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

Re: [GTh] Origin of the "Douting Thomas" Trope

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: Miceal Ledwith To: Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Origin of the Douting
    Message 1 of 33 , Nov 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Miceal Ledwith <cimleah@...>
      To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 10:42 PM
      Subject: Re: [GTh] Origin of the "Douting Thomas" Trope


      > Randy,
      > Could you clarify the sense of your last paragraph where you refer to the
      use
      > of "Didymus" only in John? I seem to have missed your sense since
      "Didimus"
      > means "Twin."
      > Miceall Ledwith

      "Thomas" is the English form of the Aramaic TOMA which means "twin."
      DIDUMOS
      is a Greek redundancy. I think the Thomas block was added to 4G in one of
      the 2nd century
      editings and before the incorporation of the Woman Taken in Adultery block
      (8:1-11) and the
      Chapter 21 appendix. The earliest manuscript of John that contains the
      Thomas block is P66
      which dates to 200 CE at the latest and perhaps earlier in the 2nd century.
      It is certainly
      possible, in fact likely, that the author of the Thomas block or its editor,
      was familiar with
      the Gospel of Thomas, the Greek texts of which date to the same time period.
      Is it
      possible that a Johannine editor of 4G in Ephesus is taking a shot at the
      Thomas/Jakobian community?

      Jack
    • Jacob Knee
      It is thought provoking. I m still not sure what I myself make of it. I note that Bill Arnal wrote recently (on crosstalk perhaps?) of early christian texts
      Message 33 of 33 , Jun 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        It is thought provoking. I'm still not sure what I myself make of it. I note
        that Bill Arnal wrote recently (on crosstalk perhaps?) of 'early christian'
        texts being on a spectrum - from those produced reflecting the views of a
        community (does that imply that the implied audience of the text is the
        community whose views it can be said to reflect?) to those that are perhaps
        the product of a single scribe (presumably drawing on some wider sense of
        the Jesus tradition but not relecting the views, (nor perhaps intended to be
        used by?), just one community). Bill wrote of Q being at the communal end of
        the spectrum (though if you accept the classic two document hypothesis - Q
        must have circulated rapidly to other scribes/communities) - I wonder where
        he would place Thomas?

        You may be interested to know that David Sim responds directly and very
        critically to Bauckham's argument in a piece in a recent JSNT. Likewise
        Philip Esler had a big go at it in the Scottish Journal of Theology (with an
        ascerbic response by Bauckham).

        Be interested to hear your thoughts when you've got a moment.

        Best wishes,
        Jacob

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Rick Hubbard [mailto:rhubbard@...]
        Sent: 06 June 2002 23:48
        To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [GTh] Jacobs Remarks on The Extent of the Thomas Community
        (from months ago)


        Jacob-

        Seeing your name pop up in the latest thread reminded me that I recently
        (and finally) was able to lay my hands on the Bauckham work you referenced
        below.

        I haven't had time to digest the entirety of his article (mostly cuz I was
        standing at the library checkout counter while trying to read it) but I'll
        say this: VERY THOUGHT PROVOKING. I'm looking forward to reading the article
        more closely to see how (or if) it "sharpens my disagreement...."

        Rick

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