Dating Thomas by Paul's usage
Paul's teaching about circumcision in no particular order. Since I don't know the proper etiquette concerning verses, I will include the text.
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter;
1 Cor 7:19(a) Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing,
Gal 6:15 for neither is circumcision anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
Phil 3:3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh.
Col 3:11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.
Gospel of Thomas 53 His disciples said to him, "is circumcision useful or not?" He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in the spirit has become profitable in every respect.
What Paul taught mirrors rather closely this particular Thomasine saying.
In Corinth, a dispute over food laws, Jewish food laws, was an issue. 1 Cor 10:27 If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience sake. Chapter 8 of 1 Cor is devoted entirely to food sacrificed to idols.
Thomas 14:2 "When you go into any region and walk about the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into you mouth will not defile you." Interestingly enough Mark 7:15-16 says; there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.
Metaphysical food? 1 Cor 10:3-4 and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.
Thomas 13 Jesus said, " I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended.
To me at least the trajectory of both sayings is too similar to ignore.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Thomas 22 Jesus said to them, "When you make two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in the place of one eye, and hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, and image in place of an image, then you will enter (the kingdom)."
The radical ideal of there being no distinguishing characteristic in believers before God is easily read in both Thomas and Paul. Paul's casual use of the part of the saying that buttresses his argument, and dismissal of the rest is typically Pauline.
Gal 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Thomas 25 Jesus said, "Love your friends like your own soul, protect them like the pupil of your eye.
The similarities are broad, even though what Paul has written resembles more closely Matt 19:19. I tend to believe all three sayings are interpretations from the Common Sayings Tradition influenced by Lev 19:18.
The entire Gospel of Thomas presents Jesus as "Wisdom", 1 Cor 1:24 does so as well.
The above is a compelling argument for a mid first century document very similar to what we know as the Gospel of Thomas.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Jeffrey Fyffe wrote:
>What Paul taught mirrors rather closely this particular Thomasine saying.Or - Thomas mirrors rather closely (some of) what Paul taught (assuming for
the sake of argument that they're as close as you say). There's the rub.
Which was prior to which? (I say this not becuz I'm a late-dater - I'm not
- but becuz even if the passages were identical, we couldn't say which came
first. I suspect you may be falling prey to the same tendency found in
late-daters, namely that of subtly assuming what's to be proven.)
>To me at least the trajectory of both sayings [13 & 14:2] is too similarto ignore.
I myself see some similarities, some differences, and no clear trajectory,
in your examples. Since, IMO, the passages don't really speak for
themselves, I'd like to see more detailed analysis (as in Dave Hindley's
> The radical ideal of there being no distinguishing characteristic inbelievers
> before God is easily read in both Thomas and Paul. Paul's casual use of therest is
> part of the saying that buttresses his argument, and dismissal of the
> typically Pauline.But wasn't this "radical ideal" part and parcel of orthodox practice from
the beginning? What need to postulate a written source? And if Paul's
tendency is as you say (which I think it is, BTW), how can we can we ever
hope to distinguish what's under his "casual use" of sources?
> The entire Gospel of Thomas presents Jesus as "Wisdom", 1 Cor 1:24 doesso as well.
I think I disagree with both parts of this. As to the first part, in spite
of Steve Davies having written a fine book with that as thesis ("The Gospel
of Thomas and Christan Wisdom"), the word 'wisdom' ('sophia') appears not
once in GTh, and Steve's own later views seem to have changed. As to the
second part, Paul seems to be trying to redefine 'wisdom' more than
anything else. In fact, he favorably contrasts what he calls 'foolishness'
with 'human wisdom'. What I think he was doing in that passage was very
similar to what Clement did with 'gnosis' - embrace it, but only on his own
terms - a sort of intellectual bear-hug that squeezed the life out of the
thing. As a result, 'gnosis' and 'wisdom' come out quite differently than
they went in.
I admit to not previously having seen much comparison of Thomas to Paul, so
perhaps it's a matter of its unfamiliarity undercutting its intuitive
plausibility for me at the moment. It certainly gives the late-daters a
taste of their own medicine, so to speak, but I'm afraid I see as little
solid evidence for a pre-Paul Thomas as I do for a post-Luke Thomas. And
just to complicate matters, the likely development of Thomas over time
would probably have resulted in bringing in elements from all over the
place. Nevertheless, I hope you'll respond to some of these points,
particularly the issue of how one would determine in which direction a
supposed dependency actually worked. To play devil's advocate - why not
"Dating Thomas by its usage of Paul"?
Michael has posed significant questions. I will attempt to respond as I am able. To answer all may take some time.
As to the question concerning the radical concept of equality in the church, IMO, the orthodoxy of first century Christianity was Jewish in nature. I would refer you to Alan F. Segal's book Paul the Convert for a more detailed discussion of this matter. Consider also that Paul continually defends himself against the "Judaising" influence in the comminutes that he founded.
