesn’t seem to fit then it is important to ascertain why. The paragraph could be a redactor’s addition or your original understanding of the author’s point may need to be revised.The conclusion is a “map” that shows how each paragraph in the text advances the author’s intended purpose. The specific issues that the texts deals with and the nature of the argument provides information on the nature of both the author and the target people group. Most texts deal with issues specific to their intended audience and, by comparing these issues with historical data, the analysis can often identify the target group and place the text in the correct historical context.A commentary on the writings of JN (“The Community of the Beloved Disciple” by Raymond E. Brown), recommended to me by a member of this forum, is a good example of this scholarship. Although somewhat dated in his understanding of 1st century history, Brown seeks to date the book through the situations the various texts (Jn, I, II, III Jn) deal with and identifying the target people groups within a historical timeframe.The process is not difficult to implement but is a lot of work in my experience.I have use this method on several NT texts and my conclusions are often different than how the authorship/dating question has been answered in current NT commentaries that I own. I asked Professor Russell about this and his answer was “Bad hermeneutics!” Professor Russell asserts that most commentators are interested in interpreting individual scriptures based on their own theological system. This is consistent with the forum’s varied findings about the authorship/dating of NT works based on the group asked/polled. The answer of a group of British scholars will be different from those of the American Baptist Convention which will be different from a Society of Italian Priests.It is, of course, possible that GTh will not yield itself to this type of analysis but I feel that the work of a few on this forum to undertake this analysis might provide unique insight into the text. I have personally found this analysis illuminating in understanding various NT texts and my understanding of certain “scriptures” being significantly revised as a result of this process (I am using “scriptures” as a term for small portions of a text)Professor Russell, in his course, has a section on trying to remove both our theological and cultural predispositions when performing this analysis. The Professor calls these our colored glasses and actually shows up with a pair of unusually large sunglasses during this section of the course to illustrate his point.My personal theological lens is orthodox. However, many here may have a non-orthodox viewpoint. It would be interesting to compare my mapping of GTh with those of a different background.The cultural “colored glasses” that we all look through is another issue to be dealt with in analyzing texts and something I will deal with in another post.Regards,Tom Reynolds
In Response To: Tom Reynolds
On: Text Study
Tom’s report of a method of text study is interesting. The mere idea that there ARE methods of text study is interesting. (In my many decades of schooling, nobody mentioned the idea to me, except now and then to ridicule the idea that there *was* such an idea). My own sense of what one does in this area comes from observation, including observation of what text workers like Lachmann do, whether with the NT or with Lucretius, and it is rooted in a sense of what can happen to a text (which it seems is quite a bit), and how a text can come into being (it seems that there are several possibilities). I don’t think there is anything like a lab procedure of N steps, and even if there were, while investigating one question, one would need to be somehow aware of the answers to other questions. But just for comparison, my handlist would go something like this:
1. Consistency. Is this one thing or many? Are there internal contradictions or interruptions that imply more than one phase of composition (by whomever; many authors go back to their work several times; anyway, it is best to leave the “author” sort of to one side, at first, and think instead of what the “text” is doing). If many, the separate sections should be handled separately. This determination is necessarily tentative at first; everything else one observes about the text is part of the ongoing work of answering this question, and then progressively refining that answer. [Tom implies as much in his comment, on his Step 2, “This is a process that is iterative with step 1.” In my experience, it’s a little like purifying uranium; you don’t do it, or you can’t usually expect to do it, all in one step].
2. Do different manuscripts suggest different endpoints, or different inventory? Are there successive layers (as several have proposed), or distributed layers (so De Conick)? Is Greek Thomas viable as a complete text, later expanded to make Coptic Thomas? Is Acts in Bezae the original, which was abbreviated elsewhere? Or is it a later expansion? if so, can we detect the reason for the expansion? These are in principle answerable questions, and parallel but nonidentical answers can themselves in principle be adjudicated.
3. For each consistent unit, whether a part or the whole, are there formal indications? Pairing patterns, rhyme organization, logical development, summary gestures, cadential devices (there seems to be a sort of ending at Th12, which establishes James, not Thomas, as the authority figure, a fact which I still find interesting), direct address to reader or lack of it, etc? Violation of any pattern suggests non-simplicity of text, and vice versa. So this too is partly how one answers Question 1, and partly how one discovers the way in which the text (as a whole or in one consistent portion) is organized; how it behaves, what it is up to.
[This is something like Tom’s Step 1; it will be seen that I think that much prior work has to be done to *establish* consistency, before one can fruitfully embark on *exploring* consistency. I do not think that an assumption of consistency is a valid way to begin with an unknown text].
4. Are there echoes or parallels in outside texts, and if so, what is their directionality? Do all the parallels point to the same date of composition, or to several successive dates? A good deal of work has been done on Thomas from this point of view, most of it having to do with Matthew and Luke, and most of that (not, I think, quite all) suggesting that Thomas is posterior to those portions of Matthew and Luke. But what about Mark? If we ask the same question of Paul, we get Mark all over the oscilloscope screen. Right? If we take a chart of Thomas, and color in the parts that have some sort of parallel in Mark, what does the resulting picture look like?
5. Who are the audience, and what is the text hoping to tell them? To ask the lawyer’s question (and I think that legal experience can be helpful here), Cui bono? Again, there may be indications in more than one direction (as there are in the Didache), and this too is part of the answer to #1.
To end with Tom’s conclusion, “The conclusion is a “map” that shows how each paragraph in the text advances the author’s intended purpose.” I would agree in a general sort of way. But given the nature of the text (which is yet to be determined), that map might also show where an original authorial impulse has been interfered with, or been subject to a second inspiration, or simply been silted over by later enthusiastic additions by other hands (as happened to the Chinese “Art of War,” or as we see happening in the second phase, the less stylistically Semitic phase, of the Acts of the Apostles). The assumption that the final map will be explicable in terms of a single author with a single purpose is to me a dangerous one.
Why dangerous? Because people in this line of work tend to be schooled in eliciting consistency. That is, they can produce, by an explanatory process, consistency where diversity originally existed. The whole art of hermeneutics probably had its origin in the problem of disparities and contradictions in the Gospels, and in the conviction that somehow these had to be telling the same story. On the Chinese side, we have a brilliant exposition by Ju Syi (Sung Dynasty, more than a thousand years after the classical period) of all the major Chinese classics, showing that they preach exactly the same doctrine. In fact, they don’t, and the evolution of political and other doctrines in the classical period is probably the one most significant fact about the classical period itself. In Ju Syi’s interpretation (which is still dominant in China, one ignores it at one’s peril), that ancient process of doctrinal and theoretical evolution is compressed into a single philosophy. It is a tour de force of preaching, but it is, and to the same extent, a disaster from the critical-historical point of view.
Which is to say, as many have said, that the critical-historical approach is a different thing than the expository-explicative approach. Those who want a third example can check out the controversies in the Homer camp. (Warning: This is a hard hat area).
It may sometimes happen that the result of critical-historical work coincides with the result of an effort to reveal the meaning and relevance of a text for modern readers. But I think that for any ancient text, those cases are likely to be few. The least convincing answer to the Audience question, as far as my experience goes, is that the audience of an ancient text was Ourselves. More commonly, it was a bunch of people somewhere else, doing and hoping different things.
So to return to Thomas, if I had five people available, I would set four of them to work on the above items #2 through #5, reporting all the while to the fifth person, the group coordinator, and caucusing among themselves twice a week to compare notes and cross-fertilize. I should think (especially given the amount of previous work that is available for consultation) that useful results might be obtained in a couple of months. Is anybody interested?
