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

Re: [GTh] Strata in Thomas: A proposed Reading of #88

Expand Messages
  • rahelzer
    ... least indirectly related to 88. There are a number of passages in the Nag Hammadi referring to Angels, most of which are prone to Old Test. ideas, and
    Message 1 of 15 , Apr 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Tom writes:

      > Below is a passage from the "Apocalypse of Adam" which may be at
      least indirectly related to 88. There are a number of passages in the
      Nag Hammadi referring to Angels, most of which are prone to Old Test.
      ideas, and ways of expression. The Gospel of the Egyptians has a
      number of references in this vain.

      Hi Tom,

      It would definately be useful to know whether
      the Nag Hamaddi texts generally used "messanger"
      in a technical way.....but the exact connection
      between this text you quote:

      > Afterwards, great angels will come on high clouds, who will bring >
      those men into the place where the spirit of life dwells [...] glory
      [...] there, [...] come from heaven to earth.

      etc, is a little unclear to me. Is there anything
      more than a catchword "messanger" connection
      between these two passages which leads you to think
      that the one would shine light on the other?

      Also, since we are dealing with uncovering
      _strata_ in Thomas, it might very well be that
      "messanger" meant different things at different
      times. What I'm interested in knowning is was
      there a time in the history of GTh 88 that the word
      "messanger" _didn't_ have a cryptic code-word meaning, but
      simply meant "messanger" or "mailman". Do you know
      of any way I could muster evidence for or against that
      hypothesis?

      Thanks,
      -Randy Helzerman
    • rahelzer
      Hi, hope ya ll had a happy Easter. ... Actually, perhaps not; I think I m beginning to understand your argument better, but there s one place I still go off
      Message 2 of 15 , Apr 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi, hope ya'll had a happy Easter.

        Rick writes:
        > This probably does more to confuse than
        > to clarify the issue.

        Actually, perhaps not; I think I'm beginning
        to understand your argument better, but there's
        one place I still go off the rails; perhaps
        you can help me make the leap?


        Previously, I had your argument down as:


        P1: Any saying in the Gnostic stratum of GTh
        is mystifying, secretive, dark, impenetrable.

        P2: GTh 88 belongs to the Gnostic stratum.

        ----------------------------------------------

        C1: ergo, GTh 88 is secretive, dark and
        impentrable.


        and I asked why you believed in P2. You wrote:


        > It my **personal opinion**, however, that the PROQHTHS
        > and AGGELOS mentioned in GTh 88 are generic
        > representatives of some other, and much broader,
        > "class" of individuals.

        and

        > The term for messengers, AGGELOS, appears one
        > other time in GTh at 13.2. Two things are noteworthy
        > here. First, the AGGELOS is paired with NOURWMA
        > MFILOSOFOS (a man of philosophy). In other words,
        > in 13.2,3 we have the pair, "messenger + philosopher"
        > (which contrasts, from my perspective, with
        > the pair "messenger and prophet" in 88).

        and:

        > The reference to the bubbling spring and intoxication
        > qualify, by most definitions, as "gnostic" in character.
        > But what about the messengers and philosophers?
        > Are they "gnostic"? Maybe.


        which I reconstruct into the following argument:


        P4: GTh 13 contains gnostic redactional elements
        ("intoxication" and "babbling brook")


        P5: If a saying contains a term which is
        known to be Gnostic, then it is likely
        that other terms contained in the saying
        are also Gnostic

        P6: GTh 13 contains the word "AGGELOS"

        ----------------------------------------------

        P6: ergo, "AGGELOS" is likely to be understood as
        gnostic (in both GTh 13 and the rest of
        Thomas)


        From P6, we can argue for P2, like this:


        P6: "AGGELOS" is likely to be understood as
        gnostic (in both GTh 13 and the rest of
        Thomas)

        P7: GTh 88 contains "AGGELOS"

        ---------------------------------

        P2 ergo: GTh 88 belongs to the Gnostic stratum.


        This is actually a very good argument, and I can see
        much plausibility in your conclusion.

