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

Thomas and John

Expand Messages
  • swallison
    Of the canonical gospels, only in GJohn is Thomas given a talking part. Of course there is the doubting Thomas of ch 21. But he also speaks in ch 11 where he
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 8, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Of the canonical gospels, only in GJohn is Thomas given a talking
      part. Of course there is the doubting Thomas of ch 21. But he also
      speaks in ch 11 where he suggests that the disciples trek with Jesus
      back to Jerusalem in order to die with him. Was this part of the
      original text or was it inserted in order to ingratiate
      Thomas-influenced folks? On the other hand perhaps it was originally
      a part of the text. If so could it be that Jesus' or someone else's
      response has been excised from the text? It sure seems like something
      is missing and there could well have originally been more to the
      narrative. The story just doesn't flow in this section. I guess we
      will never know for sure. Ch 14 has Thomas asking a question to
      which Jesus responds. It reveals Thomas as sincere but not truly
      aware of what's happening. Who is the next apostle to ask a question?
      Why it is another one subsequently associated with gnosticism,
      Philip. All summed up, it is too much of a coincidence. If the
      author or editor was not responding to a form of the Gospel of Thomas
      then extant, then they were responding and seeking to influence people
      who shared something in common with whoever it was that eventually
      produced GThom.

      A fragment of GJohn found in a backwater part of Egypt dates to about
      120 to 130 AD, if memory serves me correctly. Thus it must have been
      around for several decades at least. The nineties seems realistic as
      the latest possible date. Therefore a form of GThom or people with
      views overlapping it must have existed by that date.

      I've ordered Pagels book and hope to read soon.

      Steve Allison
    • rickmsumner
      Another persuasive point: Three times Thomas speaks in the GJohn (11.14, 16.5, and the Doubting Thomas pericope). All three times it is in the context of the
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 8, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Another persuasive point: Three times Thomas speaks in the GJohn
        (11.14, 16.5, and the Doubting Thomas pericope). All three times it
        is in the context of the resurrection. All three times he is
        wrong. Blessed are those who, unlike Thomas, do not need to see to
        believe (20.29).

        Gregory J. Riley's _Resurrection Reconsidered_ discusses the
        resurrection traditions of the Thomasine and Johanine gospels at
        length, J. H. Charlesworth takes a slightly different road in his
        _The Beloved Disciple_ and contends that the disciple in question is
        none other than Thomas. Both discuss the seemingly blatant
        relationship between the Johanine Thomas and the Thomasine
        traditions.

        I'd venture to agree, it seems too much to be coincidental. And
        rather surprising that it's such an underdeveloped topic. I too
        have ordered Pagel's book.

        Regards,
        Rick Sumner

        --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "swallison" <dermarc@c...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Of the canonical gospels, only in GJohn is Thomas given a talking
        > part. Of course there is the doubting Thomas of ch 21. But he also
        > speaks in ch 11 where he suggests that the disciples trek with
        Jesus
        > back to Jerusalem in order to die with him. Was this part of the
        > original text or was it inserted in order to ingratiate
        > Thomas-influenced folks? On the other hand perhaps it was
        originally
        > a part of the text. If so could it be that Jesus' or someone
        else's
        > response has been excised from the text? It sure seems like
        something
        > is missing and there could well have originally been more to the
        > narrative. The story just doesn't flow in this section. I guess
        we
        > will never know for sure. Ch 14 has Thomas asking a question to
        > which Jesus responds. It reveals Thomas as sincere but not truly
        > aware of what's happening. Who is the next apostle to ask a
        question?
        > Why it is another one subsequently associated with gnosticism,
        > Philip. All summed up, it is too much of a coincidence. If the
        > author or editor was not responding to a form of the Gospel of
        Thomas
        > then extant, then they were responding and seeking to influence
        people
        > who shared something in common with whoever it was that eventually
        > produced GThom.
        >
        > A fragment of GJohn found in a backwater part of Egypt dates to
        about
        > 120 to 130 AD, if memory serves me correctly. Thus it must have
        been
        > around for several decades at least. The nineties seems realistic
        as
        > the latest possible date. Therefore a form of GThom or people with
        > views overlapping it must have existed by that date.
        >
        > I've ordered Pagels book and hope to read soon.
        >
        > Steve Allison
      • swallison
        ... I too agree that it is an underdeveloped topic. It should be further explored. Steve Allison
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 9, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "rickmsumner" <Sumner_richard_m@h...>
          wrote:
          > Another persuasive point: Three times Thomas speaks in the GJohn
          > (11.14, 16.5, and the Doubting Thomas pericope). All three times it
          > is in the context of the resurrection. All three times he is
          > wrong. Blessed are those who, unlike Thomas, do not need to see to
          > believe (20.29).
          >
          > Gregory J. Riley's _Resurrection Reconsidered_ discusses the
          > resurrection traditions of the Thomasine and Johanine gospels at
          > length, J. H. Charlesworth takes a slightly different road in his
          > _The Beloved Disciple_ and contends that the disciple in question is
          > none other than Thomas. Both discuss the seemingly blatant
          > relationship between the Johanine Thomas and the Thomasine
          > traditions.
          >
          > I'd venture to agree, it seems too much to be coincidental. And
          > rather surprising that it's such an underdeveloped topic. I too
          > have ordered Pagel's book.
          >
          > Regards,
          > Rick Sumner
          >

          I too agree that it is an underdeveloped topic. It should be further
          explored.

          Steve Allison
        • pessy@chez.com
          ... a few verses with lotsa holes in it, nowhere near conclusive. ... non sequitur Klaus Schilling
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 9, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            swallison writes:
            >
            > A fragment of GJohn found in a backwater part of Egypt dates to about
            > 120 to 130 AD, if memory serves me correctly.

            a few verses with lotsa holes in it, nowhere near conclusive.

            > Thus it must have been
            > around for several decades at least.

            non sequitur


            Klaus Schilling
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.