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
In Response To: Tom Reynolds and Bruce Brooks
On: Text Study
From: Jack Kilmon
4. Are there echoes or parallels in outside texts, and if so, what is their directionality? Do all the parallels point to the same date of compo sition, or to several successive dates? A good deal of work has been done on Thomas from this point of view, most of it having to do with Matthew and Luke, and most of that (not, I think, quite all) suggesting that Thomas is posterior to those portions of Matthew and Luke. But what about Mark? If we ask the same question of Paul, we get Mark all over the oscilloscope screen. Right? If we take a chart of Thomas, and color in the parts that have some sort of parallel in Mark, what does the resulting picture look like?
JACK] Those parallels and parts of them are listed below. Biblical scholarship is a mind field of imagination exertion and everyone is going over the same Greek and Coptic texts over and over again. Any random thought becomes a new “discovery.” I am interested very specifically on the vox Iesu, the genuine sayings and aphorisms which when considered in the context of late 2nd temple social and cultural anthropology MIGHT give us some insights. Obviously linguistics is key, yet very, very few New Testament scholars or Jesus historians are facile in Judean Aramaic. The Gospels are in Greek and the sayings of Jesus have to be reconstructed in his own language which means occasionally peeling off agenda based redaction first. We want to ask ourselves the question, “did Jesus/Yeshua say this and why the hell did he say it?” Yes, a number of the genuine Jesus sayings in Thomas (about half the logia) are more “pristine” Jesus stuff and there is some Gnostic redaction designed to reflect Gnostic thought but they appear to have been applied to the “non-Jesus stuff” perhaps displaying a respect for the genuine stuff. Of course, assuming you are referring to the Nag Hammadi Thomas, the durn thing is in Coptic. Now we have the additional burden of sayings that were originally in Aramaic translated to Greek (which is bad enough idiomatically), then the Greek is translated to Coptic, a mixture of Greek and Middle Egyptian.The Thomas logia that have parallels or segments in Luke/Q1&2 are 4a, 6b, 14b, 16, 21b, 26, 33b, 36, 39, 41, 45, 46a, 47b, 54, 55a, 64a, 68a, 69b, 73, 76b, 78, 86, 89, 91, 94, 95, 96, 107.I would add 35a, 44a, 5b. 20a, 48, 106Mark parallels in Q are 3:23-26, 27. 28-29; 4:21, 22, 24, 25; 4:30-32; 6:8-11; 8:10-13; 8:34, 35, 38; 9:42, 50; 10:10-12; 10:31; 11:23, 25; 12:38-39; 13:11Also the first sentence of 2, the first half of 3, "For many of the first will be last" of Logion 4 (the rest is gnostic reformulation), 5, only one sentence of 8 ("Anyone with two ears had better listen"), 10, 12, 21:9-10, one sentence of 22 (The nursing babies), one sentence of 24 (the ears), the first half of 25, 26, 32, 34, 36, 39:3, 40, 46, 54, 55, 57, 62:2, 63, 65, 68, 69:2, 76, 78, 79:2, 81:2, 82, 86, 89, 92:1, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 103, 106:2, 107, 109, 113.
The Thomas logia found in Mark are 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 20, 21, 31, 33, 35, 41, 44, 45, 47, 48, 62, 64, 66, 100.We have correspondences between Mark/Q parallels and Thomas/Q parallels at Logia 4, 5, 6, 14, 20, 33, 35, 41, 44, 48, 55, 106 so a third of those Q sayings DO occur in Mark's gospel and I would bet there were more in the original Mark.Given half of the GoT comes down as genuine sayings of Jesus while the other half are invented by later editors, be they ascetic or Gnostic, there are multiple unknown authors of the invented logia. Concentrating on the genuine sayings, other than the first layer author being Jesus, in oral form and in Aramaic, the reporting author may be discernible. Scholarly consensus is that Mark USED an early Thomas but my conclusion is that MARK is the author of Thomas which may have been an Aramaic “Jesus said...” notebook used in the composition of his gospel. My opinion is that Mark did not use Thomas, he WROTE Thomas. That is what your chart would suggest.Regards,Jack KilmonHouston, TX
In Response To: Jack Kilmon
On: Jesus Sayings in Thomas
Jack: Yes, a number of the genuine Jesus sayings in Thomas (about half the logia) are more “pristine” Jesus stuff
Bruce: Which ones? There follows a list of Thomas sayings with Synoptic parallels. Are all these, and no others, in the “pristine Jesus” category?
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
- Resopnse to Jack Kilmon�Jack: Combining your process with Professor Russell's�I propose we attempt to recreate the original GTh�by removing all the non-pristine sayings of Yeshua/Jesus from GTh, then reading the result to see if we can ascertain the original author's purpose.�We are making the assumption that all GTh sayings that have Synoptic parallels are "pristine" but potentially redacted for the original author's purpose and sayings without a Synoptic parallel are later additions, no? We are also assuming that the original author has an overall purpose and the original GTh is not just a memory list of an orator, no?�This is quite a set of�assumption but the results may be very interesting.�Tom Reynolds
I am resisting the temptation to simply dismiss Mr. Reynolds’s proposed "textual mapping" strategy out of hand because Russell's strategy assumes (a) that the author HAD some kind of message or point, that (b) the text in question had a single "author" and (c) that we have in any way an intimate familiarity with the socio/cultural sitz im leben in which the "composition" occurred.
With respect to item (b) it is almost beyond questioning that GTh had precursor texts (at a minimum, the POxy material and arguably others, as well). There can be, therefore no "author" and hence no consistent argument (tem a).
But, even if we set aside for the moment (a) and (b) we still have the insurmountable problem of the huge historical chasm between us the text. At a minimum we need to know the original language of the text. Reading it in translation simply does not feed the bulldog.
Finally, for what it is worth I'm skeptical about Russell's stature as a critical scholar given his list of publications (e.g., "Facing the Pain of Dementia" and "The role of the Body Discipleship in Fulfilling the Great Commission" all sound like the musings of a preacher, not a scholar).
