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

Re: [GTh] Thomas Kernel--Can Q help us to Determine If It is an Early Layer of Thomas?

Expand Messages
  • Wade and April
    ... From: fmmccoy ... Oh goodness no. DeConick makes no such assumption in her paper. In fact an important point of her layering of Thomas is that one
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 16, 2004
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "fmmccoy"
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Wieland Willker"
      >> I've just read:
      >> APRIL D. DeCONICK "The Original Gospel of Thomas"
      >> Vigiliae Christianae (2002) 56, 167-199
      >> I haven't followed the discussions here very closely, so I don't know if
      >> this article has been discussed before.
      >> It appears to be very interesting, but I came to the following
      >> statement:
      >> "Second, just over fifty percent of the sayings in the kernel gospel are
      >> paralleled in Q. Not even one saying with a Q parallel, however, can be
      >> found in the later layers. This also cannot be coincidence."
      >> Well, the immediate response to this is that yes, this cannot be
      >> coincidence, it is wishful thinking, reconstructing something we already
      >> know from Q and the Synoptics.
      >> It sounds just too good to be true to simply remove the additions and
      >> get "a very old gospel of sayings of Jesus that likely originated from
      >> the Jerusalem church."
      > Dear Wieland Willker:
      > How can one differentiate between what is early in Thomas and what is a
      > later addition to Thomas?
      > DeConick, in the above quotation, if I understand her correctly, appears
      > to
      > be using Q as a differentiating tool. In particular, she appears to be
      > using it as a tool to determine what is early in Thomas--the apparent
      > assumption being that Q was a real document and was written early. So,
      > that
      > over half the material in the postulated Kernel Gospel has parallels in Q
      > apparently indicates, to her, that the postulated Kernel Gospel could very
      > well be the earliest layer in Thomas. Again, that none of the material
      > in
      > the parts of Thomas postulated to lie outside of the Kernel Gospel has a
      > parallel in Q apparently indicates, to her, that this material probably
      > consists of later layers to Thomas.

      Oh goodness no. DeConick makes no such assumption in her paper. In fact an
      important point of her layering of Thomas is that one should NOT use Q as a
      differentiating tool. The point of the paragraph from her paper above was
      that once she did the layering and compared the results to Q, she found that
      a large amount of what she calls the kernel (the earliest layer of Thomas),
      has parallels in Q and that the non-kernel Thomas sayings (later layers) do
      not. It is simply an interesting finding, not the basis for her layering.

      The paper referenced is a small part of a forthcoming book she is close to
      completing. It is scheduled to be published by T&T Clark in mid 2005 and
      will be called (we think) "Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A
      History of the Gospel and its Growth." Her methodology is described in much
      greater detail in the book than it was in the paper and a lot more support
      is given for the layering, but, again, it does not involve making use of Q
      to do it.

      Wade (who is, in the interest of full disclosure and bias reporting, is the
      spouse of said author Dr. DeConick)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.