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

Re: [GTh] Q & Thomas: Teaser Tracts?

Expand Messages
  • Grondin
    ... The Jenkins thesis is relevant to our list, hence my request to Peter that his note be posted here, but I admit to not knowiing much about the book at the
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 4, 2002
      Peter Kirby wrote:
      > This note was originally posted to XTalk and has been posted to GThomas as
      > well at the request of Mike Grondin.

      The Jenkins thesis is relevant to our list, hence my request to Peter that
      his note be posted here, but I admit to not knowiing much about the book at
      the time, and I would certainly join Rick and Bill (who responded on the
      XTalk list in the same vein as Rick) in asserting that the Jenkins thesis is
      wholly implausible, and derives from the desire of a conservative Xian to
      co-opt Thomas (and Q), rather than from any attempt at serious scholarship.
      Predictably, it gets a positive notice from N.T. Wright, the anti-Q bastion
      of Xian orthodoxy. From what I read in the reviews, the book exhibits a
      curiously schizophrenic attitude.You've heard of "If you can't beat 'em,
      join 'em" (one meaning being: if you can't argue successfully against a
      position, then try to co-opt it by showing that it's no different from your
      own)? Well, Jenkins evidently tries to do both. In one place he writes:

      "There never was a "Q community" or a group of "Thomas people" distinct from
      the
      mainstream Jesus Way, that is, the incipient Christian Church."

      Thus making the Alexandrian Archbishop Athanasius and other church fathers
      who specifically excluded the Gospel of Thomas from approved readings out to
      be simpletons - for they evidently didn't realize what Jenkins does, namely
      that the GTh was merely an introductory volume to orthodox Xianity, and had
      no ideas of its own distinct from that. How could those early church writers
      have been so mistaken about the nature of Thomas? Or is it rather that
      Jenkins is mistaken, and that his co-opting ploy is just, well, a ploy?

      Mike Grondin
      Mt. Clemens, MI
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.