- > Scholarly consensus is that Mark USED an early Thomas ...Now Jack, you know better. Steve Davies proposed that in a paper, true, but it'shad about as much acceptance as your own opinion that Mark wrote Thomas.To Tom -You're also assuming that the original GTh had nothing but canonical parallelsor pseudo-parallels. It may be useful to separate the two "halves" of CGT, butwe can't assume that in doing so, we'll be isolating the original. (In a way, thisreminds me of Bill Arnal's old try, which Davies disputed.)Mike Grondin
- Response to: Rick Hubbard�Professor Russell's approach assumes that the author had a point which may not be true with GTh. In addition, it may take some consideable redaction on out part of the current GTh to arrive at a text that contains the original author's intent even if there is one.�However, these difficulties do not mean we shouldn't try it because most authors of texts DO have�a purpose. In my view, simply dismissing a GTh as a list of sayings is a decision that should be revisited using the varied and creative capabilities of this forum. We should try to make sense of GTh using whatever method we desire to postulate the original text.�In other words, I am proposing original work by this body as opposed to just discussing what others write about GTh. If only I and my friends perform this task the results will be strongly colored by the Synoptic Gospels and their orthodox intrepretations. That is not the varied conclusions�I evision from this group. On the other hand, if nobody can consturct a redaction that has a purpose we have develeoped evidence that GTh is, and always was, simply a list without a specific purpose.�Whatever one may think of Professor Russell, I can personally assure this group that this process had provided me new insite into various NT texts and those conclusions are often at odds with respected scholars conclusions.�We do not have Jesus's words, spoken in Aramaic or even a Greek text (a presumed 1st century text) but we can correct for the culture. I have a commentary "Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels" �by Bruce Malina and Richard L. Rohrbarg and also have "The New Testament World", also by Bruce J. Malina. In "The New Testament World" Malina describes the culture while in the "Social Science Commentary..." each Synoptic, paragraph by paragraph, is reintrepreted in light of the 1st century culture. What I have is essentially a social science explanation of each of the sayings of GTh that also appear in a Synoptic Gospel.�For my approach, I am going to assume that the original GTh did contain all the sayings also found in a Synoptic as a starting point. However, I am not assuming that GTh did not contain other sayings. using only the Synoptic parallels I will try to recreate the original author's purpose. If I am successful�I will then enter the other sayings one-by-one to see how they fit.�This is, of course, not the only feasable approach. One could do the opposite-eliminate all the Synoptic parallels on the assumption that they were added to provide legitimancy and evaluate the remains.�Regards,�Tom Reynolds
- > Scholarly consensus is that Mark USED an early Thomas ...MIKE] Now Jack, you know better. Steve Davies proposed that in a paper, true, but it'shad about as much acceptance as your own opinion that Mark wrote Thomas.JACK] Well, Mike, I didn’t accept it either but my opinion that Thomas originated in Markan notes has not been published other than our chats here. Without being presented to the collegium for acceptance or denial, I have not been able to assess other opinions, and why. I can understand why Steve reached his opinion. I am willing to listen...er...read counterarguments and consider them other than just a “nuh-UH!” Of course I could be wrong but remembering I am the “follow the Aramaic guy” I just need to know why. Let’s look at the Thomas and Mark parallels:Thomas logia in order of appearance in Mark (and Aramaic structures common to Thomas and Mark):
THOMAS104 They said to Jesus, "Come, let us pray today, and let us fast."
Mar 2:18 And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to
fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of
the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?
Mar 2:19 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the
bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have
the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.
Mar 2:20 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken
away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.
Matthew (9:15) and Luke (5:35) get this from MARK rather than also using
Thomas. Mark uses Thomas because Mark WROTE Thomas.
THOMAS47 Jesus said, "A person cannot mount two horses or bend two bows. And
a slave cannot serve two masters, otherwise that slave will honor the one
and offend the other.
"Nobody drinks aged wine and immediately wants to drink young wine. Young
wine is not poured into old wineskins, or they might break, and aged wine is
not poured into a new wineskin, or it might spoil.
Again Mark uses this for his Gospel, redacting it from the notes, and
Matthew and Luke get it from Mark with their own treatment. Mat 6:24;
9:16-17; Lk 16:13, 5:39, 5:36-38.
Mar 2:22 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new
wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will
be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.
THOMAS47e An old patch is not sewn onto a new garment, since it would create
Mar 2:21 No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old
garment else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and
the rent is made worse.
The Aramaic interference here, which I believe traces a path from Mark to
Asyndeton. Omission of article from sxisma. Swete; Gospel acc. To St. Mark
Greek rendering of Aramaic status emphaticus wrongly understood as
indefinite noun. Anarthrous in Aramaic yet definite (Black p95-95).
Asyndeton is contrary to Greek spirit and usage. Most Greek sentences
connected by particle. Asyndeton is highly characteristic of Aramaic. One
of the striking features of Gospel of John (E. A. Abbott Johannine Grammar)attributed By C. F. Burney to an Aramaic original (Aramaic Orgin.) p49. That's a
THOMAS35 Jesus said, "One can't enter a strong person's house and take it by force without tying his hands. Then one can loot his house."
Mar 3:27 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.
Matthew picks this up from Mark (Mt 12:29) and Luke gets it from either Mark also or from Matthew (Lk 11:21-22)
THOMAS44 Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven."
Mar 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
amarthmatoj is another sense of xwbh, j.t. marshall Expositor ser iv, iii, p282f
Mar 3:30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.
Matthew again gets it from Thomas (Mt. 12:31-32) and Luke 12: 10 from either Mark or Matthew (depending on your synoptic problem bent)
THOMAS 99 The disciples said to him, "Your brothers and your mother are standing outside." He said to them, "Those here who do what my Father wants are my brothers and my mother. They are the ones who will enter my Father's kingdom."
Mar 3:31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
Mar 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
Mar 3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
Mar 3:34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mar 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
Again the Markan "Jesus said.." note which is Thomas 99 is expanded in Mark's gospel and picked up from Mark by Matthew (12:46-50) and Luke (8:19-21).
THOMAS9 Jesus said, Look, the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), and
scattered (them). Some fell on the road, and the birds came and gathered
them. Others fell on rock, and they didn't take root in the soil and didn't
produce heads of grain. Others fell on thorns, and they choked the seeds and
worms ate them. And others fell on good soil, and it produced a good crop:
it yielded sixty per measure and one hundred twenty per measure.
Mar 4:3 Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow:
Mar 4:4 And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.
Mar 4:5 And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:
Mar 4:6 But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.
Mar 4:7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.
Mar 4:8 And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.
Mar 4:9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Here Matthew (13: 3-8) gets this from Mark as does Luke (8: 5-8) and, IMO, all started as Mark's Aramaic "Jesus said.." notes.
Not one incidence of hypotactic aorist participle yet in Greek aorist
participle describing events anterior to action of verb is regular. In Lk
xv 11-32 (prod son) the subordinating aorist participle occurs 11 times.
Its absence in par. of sower (mk 4:3-9) is characteristic of translation
Greek.. Literally translated Greek version of an Aramaic story by Jesus.
Wellhausen Einl. P13.
THOMAS62 Jesus said, "I disclose my mysteries to those [who are worthy] of [my] mysteries. Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing."
Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:
In Mark 4:11, 12 the saying is not a simple translation of the Aramaic but
the author's Greek literary Interpretation of material from his original
Aramaic "Jesus said.." source.
Matthew (13:11, 13-15) and Luke (8:10) get this from Mark because they both follow Mark's redaction of his note (Thomas).
THOMAS33 Jesus said, "What you will hear in your ear, in the other ear proclaim from your rooftops.
"After all, no one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, nor does one put
it in a hidden place. Rather, one puts it on a lampstand so that all who
come and go will see its light."
Mar 4:21 And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?
Matthew (5:15;10:27) and Luke (8:16;12:3) get this from Mark and Mark truncates his Thomas note rather than expand it.
THOMAS5 Jesus said, Know what is in front of your face and what is hidden
from you will be disclosed to you for there is nothing hidden that will not
THOMAS6 His disciples asked him and said to him, "Do you want us to fast?
How should we pray? Should we give to charity? What diet should we observe?"
Jesus said, "Don't lie, and don't do what you hate, because all things are
disclosed before heaven. After all, there is nothing hidden that will not be
revealed, and there is nothing covered up that will remain undisclosed."
Mar 4:22 For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad.
Here I think Logion 5 is the original Markan/Thomas note that became Mark
4:22 and used by Matthew and Luke (Mt 10:26, Lk 12:2, Lk 8:17). I think
Logion 6 is a later Gnostic "tweaking" using Logion 5 (hence the
juxtaposition) and redacting back the Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 Golden
THOMAS21f When the crop ripened, he came quickly carrying a sickle and
harvested it. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!
Mar 4:23 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
<Aramaic> an anash ith laych iDENeh d'yiSHEMo yiSHEMo
Apparently commonly used by Jesus passed to Mark (from Peter?) who wrote it in
his "Jesus saids..." (Thomas) as a conclusion to parables (as in Logion 8,
21, 24, 65, 96) and used by Mark in his Gospel for the sower parable (4:9)
and the "hidden and revealed" aphorism (4:23) and picked up by Matthew and
Luke to conclude the sower parable (another strong indicator of Matthew and
Luke using Mark).