The last question pertained to dating Thomas by its usage of Paul. Very good point. I had failed to take that into consideration. I would presume to date Thomas by Paul's usage upon 1 Cor 2:9-10(a). This statement presupposed a written source for the material that Paul quotes. Since Thomas 17 and the Cor passage are so similar, I discount the possible Isaiah exegesis.
Respectfully Jeffrey Fyffe
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- --- Jeff wrote:
> I would presume to date Thomas by Paul's usage upon 1 CorTrue enough, there's a significant difference between the Isaiah
> 2:9-10(a). This statement presupposed a written source for the
> material that Paul quotes. Since Thomas 17 and the Cor passage
> are so similar, I discount the possible Isaiah exegesis.
passage and 1 Cor 2:9, but there's also a significant difference
between Th 17 and 1 Cor 2:9. Paul may have been quoting from a
source not now extant, such as the Apocalypse of Elijah, or some
such. Certainly, if Paul had been familiar with Th 17, it would
seem that he would have used the form "I have given you..."
rather than the impersonal form. Also, of course, he includes
an ending not found in Th 17. All of this makes for a weak case,
IMO. (ref: Meyer's notes on Th 17.)
- It seems to me that the issue of "dating" GThom was the subject of a very
lively discussion a year or so ago. It might be worthwhile to investigate
the archives to retrieve some of that correspondence.
Nevertheless, there is no serious dispute that the authentic Pauline
correspondence was composed in the mid-first century. By contrast, there
seems to be no serious scholarly consensus about the date of composition for
GThom. There's no point in rehearsing the entire debate over the GThom
dating controversy except to say, in a very general fashion, that some
people argue that GThom should be dated "early" while others favor a "late"
date. As an alternative there are persuasive arguments that suggest that
GThom "evolved" over time into the document that we now have at hand (i.e.,
NHL Codex II,2).
The invocation of evidence that buttresses arguments for some literary or
conceptual relationship between GThom and the Pauline letters seems to
presuppose that GThom existed in its present form prior to the time Paul
wrote his letters. The validity of that presupposition has not been
established with any certainty, as a survey of recent literature clearly
demonstrates. Moreover, there seems to be some fundamental problems with the
identity of the so-called parallels themselves, not the least of which is
that the literary relationships exist most clearly only in English
translations. Paul wrote in Greek, while the "textus receptus" of GThom is
in Coptic. It is very difficult, IMO, to establish direct literary
dependence of one on the other because of this.
But let's assume however, that these difficulties are ignored, and that
there is some actual relationship between the documents under discussion. Is
it not equally plausible that one could promote the hypothesis that the
author of GThom used the Pauline letters as a source?
Humble Maine Woodsman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Hubbard" <rhubbard@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 3:06 PM
Subject: RE: [gthom] Dating Thomas by Paul's usage
> But let's assume however, that these difficulties are ignored, and that
> there is some actual relationship between the documents under discussion.
> it not equally plausible that one could promote the hypothesis that the
> author of GThom used the Pauline letters as a source?
That Paul may have used source material that is also preserved in GoT is
likely but the Markan GoT quotes are much more telling. In Mark,
Thomas logia are redacted and combined and sport Aramaisms not
as easily discernible in the Coptic rescension which is, after all, a
of an earlier Greek text. There are several possibilities. Mark used
a very early rescension of the GoT as a source (~65-70 CE) or the GoT
was part of the sayings "notes" of Mark that the patristics claim he took
to Alexandria to complete his gospel. Mark's "sayings notes" (perhaps
taken down from Simon/Kefa's reminiscences) may have taken on a life
its own. The attribution to Thomas, like the attributions of the other NT
- Mark's "sayings notes" (perhaps
>taken down from Simon/Kefa's reminiscences) may have taken on a life-wrote Jack
>its own. The attribution to Thomas, like the attributions of the other NT
Jack, are you saying that Peter may have been the 'author' of Thomas? Where
can I go to learn more about this?
Kirk Sheldon Wilson
----- Original Message -----
From: "kirk wilson" <timbrewolf@...>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [gthom] Dating Thomas by Paul's usage
> Mark's "sayings notes" (perhaps
> >taken down from Simon/Kefa's reminiscences) may have taken on a life
> >its own. The attribution to Thomas, like the attributions of the other
> >means nothing.
> -wrote Jack
> Jack, are you saying that Peter may have been the 'author' of Thomas?
> can I go to learn more about this?
It had long been held by many scholars that the Gospel of Mark constituted
the "memoirs" of Peter as cited by some of the patristics. GMark, however,
polemical to the disciples and family and hence a dichotomy existed. It
more sense that the "reminiscences" of Peter/Kefa to Mark (whom Peter called
his "son) were remembered apophthegms and aphorisms of Jesus which later
as source material for the completed Gospel, not necessarily authored by THE
John Mark who took the notes.
First you may want to read the references to Mark in Eusebius and also
by Clement of Alexandria. and by Origen and Jerome.
I do not, however, think you will find references to GoT being authored by
Peter. It is only my position that the GoT MIGHT have had its origins in the
notes of Mark accounting for the GoT parallels in Mark.