        However, you also offer an argument which would tend
        to diminish the plausibility of P6, when you
        write:


        > PROQHTHS are mentioned elsewhere in
        > Thomas (31 and 52). In the former case,
        > the proverbial saying that "no
        > prophet is welcome in his own home"
        > is placed on the lips of Jesus (whether
        > it is self referential is another question).
        > In the latter case, 52, the term PROQHTHS
        > is clearly a metaphorical reference that
        > **may** have been intended to deprecate
        > the conventions of late second-temple Judaism
        > (emphasis on **may**). One might be tempted
        > to conclude from these observations that
        > Thomas does not use PROQHTHS in a consistently
        > meaningful way.

        The argument here is:


        P8: In GTh 31, PROQHTHS is used in a
        proverb placed on the lips of Jesus


        P9: In GTh 52, PROQHTHS is used in
        a metaphorical reference

        ----------------------------------

        ergo P10: one might be tempted to conclude
        from these observations that
        Thomas does not use PROQHTHS in a
        consistently meaningful way.


        This is a somewhat weaker argument--which
        is probably why you're are only tempted to
        conclude it. In fact I am inclined to yield
        to the same temptation, however, and conclude
        that Thomas doesn't use RROQHTHS in any
        consistent way at all.

        This conclusion becomes even MORE plausible
        when we recall that we're talking about
        STRATA here. PROQHTHS is probalby not being
        used consistantly from saying to saying in
        Thomas--but even within the _same_ saying
        PROQHTHS likely had an evolving meaning as
        the various strata were added.

        Where I _can't_ follow you is when you draw this
        conclusion:

        > In neither case, however, does the term
        > seem to refer to any kind of
        > quasi-official functionary (such might
        > be the case with PROQHTHS in the
        > earliest church).

        I'm missing something; I just can't make that leap.
        In fact, I think I could argue against that
        conclusion in this way:

        RP1: In GTh 31, PROQHTHS is used in
        a proverb placed on the lips of
        Jesus.


        RP2: GTh is paralleled in Mark 6:4 in
        a non-Gnostic context

        ---------------------------------------

        RP3: ergo, when the proverb containing
        PROQHTHS was placed on the lips
        of Jesus, it did _not_ have a
        Gnostic meaning.


        Which evokes the question: what meaning
        _did_ PROQHTHS have when placed on the lips
        of Jesus? Would you agree that the proverb
        as originally circulated was talking about
        exactly these "quasi-official functionary
        (such might be the case with PROQHTHS in the
        earliest church)"?

        In which case why would it be at all dubious
        that GTh 88--at one point in the history of
        the saying--on one stratum--GTH was not using
        the term in the same sense?

        In conclusion, let me ask for some advice:
        One of the few things we know for sure about
        the Gospel of Thomas is that it was circulated
        around by messengers (in the sense of "mailmen").

        It is very likely that the evolving Gospel of
        Thomas was also circulated around by these
        quasi-official "prophets" (who were after all
        just "messengers from God).

        So my strategy has been to try to identify a
        strata which might have been layed down by
        these messengers and prophets. Do you think
        that's a good strategy or a bad strategy?
        What tools/tricks could I use to identify
        sayings which may have been added during
        this time?

        -Randy Helzerman

        P. S. You pointed me to a article by Bill Anal--yeah, I saw it
        and asked our librarian to get me a copy. Can't wait to
        read it.
      • Tom Saunders
        Randy writes: It would definately be useful to know whether the Nag Hamaddi texts generally used messanger in a technical way.....but the exact connection
        Message 3 of 15 , Apr 2, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Randy writes:

          It would definately be useful to know whether
          the Nag Hamaddi texts generally used "messanger"
          in a technical way.....but the exact connection
          between this text you quote:

          I don't think it is likely to sort out this puzzel of "messenger" without knowing the exact intent of the writer at the time seperate texts were written. One problem I see in the Nag Hammadi are two seperate epistemologies. Generally a reference to an angel is an idea common to Jewish accounts of how spirit works. References in Acts referring to Peter and Paul encountering angels refers to them as a personification which materializes. Angels are generally portrayed as messengers, even the one that sprung Peter from a Roman jail. Neat trick.