THOMAS41 Jesus said, "Whoever has something in hand will be given more, and
whoever has nothing will be deprived of even the little they have."
Mark uses this in his gospel:
Mar 4:25 For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath
not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.
...with little change in style and syntax.
Now this is interesting....both Matthew (25:29) and Luke (19:26) pick this
up from Mark with little redaction but both Matthew (13:2) and Luke (8:18)
use it earlier in their gospels somewhat embellished. Two separate sources?
THOMAS21e When the crop ripened, he came quickly carrying a sickle and
harvested it. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!
This sickle and harvest aphorism is found ONLY in Thomas and Mark, another indicator to me that Thomas IS Mark.
Mar 4:26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground;
The Aramaic paronomasia evident in both Mark and Thomas
d'aloho ayk anash denarmeh zara d'ara
seed zar'a ground 'ar`a
Mar 4:27 And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how.
Mar 4:28 For the earth 'ar`a bringeth forth fruit par`a of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.
Mar 4:29 But when the fruit is brought forth,
Kadh yehibha 'ibbah
immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.
Shallah magla dah'sadha 'abbibh
...is very Markan to me.
THOMAS20 The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us what Heaven's kingdom is like."
He said to them, It's like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds, but when it falls on prepared soil, it produces a large plant and becomes a shelter for birds of the sky.
Mar 4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?
Mar 4:31 [It is] like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
Mar 4:32 But when it is sown (zera) , it groweth (rabhi) up,
Key sounds laryngeal and sonant resh form the paronomasia. No paranomasia is more certain in the gospels and it is recoverable only from Mark.
.... and becometh greater (rabba) than all herbs, (zeroin) and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.
Matthew 13:31-32; Luke 13:18-19 get this from Mark and Mark got it from his notes (Thomas). Of course, Luke could have taken it from Matthew but the original source was Mark's notes of "Jesus saids..." in Aramaic which he copied into his gospel in Greek.
THOMAS31 Jesus said, "No prophet is welcome on his home turf; doctors don't cure those who know them."
Mar 6:1 And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.
Mar 6:2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing [him] were astonished, saying, From whence hath this [man] these things? and what wisdom [is] this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Mar 6:4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
Mar 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed [them].
Mar 6:6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.
Note that the "Jesus said.." is at Mark 6:4 and the rest is a story around
it...a story probably developed by Mark to fit the logion. The story then
passes from Mark to Matthew (13:57) and Luke (4:24) with some redaction
THOMAS14c After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather,
it's what comes out of your mouth that will defile you."
Mar 7:14 And when he had called all the people [unto him], he said
unto them, Hearken unto me every one [of you], and understand:
Mar 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into
him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they
that defile the man.
Matthew uses this at 15:11 but Luke omits it which I find interesting. In
the Aramaic idiom, food....bread and wine...are used for teachings and
eating and drinking, taking in those teachings. Poison represents bad
teachings. You can hear all sorts of bad stuff and it will not defile you
unless you repeat it to others. Very Yeshuine and, I believe, in the
original "Jesus saids.."
Good persons produce good from what they've stored up; bad persons produce
evil from the wickedness they've stored up in their hearts, and say evil
things. For from the overflow of the heart they produce evil."
This is related to logion 14 and appears to be midrashed by Matthew (7:16-20; 12:33-35) and Luke (6:43-45) and also by Mark himself:
Mar 7:17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
Mar 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, [it] cannot defile him;
Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
Mar 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Mar 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
THOMAS48 Jesus said, "If two make peace with each other in a single house,
they will say to the mountain, 'Move from here!' and it will move."
Mar 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto
this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not
doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall
come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
Matthew (17:20; 21:21) and Luke (17:6 both pick this up.
THOMAS65 He said, A [...] person owned a vineyard and rented it to some
farmers, so they could work it and he could collect its crop from them. He
sent his slave so the farmers would give him the vineyard's crop. They
grabbed him, beat him, and almost killed him, and the slave returned and
told his master. His master said, "Perhaps he didn't know them." He sent
another slave, and the farmers beat that one as well. Then the master sent
his son and said, "Perhaps they'll show my son some respect." Because the
farmers knew that he was the heir to the vineyard, they grabbed him and
killed him. Anyone here with two ears had better listen!
Mark allegorizes this parable when he writes the gospel:
Mar 12:1 And he began to speak unto them by parables. A [certain]
man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about [it], and digged [a place
for] the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went
into a far country.
Mar 12:2 And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant,
that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.
Mar 12:3 And they caught [him], and beat him, and sent [him] away
Mar 12:4 And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him
they cast stones, and wounded [him] in the head, and sent [him] away
Mar 12:5 And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many
others; beating some, and killing some.
Mar 12:6 Having yet therefore one son, his well beloved, he sent
him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.
Mar 12:7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the
heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.
Mar 12:8 And they took him, and killed [him], and cast [him] out of
Mar 12:9 What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will
come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.
And Matthew (21:33-39) and Luke (20:9-15) again show their dependence on
Mark appending the Vineyard story with Logion 66:
THOMAS66 Jesus said, "Show me the stone that the builders rejected: that is the keystone."
Mark does not change his note:
Mar 12:10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
- Tom Wrote: "Professor Russell's approach assumes that the author had a point which may not be true with GTh. In addition, it may take some considerable [sic] redaction on out [sic] part of the current GTh to arrive at a text that contains the original author's intent even if there is one."
Rick Replies: What you seem to be saying here is that we (readers) must redact" (=excise) the text until the remnants cohere with a pre-determined menu of possible intentions. That, it seems to me, imposes an extreme injustice to the text as it stands now.
Tom Wrote: "However, these difficulties do not mean we shouldn't try it because most authors of texts DO have a purpose. In my view, simply dismissing a GTh as a list of sayings is a decision that should be revisited using the varied and creative capabilities of this forum. We should try to make sense of GTh using whatever method we desire to postulate the original text."
Rick Replies: First, I concur that nothing is written without a reason. For example if I write a phone number on a sticky note, I probably did so because I want to call the number later. Of course there are other possibilities as well. Maybe I want to give that number to someone else for some reason. Maybe I want to find out who the number belongs to. Hell, maybe I just like to collect phone numbers; who knows?
Second, I somewhat agree that "dismissing GTh as a list of sayings" is not a good tactic, but at the same time we can't deny that it COULD be just a list of sayings (perhaps similar, for example, to the Sentences of Sextus" or even that is a repository of snippets recovered from discarded manuscripts in a trash heap). Whether or not there exists the necessary competencies held by the members of this forum to appropriately revisit the issue is another matter. Personally, I would prefer to discuss the arguments about "authorship and dating "already made in peer reviewed literature (although I concede that you do not agree with this approach)
Tom Wrote: " .., I can personally assure this group that this process had provided me new insite [sic] into various NT texts and those conclusions are often at odds with respected scholars conclusions."
Rick Replies: When a single individual is "often at odds with respected scholars" I immediately see a red flag. It prompts me to wonder about the qualifications said individual might have in order to be so frequently in disagreement with credentialed scholars. I wonder also about the depth and breadth of research (beyond the two works of Malina and Rohrbaugh, both of which are secondary works). Has the person done research on the PRIMARY texts involved (which begs the further question, "Does the person have competency in the original languages?").
Finally, arbitrarily discarding portions of the text of GTh "on the assumption that they were added to provide legitimancy [sic]" in order to arrive at a more workable text is simply bad, bad scholarship for anyone. I repeat what I said above: "That, it seems to me, imposes an extreme injustice to the text as it stands now."
