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

RE: [GTh] The Mystery of Th61

Expand Messages
  • Rick Hubbard
    [In response to Mike, Joe wrote:] Might it also seem reasonable that the grab bag characteristic is because it was meant to be understood one saying at a
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 24, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      [In response to Mike, Joe wrote:]
      Might it also seem reasonable that the "grab bag" characteristic
      is because it
      was meant to be understood one saying at a time?

      It seems to me that this is a difficult question to answer in a
      straightforward manner, because the answer depends in large
      measure about the presence of certain presuppositions
      (legitimately derived or otherwise) about the text.

      For example, if one begins with the premise that the text of
      Coptic Thomas is a faithful reproduction of some "original"
      manuscript, and that the "original" was nothing more than a
      random collection of Jesus sayings, then, yes perhaps, one could
      say that Thomas was meant to be understood "one saying at a
      time."

      It can be argued, however, that Coptic Thomas is NOT a faithful
      reproduction of some original. Instead, there are demonstrated
      traces of editorial tinkering throughout, so that one may
      conclude that the form in which it has been preserved reflects
      some degree of intentional rearrangement. The question then
      broadens to include considerations of "how," "where," and "why."

      An attempt to catalogue all the evidence of redactional activity
      in Thomas would be useful, I think, but for obvious reasons I'm
      not going to try here. The best I can do in this short time is to
      call attention to a few examples that come to mind.

      [A] It appears that Coptic GTh 2 has been significantly altered
      if one compares it with the Greek version of the same saying
      preserved in POxy 654 2. The most obvious difference there is the
      addition of ruling over "the All" as a consequence of one's
      effort "to find." The consequence in POxy is that one who seeks
      will attain "rest."

      [B] It is often observed that there appears to be some
      dislocation of the answer to the question asked to Jesus about
      religious practices (fasting, praying, and almsgiving) in GTh 6.1
      The answer to the question seems to be present in GTh 14.1-3.

      [C] Dittography may be present in GTh 33.1 where the text reads,
      "What you hear with your ear with the other ear proclaim from
      your roof tops" [Bethge translation. Contrast this with the
      reconstruction of POxy 1 33 that reads, "<That which> you hear in
      one of your ears, [preach...] [Attridge translation].

      [D] Some commentators suggest that GTh 114 is a later addition to
      Thomas (e.g., Davies, 1983), where it is observed that only here
      does a saying begin with a disciple addressing another disciple,
      the image of Jesus as a guide occurs nowhere else in Thomas, the
      phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" is distinctive in Thomas, the idea
      that a person should become "a living spirit" does not cohere
      with anything else in Thomas, and perhaps most significantly,
      this saying directly contradicts GTh 22.

      [E] On the matter of contradictions in general in Thomas, Bill
      Arnal (in the article l posted in GThomas files) calls attention
      to a multitude of instances where there seems to be an
      intentional series of contradictions in Thomas. This suggests the
      presence of some creative activity, it seems to me.

      [F] Arnal has also published an article in HTR (which I have
      cited ad nauseum in other posts) that argues that almost 1/3 of
      the content of Thomas can be assigned to a secondary stratum
      characterized by gnostic tendencies.

      [G] Stephan Davies (_The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom_
      [New York: Seabury, 1983]) suggested that GTh "originally
      consisted of 4 "chapters" that were subsequently re-arranged in
      the Coptic version (a view, however, that seems not to have
      gained much acceptance).

      All of this is just a long-winded and oversimplified way of
      saying that there are numerous arguments that the text of Thomas
      shows evidence of redaction. If one accepts this as plausible,
      then what Mike suggests has as much merit as the other
      suggestions about the nature of Thomas' text. His task, of
      course, is to demonstrate somewhat more precisely HOW he
      "patterned structure of Thomas might have been intentional."

      On the other hand, if one dismisses the evidence that Coptic
      Thomas is heavily edited and is "whole cloth" then perhaps it was
      meant to be read "saying by saying." My personal observation,
      however, is that if that is the case, then the one who aspires to
      "discover the meaning of these saying" had better pack a big
      lunch 'cuz its going to be a tiring task.

      Rick Hubbard
      Humble Maine Woodsman








      Joe Baxter


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


      -----------------------------------------------------------------
      ---
      Gospel of Thomas Homepage:
      http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
      To unsubscribe from this group,
      send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Rick Hubbard
      [E] On the matter of contradictions in general in Thomas, Bill Arnal (in the article l posted in GThomas files) NO, I (or l) did not post it! Rick
      Message 2 of 14 , Aug 24, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        [E] On the matter of contradictions in general in Thomas, Bill
        Arnal (in the article l posted in GThomas files)


        NO, I (or l) did not post it!

        Rick
      • Andrew Smith
        ... Your post shows signs of Thomasine redaction, the 1 being an obvious reference to the 2 and 1 symbolism within Thomas. Best Andrew Smith
        Message 3 of 14 , Aug 25, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gthomas@y..., "Rick Hubbard" <rhubbard@m...> wrote:
          > [E] On the matter of contradictions in general in Thomas, Bill
          > Arnal (in the article l posted in GThomas files)
          >
          >
          > NO, I (or l) did not post it!
          >
          > Rick

          Your post shows signs of Thomasine redaction, the '1' being an
          obvious reference to the 2 and 1 symbolism within Thomas.

          Best

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