          The other scenerio has the spirit in a more docetic form, and there is no real manifestation of spirit into matter, just thought. I am probably a little over zealous at trying to explain this model, as it is very much like that of Daoist origin, and resembles many Oriental models of the day. Anyway in this form the idea of messenger is different, just due to the difference in how spirit is presented to work.

          I suspect that some of the texts in the Nag Hammadi, like 'Egyptians' are trying to bridge the gap between the 'law of Moses' and the model of personified spirits, with the model of spirit in say "Exegesis of the Soul," or "Discourse of the 8th and 9th." In this context messengers or angels would be metaphores for the way spirit is portrayed to work, which does not become matter.

          This difference can be seen in the way Luke describes spirits (demons), which tends to be like the Jewish model and Paul's description in Romans 8-8 to 8-16 which is more in context with the docetic model......

          Romans 8-8.) "and they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
          9. But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
          10. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness.
          11. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
          12. So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh:
          13. for if ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
          14. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
          15. For ye received not the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father."

          Messengers could be prophets, avatars, and demons too, and certainly this confuses things. I hope I helped a little.

          Tom Saunders
          Platter Flats.

















          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • rahelzer
          Dave offers a critique of the Rules of ... and then then cites some relevant research which strongly supports his point. That got me thinking about the
          Message 4 of 15 , Apr 2, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Dave offers a critique of the Rules of
            written evidence used by the Jesus Seminar:

            > The kinds of clues or criteria
            > mentioned above are in reality quite
            > subjective, and are not established
            > empirically.

            and then then cites some relevant research
            which strongly supports his point. That got
            me thinking about the subjective vs. objective
            contrast....

            Question: (to Dave or anybody else) What *would*
            qualify as an "Objective" aporia--and how would
            it be established empirically?

            Is classidfying aporia as "objective vs.
            subjective" a useful classification?

            -Randy Helzerman
          • dchindley
            ... Jesus Seminar ... That got me thinking about the subjective vs. objective contrast.... Question: (to Dave or anybody else) What *would* qualify as an
            Message 5 of 15 , Apr 5, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Randy Helzerman asks:

              >>Dave offers a critique of the Rules of written evidence used by the
              Jesus Seminar ... That got me thinking about the subjective vs.
              objective contrast....

              Question: (to Dave or anybody else) What *would* qualify as
              an "Objective" aporia--and how would it be established empirically?

              Is classidfying aporia as "objective vs. subjective" a useful
              classification?<<

              Unfortunately, I am on vacation in Florida for a couple of weeks, and
              won't be back until the 13th.

              However, if you have access to the XTalk list archives, there was
              something about the nature of aporias in a couple posts of mine from
              about a year ago, maybe longer, under the name "Lingo and History"
              (or something like that). But heavens, I am not an authority on the
              subject. "Aporia" is just a technical term for an aspect of a
              communication that just doesn't seem right.

              It could be a grammatical irregularity, or a change in subject where
              one might not expect it, all sorts of things like that. The issue
              came to the forefront in the 19th century during the initial surge of
              historical-critical thought. Initially, they thought that they might
              indicate the not-so-skillful reworking of sources by ancient editors.

              More recently, the reader-response and rhetorical-critical schools
              have started to look at them rather as forms of rhetorical devices.
              To them, it is not reasonable to assume that ancient Christian
              editors were all relatively unskillful (this is a simplification), so
              they look for other explanations. Rhetoric does have a place for the
              unexpected argument or example, and sometimes the author introduces a
              variety of proofs and premises that may, at first glance, seem to
              make no sense.

              But these two positions are really two interpretations of the same
              evidence. Are they both "objective?" Sure. However, it will depend on
              the accuracy of the assumptions upon which the interpretations were
              based. But the accuracy of the assumptions is part of the
              subjectivity problem. So, there is a kind of circularity involved.

              If this thread survives until I return, I can look up some of the the
              authors that may be relevant to this question.

              Dave Hindley
              Cleveland, Ohio, USA

              If this thread
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.