BTW, would you be considerate enough to spell-check your posts before you send them (or have you decided to be "at odds" with spelling conventions?).
- Reply To: Rick HubbardIf you are of the opinion that my approach presented is ill advised or will likely be unfruitful, I can certainly understand your position.However, some of your comments underline why I tend to distrust conventional scholars. For example, estimates range from 2%-4% literacy to 5%-10% with literacy concentrated in the upper classes so it is unlikely you would be unable to make a list of phone numbers and even if you could, it would be difficult and expensive given the writing apparatus of the day. This is the point that Malina makes, that the culture was vastly different in NT times and we need to remove or colored glasses of our 21st century industrial revolution society in order to understand the texts of that time. It is possible, but very unlikely, that the original GTh was simply a list of sayings in an unorganized manner.Another lesson from cultural anthropology is that detailed study of the text without understanding the culture is unfruitful. As you rightly point out, the sayings of Jesus were spoken in Aramaic, written down in Greek and the copy we have is Coptic. What is left out is that the sayings were spoken by Jesus in Aramaic, distributed orally in Aramaic, translated orally from Aramaic to Greek and written down much later in Greek and later in Coptic. (We have Greek and partially Greek speaking churches long before any of the Gospels were written) When Luke researched his Gospel/Acts he noted that there were many written text and eyewitnesses remaining and he identifies both a sources. So, scholars conclude that Matthew/Luke is dependent on Mark (and a Q document) and Thomas is dependent on all three or maybe all three were dependent on Thomas when cultural anthropology says the eyewitness source would be preferred. Possibly nobody is dependent on anybody for all simply used the same oral source. In fact one writer states that he would rather talk with companions of the Apostles than consult the text.An example of interpretation from social science is the curious statements of female becoming male (GT114). However in Lk 10:38-42 we have Malina’s commentary that Martha was acting properly (in the role of a woman) while Mary was acting improperly (in the role of a man) yet Jesus commends Mary (“has chosen the good part” NASB) Malina talks about 1st century culture being high-context (everybody knew their roles). Lk 10:38-42 may well have been instantly understood as Jesus commending Mary as rejecting the woman’s role in favor of the man’s. Therefore I am not so sure that GT 114 has no parallel in a Synoptic. The concept may be there but not the text.In fact I am looking at a recurring thread in GT where Jesus is saying that one must throw off the roles defined by society in light of NT teaching that makes the identical point once one understands the culture.Regards,Tom Reynolds
- Tom- It looks like you found a spell checker. Many thanks.
Tom Writes: If you are of the opinion that my approach presented is ill advised or will likely be unfruitful, I can certainly understand your position.
Rick Replies: Let me clarify. I have no objection to the idea of examining GTh against its socio/political backdrop (insofar as that is possible). Many of the scholars that you seem to hold in disdain are doing that very thing. I daresay, however, they have prepared for their work by reading more than just a few commentaries. Unless and until you can demonstrate that you are equally well prepared I am not likely to be persuaded by someone who proclaims a demonstrated history of "being at odds with the conclusions of respected (or at least well-credentialed) scholars.
Tom Writes: <snip> "….. [C]ulture was vastly different in NT times and we need to remove or [sic] colored glasses of our 21st century industrial revolution society in order to understand the texts of that time."
Rick Replies: What you write is a truism if there ever was one. We are no less than 17 or 18 centuries temporally removed from the probable time of composition for the Gospel of Thomas manuscript. It is written in a language few people can even name, much less read. We know with near certainty that there is a Hellenistic Greek vorlage behind the sayings manuscript. It is also likely that there may have been some other antecedents to the Coptic version of Thomas, perhaps in written in Aramaic and Syriac. How do you propose to divine the "author's purpose" unless you have competency in at least **some** of those languages? (Of course maybe you do have such competency, however given your independent streak, I'd be surprised if you have bothered to take the time to become even vaguely familiar with them.) Moreover, the vast cultural difference of which you speak extends far beyond the matters of time and language. Aside from reading about the culture of the Levant during the early centuries of the Common Era, how do you propose to merely remove "21st century colored glasses" and gain intimate cultural familiarity?
Tom Writes: <snip> ". . . .[T]he sayings were spoken by Jesus in Aramaic, distributed orally in Aramaic, translated orally from Aramaic to Greek and written down much later in Greek and later in Coptic.
Rick Replies: Let me just ask: Can you cite two or more credible secondary sources that concur and two that do not agree with this summary? It sounds to me like you are picking and choosing that which suits your fancy without acknowledging that this matter is not firmly settled.
Tom Writes: (We have Greek and partially Greek speaking churches long before any of the Gospels were written).
Rick replies: This is an interesting assertion, Tom. What date would you assign to the composition of "the gospels"? What do you mean by "partially Greek speaking"? How would you define a "church"?
Tom Writes: "So, scholars conclude that Matthew/Luke is dependent on Mark (and a Q document) and Thomas is dependent on all three. . . ."
Rick Replies: Your flair for making broad (and often unsubstantiated) assertions is of truly biblical proportions, Tom. I am flabbergasted that you have managed to condense a century's worth of Synoptic problem research into such a dramatically over-simplified and misleading sentence. Have you heard of the Farrer theory? How about the Griesbach hypothesis? What do you make of Mark Goodacre's book, The Case Against Q?
Finally: Tom, did you really mean to say that you are "….looking at a recurring thread in GT where Jesus is saying that ONE MUST THROW OFF THE ROLES DEFINED BY SOCIETY IN LIGHT OF NT TEACHING. . ."? Of course you didn't say that. I took it waaaaay out of context but it really struck me as amusing after I butchered the sentence a bit.
- To: GThos
In Comment on: a remark of Rick Hubbard
I recently posted a comment on methodology with texts, not much at variance
with much of what Rick says in his most recent post. At one point, however,
I think a correction might be in order.
Tom Reynolds: . . . So, scholars conclude that Matthew/Luke is dependent on
Mark (and a Q document) . . .
Rick [Addressing Tom]: Have you heard of the Farrer theory? How about the
Griesbach hypothesis? What do you make of Mark Goodacre's book, The Case
Bruce: I, for one, have heard of these and other theories. But if we fairly
survey the recent NT scene, I cannot think that it is objectionable to
describe the consensus as Markan Priority Plus Q.
Other stuff is certainly out there, but at the fringes. It is true that the
fringes have been getting a lot of play at recent SBL meetings. Matthean
Priority (Griesbach), Johannine Priority, the 2nd century Luke; you name it,
and SBL 2013 has a panel devoted to it. That is a fact with its own
historical basis, a basis which it would perhaps be indiscreet to examine
As for Farrer (or Farrer-Goulder) in particular, I suggest looking at
Michael Goulder's last writings. In them he speaks of convincing his
colleagues as a matter in the possible future tense. He does not speak of
that theory as having conquered the world of NT scholarship, or even as
having a secure position of acceptance within a substantial part of it. That
other persons since Michael died (2010) have continued to explore it, and
even advocate it, is true. But that truth probably does not overturn
Michael's own sense of how far FG had progressed, in the academy of his day.
If MkG, who is present, has a different sense of the state of the balance of
present-day NT opinion, he is perhaps the right person to give it. Pending
which, Mk/Q strikes me as a fair description of what most NT persons who
think about the matter at all, actually think.
Not that the majority, or even the consensus (presumably a supermajority)
need be correct. My 7th grade civics teacher used to surprise the class by
saying, The majority are always wrong. But that is a different question than
what the majority opinion IS.
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
- Hi Jack -Even the first item in your long list of Mark-Thomas parallels indicates what'swrong with the list, namely that it doesn't show what you think it shows. Thefirst item (in Markan order) is L104, which in Thomas talks about fasting andpraying. But the Markan parallel doesn't mention praying. Nor does Matthew.But Luke does - in spite of the fact that the main emphasis of the pericope ison fasting, not prayer. So what's your explanation? That when Mark wrote hisgospel, he dropped the two mentions of prayer that were in his "notes" at thatpoint, and that later, Luke snuck it back in again? What this comes down to isthat it isn't sufficient to just compare Thomas and Mark. That's only the oneside of it. You also have to account for the prima facie contrary evidence ofuniquely Matthean and/or Lukan touches that are paralleled in Thomas butnot in Mark.Cheers,Mike G.
- So what's wrong with assuming a basic original Thomas was incorporated into a new Greek expanded edition/ revision/redaction of the Sayings of Jesus created circa 90-110 CE that also eclectically borrowed from the Matthean/Lukan Gospels along with other then-extant works. Must we assume a Matthean/Lukan dependence?Don't see it.Not that I agree with Jack's thesis. either.Ron McCannSaskatoon, Canada----- Original Message -----From: Mike GrondinSent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 3:19 PMSubject: Re: [GTh] Authorship and Dating GTh
Hi Jack -Even the first item in your long list of Mark-Thomas parallels indicates what'swrong with the list, namely that it doesn't show what you think it shows. Thefirst item (in Markan order) is L104, which in Thomas talks about fasting andpraying. But the Markan parallel doesn't mention praying. Nor does Matthew.But Luke does - in spite of the fact that the main emphasis of the pericope ison fasting, not prayer. So what's your explanation? That when Mark wrote hisgospel, he dropped the two mentions of prayer that were in his "notes" at thatpoint, and that later, Luke snuck it back in again? What this comes down to isthat it isn't sufficient to just compare Thomas and Mark. That's only the oneside of it. You also have to account for the prima facie contrary evidence ofuniquely Matthean and/or Lukan touches that are paralleled in Thomas butnot in Mark.Cheers,Mike G.
In Response To: Ron McCann
On: Original Thomas
Ron: So what's wrong with assuming a basic original Thomas was incorporated into a new Greek expanded edition/ revision/redaction of the Sayings of Jesus created circa 90-110 CE that also eclectically borrowed from the Matthean/Lukan Gospels along with other then-extant works. Must we assume a Matthean/Lukan dependence?
Bruce: What’s wrong with it is that the supposed “original Thomas” has not been displayed. What would seem to be required is to (1) strip present Thomas of all Synoptically related passages, and any others which can be argued to be secondary, and then (2) show that what is left makes consecutive sense as a text in its own right.
A complete account would also include (3) an assessment of the extent to which the addition of the Synoptic material (and any other passages thought to be late additions) changed the focus or content of the original Thomas.
I would be content to see (1) and (2). Without at least that much of a statement of the hypothesis, I don’t see that there is anything to discuss.
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
- [Ron McCann, emphasis mine]:So what's wrong with assuming a basic original Thomas was incorporated into a new Greek expanded edition/ revision/redaction of the Sayings of Jesus created circa 90-110 CE that also eclectically borrowed from the Matthean/Lukan Gospels along with other then-extant works. Mustwe assume a Matthean/Lukan dependence? Don't see it.Hi Ron,I think 'assume' is the wrong word here, since it's surely wrong to assume eitherof the views you mention. If one thinks that Mark Goodacre (or someone else) haspresented a good case that some Greek GThom sayings mimic textual mannerismstypical of Matt or Luke, but not typical of GThom itself in general, that isn't anassumption, but rather a judgement about the strength of a case. As to your own (?)view, I wouldn't go as far as Bruce Brooks, in suggesting that it would be necessary tojettison all synoptic-related material in order to find a hypothetical original GThom (isn'tthat rather like jettisoning everything commonplace in order to find the authentic Jesus?),but I do agree that such a view can't be assumed, either. You may, of course, subscribeto the results of attempts by DeConick or others to do this sort of thing, but of coursethey themselves had to justify their views via the justification of their methodologies.Regards,Mike Grondin
- Isn't this basically what they do to uncover Q? (The original Jesus sayings)We do not know that the coptic sayings list , presumably from the Greek ,may have been modifiedafter the fact( been more or less aimed at responding to the Gospel or other accounts the Thomas community had issues with.Does that really make them dependent?RegardsJohn MoonSpringfield,TNOn Mar 4, 2013, at 2:13 AM, Mike Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:t it would be necessary tojettison all synoptic-related material in order to find a hypothetical original GThom (isn'tthat rather like jettisoning everything commonplace in order to find the authentic Jesus?),
- Thanks, Bruce.For what it's worth, some 20 years ago, I did some of what you suggest. I stripped Thomas of all it's sayings with synoptic parallels- to have a look at what was left, and to see if it "made consecutive sense as a text in it's own right".It didn't.What was left was a dog's breakfast of sayings of different styles, content and ideas, all of them unfamiliar and with little cohesion.If anything these seemed like sayings from a variety of sources that had been added later to the rest of the text by either some later collector or editor or perhaps by slow accretion as Deconick suggested. Oversimplifying and generalizing, these approaches both hold that the remaining portion of Thomas- pretty much all those sayings in Thomas WITH synoptic parallels (with the exception of a few that might have been lifted from Matthew and Luke later)- was itself the Original Thomas.I don't think anyone has suggested that the "dog's breakfast" portion is the original Thomas, although in my own view, at least some of those sayings, more than have been proposed thus far, were probably in the original.Ron McCannSaskatoon, Canada
- To: Mike GrudenFrom: Tom ReynoldsMy hypothesis is somewhat different from Ron'sMy Hypothesis: That the original GTh is theologically similar to LK, MK.My analysis is based on a reconstruction of what the original hearers of the Aramaic oral-history would conclude upon hearing the saying/passage that is now preserved in Greek/Coptic. If passages make a similar point I include them in my theoretical original GTh independent of the actual text.My question: From the Greek loanwords that you have identified in GTh, is there evidence that one text is dependent on the other, specifically that the exact Greek construction is used in more than one text?Regards,
- [Tom Renolds]:> My Hypothesis: That the original GTh is theologically similar to LK, MK.It's not going to be easy persuading anyone of that, considering the amount ofcontrary evidence in the text and the number of scholars who believe otherwise.> My question: From the Greek loanwords that you have identified in GTh, is there> evidence that one text is dependent on the other, specifically that the exact Greek> construction is used in more than one text?Well, let's say that I highlighted the Greek loanwords. The actual identificationof them is in Stephen Emmel's index in Bentley Layton's critical study of Codex II.As to the question itself (as I understand it), although there may be special caseswhere the loanwords can tell us something, generally they can't. There are at leasttwo reasons for that: (1) the loanwords are almost always different in some way fromthe corresponding Greek words, and (2) the loanwords don't occur in clumps, i.e.,they're almost always isolated from each other, with Coptic in between. That's whygood analyses (like Mark Goodacre's) of the relationship between Thomas and theSynoptics focus primarily on the wording in the Greek POxy fragments rather thanthat in Coptic Thomas.Mike Grondin
- To: Mike GrondinWell Mike, what I believe is that IF GTh is not similar in thought to the Synoptics then it wasn't the product of the dominant thouroughly Jewish-Christian community that produced Mk, Matt and had a profound effect on LK.Therefore:1. GTh is a second century work of a different community2. A first century work of an alternate community to the dominant Jewish-Christian community that produced the Synoptics3. 2,000 years of the intrepretation of GTh is wrong.This is based on my understanding of the 1st century culture. They were not like us. They were group oriented and defined by the group and defined others by whatever group they were part of. Independent thought was not encouraged. It was a group think culture. Gnostic-like thinking would be rejected by the dominant Jewish-Christian community.Each of the above possibilities presents problems. If it was a second century work, why are quotations from 1st century works included? If it was a first century work of a different community what was that community and what is the evidence that it existed?Regards,Tom Reynolds
To: GThos (GPG to see)
In Response To: Tom Reynolds
Methodologically, it seems that something might be added to Tom’s recent suggestion to the GThomas group. Here are my suggestions.
Tom: IF GTh is not similar in thought to the Synoptics then it wasn't the product of the dominant thoroughly Jewish-Christian community that produced Mk, Matt and had a profound effect on LK.
1. GTh is a second century work of a different community, [or]
2. A first century work of an alternate community to the dominant Jewish-Christian community that produced the Synoptics, [or]
3. 2,000 years of the interpretation of GTh is wrong.
Bruce: I pass by the last. If there are still things to discuss, that is, if the question is still open, then we may gratefully take what seems helpful from previous discourse, and move on.
Jewish-Christian: Is this actually a term with a definite content? In my own experience, it can be used to cover any community of mixed Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus, irrespective of their specific beliefs. We know from Paul’s vituperations that there was a wide range of opinion (and partisan affinity) in the churches to which he writes, which of course include little or nothing of Egypt, Asia, Nabatea, or for that matter Palestine.
Synoptics. Do the Synoptics completely represent the “communities” in which they arose, and were those “communities” in the same place? Mark would seem to represent Galilean tradition, though perhaps from a Jerusalem viewpoint; Matthew’s take on the law implies at least a partial rejection or reconsideration of Paul’s attitude toward the law, a position that one can easily associate with Jerusalem, whether or not the work was written there. Luke, probably Antioch. but evidently from the poorer environs of Antioch, and Matthew might merely be the richer High Christian Churches of that same city. The opposition of rich vs poor is very dramatically developed in Matthew vs Luke; do we take adequate account of these vertical differences? If we do, are the vertical differences sufficient to explain the doctrinal differences? If so, then the term “Antioch” has become nonexclusive to any one of those doctrinal viewpoints.
One way or another, it seems that the categories on which Tom here relies may not be tight, and that there are thus other options on offer from the 1c, let alone any later time, then the ones he mentions.
I would like to see someone comb Paul for signs of spirit enthusiasm leading to a proto-Gnostic position, a position that some have seen further developed in the post-Pauline Colossians and (slightly later) Ephesians. Has such a study been done? If so, I would appreciate a reference.
Communities, as I think Paul is there to remind us, are not homogeneous in themselves, and even if they were, different ones may overlap (as the migrations of known individuals back and forth between Rome and Ephesus suggest).
Do the non-Synoptic parts of GThos suggest anything about the material condition, the economic base, of the people for whom those sayings were written?
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project]
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
- To: BruceI apologize for not defining my term more accurately. In this case I am using Jewish-Christian as the Jewish-Christian residing in Jerusalem. This Church was extremely conservative and objected to Pauline theology. A proper author-centric, historical reading of Romans will disclose that the purpose of the letter is unity between Jewish and Gentile Christians. The historical setting is that Jews were expelled from Rome for a time, losing their leadership in the Roman Church. Returning, they apparently asserted their right to regain leadership because they were Jewish. Paul's rebuke of this is located in Romans 2:25-28. Shortly after writing Romans, Paul arrives in Jerusalem. The extreme animosity between Paul and the Jewish Christians starts in Acts 21:17. The Jewishness of the Jerusalem Christians is evidenced in Acts 21:20 and their objection to Paul's view in Romans 1:25-28 is related in Acts 21:21.What is the point of all this? Simply that the community that the oral traditions that were the basis for all the Gospels was a very conservative Jewish-oriented group. This group would neither develop nor tolerate a Gnostic-slanted oral tradition.I am not certain what you mean by “spirit enthusiasm leading to a proto-Gnostic position” but the early letters of Paul evidence a strong sense of spiritual connection. Notice that in Galatians, possibly written as early as AD49, Paul interrupts his logical rebuke of Gentiles becoming circumcised and appeals to their experience in the Spirit Gal 3:1-5. A very interesting presentation by Luke Timothy Johnson called Experience of the Divine examines the earliest Christian worship and emphasizes their receiving spiritual power from the risen Lord.“Do the Synoptics completely represent the “communities” in which they arose?” No.It is clear that Luck-Acts is influenced by Pauline thought. Luke clearly says that he checked all the evidence Lk 1:1-4 but only includes the Galilean ministry. Understanding that, in the 1st century, thought tended to emanate from the city to the countryside, the foundation of LK was the Palestinian oral tradition but was modified by another community, the community of Paul.Matthew is probably a polemic targeting Jews to become Jewish Christians. It was most probably written after the destruction of the Temple and the loss of the Promised Land. Having lost two of the three pillars of Judaism (Land, Law, Temple), the book of Matthew exhorts Jews to become Christians by demonstrating that Jesus is the Messiah in various ways that would be recognized by the Jewish and Jewish-Christian community.Most interestingly, there is another community, the Johann community probably located in Ephesus, which was able to influence the basic oral tradition. Looking at GTh 46-50 as a unit I see a mishmash of Pauline and Johann thought, thought that would be rejected by the Jewish-Christians of Jerusalem but embraced by both the Pauline and Johann communities.To say GTh 46-50 in modern Christian terms:Christians are a new creation, old things have passed away, they are born again. Christianity is not an evolutionary form of Judaism. It’s a new thing. (46-47)Christians have received power from On High. They are more than conquers and cast mountains into the sea. (48)Christians are from the light, adopted sons of the Most High God. (50)I submit that GTh could not have simply been a product of the basic Jewish-Christian oral tradition and we must find a community that modified that tradition. I have had private discussions with people who audit this forum that find the modifying community in Paul, in John, in a community of Thomas, in the Sethians and, of course, in the 2nd century. Each approach has its attractions and its problems.The alternative is that 2,000 years of interpretation is wrong.Regards,Tom Reynolds
In Response To: Tom Reynolds
On: Jewish-Christian Tradition
I pick out only one sentence.
Tom: I submit that GTh could not have simply been a product of the basic Jewish-Christian oral tradition.
Bruce: I never said it was. More fundamentally, I would counter-submit that (1) the term “Jewish-Christian” does not work very well in making distinctions in this period, (2) there is no “basic” version of early Christian belief, however defined, as the ideological disputes in Paul’s churches will show, the split between “works” (Epistle of James) and “faith” (Paul in Romans) being only the most divisive of many; and (3) in case it should make a difference, the idea that early traditions were transmitted “orally” for decades before being written down in the Gospels is widely held but arguably fallacious: Mark (as some agree) shows all the signs of being early, and Matthew/Luke as belonging to a second generation, when Mark was still respected but had become obsolete theologically.
In short, the terms of analysis are too different for me to make any useful comment on the details of Tom’s latest, and I indicate the differences in lieu of a more extended reply.
E Bruce Brooks
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
- To: Bruce1-There were two versions of Christianity, the Jewish-Christian version in Jerusalem and the Pauline version preached by Paul and his followers. The Jewish-Christian version is the one of the eyewitnesses of Jesus on earth. The fundamental issue was whether Christianity is a variation of Judaism or something new.2-That an oral tradition developed before any written material is axiomatic in the 1st century culture. At most 10% of the population was literate and as little as 2%. (One estimate 5-10% one 2-4%)3-Nobody dates Mark before AD 50 and very few before AD 60 so the oral tradition was around for 2 decades at least and probably 3.One really need to understand the 1st century culture. I recommend Bruce Malina book "New Testament World"Regards,Tom
To: GThomas (GPG)
In Response To: Tom Reynolds
On: The 1st Century
Tom seems to be very positive about his postulates, but I can only respond that they are not the only ones being relied on in the larger NT community, and even if they were, they do not necessarily prove his point. I dislike repeating things, and do so here only on the chance that somebody may find these notes useful. Here, then, are the postulates, with my responses.
Tom: (1) There were two versions of Christianity, the Jewish-Christian version in Jerusalem and the Pauline version preached by Paul and his followers.
Bruce: Paul himself reports at least four versions of Christianity within his own churches, and his direct information is probably not complete. He himself might not include the Jerusalem Christians as real Christians (see Galatians), and the Alexandrian Christians were certainly beyond his ken (whether or not Luke’s claim that Paul had to reinstruct the Alexandrian Apollos is correct, it emblematizes a quite likely situation). I don’t think the question can be reduced to this degree of simplicity.
Tom: The Jewish-Christian version is the one of the eyewitnesses of Jesus on earth.
Bruce: There is likely to have been more than one view of Jesus held by his Jewish followers, probably including the idea that Jesus was dead and that the whole program was off. Else, why the frenzy throughout the rest of the 1c to prove, or assert, that the program was still on, and Jesus would come any minute to bring the world to an end?
Tom: The fundamental issue was whether Christianity is a variation of Judaism or something new.
Bruce: Maybe to modern historians. At the time, I doubt the question presented itself in this way. Were the Essenes new? Were Hosea and Malachi new? Was John the Baptist new? I would think that the answer in all cases is Yes, but this need not mean *entirely* new, having no connection with previous Jewish tradition, let alone defining a departure from Jewish tradition. The process of Christianity and Judaism disentangling from each other seems to have gone on all through the latter part of the 1c and into the 2c (eg, Marcion), with a certain amount of bad language on both sides.
Tom: (2) That an oral tradition developed before any written material is axiomatic in the 1st century culture.
Bruce: or in any other century and culture, including the present age. But we cannot place an exact number on “before.”
Tom: At most 10% of the population was literate and as little as 2%. (One estimate 5-10% one 2-4%).
Bruce: I have seen these figures, and I have seen other figures. Mediterraneanists of my acquaintance, sober and eminent people whose advice I have asked, have not found them convincing, or even felt that there is a firm basis for any such numbers. Literacy (and in what language?) is likely to have varied radically in different places, so even if we did have a Mediterranean average, what good would it be as a factor in a particular situation? Would the Mediterranean average help us or mislead us when applied to the Roman Senate? To the slaves in a Greek silver mine?
Consider also: If one walks down the halls of SBL and shouts “progymnasmata” one will get a large response, from people who emphasize the rhetorical training widely available in the 1c (some near-contemporary teaching manuals survive). There are people out there who maintain that everyone in Galilee was bilingual in Aramaic and Greek. Not that they are automatically correct, but they seem to have the makings of a case. And it goes in the opposite direction from these “literacy” figures.
But suppose that only 3% or 8% of the NT-relevant persons WERE literate in the sense required to produce and profit from the written texts with which we are familiar. What then? Will not the tradition have been in the hands of that 3% or 8%? The rest can have things read to them, and Paul seems to envision that process. On the other hand, for what looks like evidence of a primary readership and not a hearership for Mark, note Mark’s comment in his Caligula prediction of 13:14, “Let the reader understand.” I am not sure that this line has been given the analytical prominence it seems to deserve.
Tom: (3) Nobody dates Mark before AD 50 and very few before AD 60 so the oral tradition was around for 2 decades at least and probably 3.
Bruce: Actually, I am not the only one to envision an early Mark; several have made that suggestion. Let me say at once that I am perfectly willing to be the only one holding this view, because I would then have an entire monopoly of the logical future of NT studies, which would be neat. And perhaps even profitable. But in all honesty, I am going to have to acknowledge a few predecessors, and in fact, am glad to do it. I appreciate their company, and their help in pointing out some of the key passages. I am prepared to share.
I admit that if headcount were all, Mark would be a late text. But on what grounds?
There is something in historical studies called a terminus a quo, a point which a given passage *cannot be earlier than.* Thus, when Jesus warns James and John that they are courting martyrdom by asking for leadership, the chances are extremely good that this was written in view of the actual martyrdom of at least one of them, under Herod Agrippa I in c44 or 45. That passage was thus, at earliest, written in c45, and not before. Is there any passage in Mark which requires a later such date? The Caligula prediction of Mk 13:14, which I mentioned above, can only have been written in the summer of 40, when the threat of desecration of Jewish temples by Caligula’s demand to be worshiped in them, was a live worry (see Josephus). In this case, the limit works both ways: it could NOT have been written in 41 or any subsequent year, because Caligula died in early 41, and the threat immediately vanished (and the prediction thus embarrassingly failed to come off). Then we can say of these two passages in Mark, with some confidence, that one was written in 40 and the other not earlier than 45.
I think, subject as always to correction by those with better information, that these two are the only intrinsic dates in Mark. I notice that both of them precede the year 50. Others have noticed the same thing, as I mentioned above. If nothing in Mark requires a completion date later than 45, and if Luke (with his explicit description of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus’s army in the year 70) must be dated to after 70, we have at minimum a 25-year gap between Mark and Luke. Is this reasonable? 25 years, as it happens, is exactly one average human generation. If we think of Mark as a first-generation Gospel, and Matthew and Luke (clearly close in time) as the second-generation Gospels, a lot of other evidence then comes in to support. For one thing, both Matthew and Luke treat Mark with respect, which is hard to understand if he were merely a competitor, but highly intelligible if he were an established and widespread authority, with whom any prospective later and revisionist authority had to reckon.
And so on. I invite general consideration of the implications. I think they will help us in reading GThos, or any other text from the early Christian age.
Tom: One really need to understand the 1st century culture. I recommend Bruce Malina book "New Testament World"
Bruce: I have dipped into Malina’s writings, and frankly, I don’t find them cogent. He and many others seem to me to be using particular “approaches” to get more, or different, out of the texts than has previously been obtained. I am familiar with the same pattern of “approaches” in literary studies generally, and in my specific field of Sinology. I find the whole tendency unhelpful. Or worse, because it takes attention away from what to me are sounder and more productive (and as is happens, also more traditional) ways of dealing with a text or a corpus of texts.
Efforts (like Malina’s “cultural anthropology”) to get us out of our rut of self and into the mindset and foodset of a different culture are certainly in a sound direction. The discovery by the NT community some decades ago, that Jesus was a Jew, was an important moment of recovery. I just don’t think that anthropological or cultural or any other generalizations about the early Mediterranean world are necessarily helpful in sensitizing us to the dynamics of creation and reception surrounding the specific NT texts and their noncanonical brethren. The “Mediterranean Peasant” approach looks to me like an earlier effort of this type. Trouble with that one is that, though Jesus was undoubtedly a Jew, he was neither Mediterranean (he lived and died in a backwater of the otherwise dominant Greco-Roman culture) nor a peasant (he was the eldest son of a probably prosperous artisan of Nazareth, and probably never sickled a sheave or stomped a grape in his life). We can substitute the Greco-Roman culture of, say, 1c Ephesus (Paul’s late HQ) for our own immediate circumstances, as a check on our unconscious extrapolations of the familiar, and it’s useful in a negative way. But how close does this really get us to Jesus? Or the Zebedee brothers?
I have to wonder.
E Bruce Brooks
University of Massachusetts at Amherst