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

Re: [GTh] Thomas Kernel

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... That s not quite what Wieland s objection is about, at least as far I am able to understand it. He recognizes that the stated method formally excludes
    Message 1 of 30 , Nov 17, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      William Arnal <warnal@...> wrote:
      >Wieland Willker wrote:
      >>That's exactly what I am questioning. What a coincidence that everything
      >>from Q is in the earliest layer of Thomas. Can we really be objective
      >>here? I think that one is biased by knowing all the Synoptic material
      >>very well. One then excludes all strange and unusual stuff and gets
      >>something that is similar to Q. Oh surprise!
      >
      >You probably ought to read the article before criticizing it, no? What you
      >really seem to be objecting to here is that an "external" confirmation of
      >her layering exists at all -- there's a kind of weird inversion of logic,
      >that such confirmation indicates the FALSITY of the method, rather than its
      >accuracy! * * * The issue is not whether DeConick had the synoptic parallels
      >in her inner heart -- it's that she achieved the layering she proposes
      >WITHOUT REFERENCE TO such parallels. As a result, when it turns out that the
      >kernal material is what is paralleled in Q, well, that's a remarkable
      >confirmation.

      That's not quite what Wieland's objection is about, at least as far I am
      able to understand it. He recognizes that the stated method formally
      excludes references to Q parallels in identifying the layers, but he
      questions, as I would too, whether the method is sufficiently *rigorous*
      to live up to its billing. I haven't read her article yet, but, based on your
      recommendation, I probably will and the rigorousness of her method is
      going to be an important consideration in evaluating the merits of her
      case.

      Stephen Carlson

      --
      Stephen C. Carlson,
      mailto:scarlson@...
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      To follow up on an old message of mine, I ve finally got around to reading April D. DeConick, The Original GOSPEL OF THOMAS, VC 56 (2002): 167-199. It is
      Message 2 of 30 , Feb 12, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        To follow up on an old message of mine, I've finally got
        around to reading April D. DeConick, "The Original GOSPEL
        OF THOMAS," VC 56 (2002): 167-199.

        It is every bit as good as Bill Arnal said it was.

        I think that her analysis is so incredibly cogent that it has
        to be reckoned with rather than ignored. Both her method and
        her result feel right in ways I didn't expect and it seems that
        her approach opens up a lot of potentially fruitful avenues of
        research that didn't exist before, getting us past the whole
        sterile dependence/independence debate we've seen from Schrage
        to Paterson. Thomas's history is just too dynamic for such
        a simple-minded approach.

        The only criticism that could be levelled is a really a
        function of the forum: there isn't enough room in a journal
        article to show all her work for me to be 100% satisfied
        (without duplicating all her work) that the criteria were
        applied correctly to the particular logoi. Based on how
        the criteria are described, my initial impression is that
        it seems unlikely than any subconscious Q bias could have
        been at work in the selection or application of them.

        Stephen Carlson

        At 11:38 AM 11/17/2004 -0500, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
        >William Arnal <warnal@...> wrote:
        >>Wieland Willker wrote:
        >>>That's exactly what I am questioning. What a coincidence that everything
        >>>from Q is in the earliest layer of Thomas. Can we really be objective
        >>>here? I think that one is biased by knowing all the Synoptic material
        >>>very well. One then excludes all strange and unusual stuff and gets
        >>>something that is similar to Q. Oh surprise!
        >>
        >>You probably ought to read the article before criticizing it, no? What you
        >>really seem to be objecting to here is that an "external" confirmation of
        >>her layering exists at all -- there's a kind of weird inversion of logic,
        >>that such confirmation indicates the FALSITY of the method, rather than its
        >>accuracy! * * * The issue is not whether DeConick had the synoptic parallels
        >>in her inner heart -- it's that she achieved the layering she proposes
        >>WITHOUT REFERENCE TO such parallels. As a result, when it turns out that the
        >>kernal material is what is paralleled in Q, well, that's a remarkable
        >>confirmation.
        >
        >That's not quite what Wieland's objection is about, at least as far I am
        >able to understand it. He recognizes that the stated method formally
        >excludes references to Q parallels in identifying the layers, but he
        >questions, as I would too, whether the method is sufficiently *rigorous*
        >to live up to its billing. I haven't read her article yet, but, based on your
        >recommendation, I probably will and the rigorousness of her method is
        >going to be an important consideration in evaluating the merits of her
        >case.
        >
        >Stephen Carlson
        >
        >--
        >Stephen C. Carlson,
        >mailto:scarlson@...
        >"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
        >
        >
        >--------------------------------------------------------------------
        >Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
        >To unsubscribe from this group,
        >send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >

        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
      • Peter Kirby
        ... Thank you for pointing out this article. I am printing it right now. I got it as a PDF through my university s subscription. (If anyone is unable to
        Message 3 of 30 , Feb 12, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:15:45 -0500, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

          > To follow up on an old message of mine, I've finally got
          > around to reading April D. DeConick, "The Original GOSPEL
          > OF THOMAS," VC 56 (2002): 167-199.

          Thank you for pointing out this article. I am printing it right now. I
          got it as a PDF through my university's subscription. (If anyone is
          unable to acquire the article but would like to be able to read it,
          e-mail me off list.)

          Has anyone made a comparison between this article by April DeConick and
          Bill Arnal's earlier article in The Harvard Theological Review?

          --
          Peter Kirby (Undergrad in History, AA Fullerton College)
          Web Site: http://www.peterkirby.com/
        • William Arnal
          ... DeConick herself does. Otherwise, nothing that I ve seen. cheers, Bill ______________________ William Arnal University of Regina
          Message 4 of 30 , Feb 12, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Hey Peter:

            >Has anyone made a comparison between this article by April DeConick and
            >Bill Arnal's earlier article in The Harvard Theological Review?

            DeConick herself does. Otherwise, nothing that I've seen.

            cheers,
            Bill
            ______________________
            William Arnal
            University of Regina
          • Wade and April
            ... From: Stephen C. Carlson Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas Kernel ... You are right that the article forum was too short to provide all the details necessary for
            Message 5 of 30 , Feb 12, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Stephen C. Carlson"
              Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas Kernel


              >
              >
              > To follow up on an old message of mine, I've finally got
              > around to reading April D. DeConick, "The Original GOSPEL
              > OF THOMAS," VC 56 (2002): 167-199.
              >
              > It is every bit as good as Bill Arnal said it was.
              >
              ...
              > The only criticism that could be levelled is a really a
              > function of the forum: there isn't enough room in a journal
              > article to show all her work for me to be 100% satisfied
              > (without duplicating all her work) that the criteria were
              > applied correctly to the particular logoi. Based on how
              > the criteria are described, my initial impression is that
              > it seems unlikely than any subconscious Q bias could have
              > been at work in the selection or application of them.
              >
              > Stephen Carlson

              You are right that the article forum was too short to provide all the
              details necessary for the arguments concerning individual sayings. It was
              always meant to be followed up by a book length version. The book (I am
              pleased to say, being April's husband) is now finished and sent off to the
              publisher. They are looking at a September date for the hardback
              publication and as I understand it there will be a paperback version
              released sometime in 2006. It is called "Recovering the Original Gospel of
              Thomas" and is being published by T & T Clark (Continuum). A follow up
              volume is planned for early 2006 called "The Original Gospel of Thomas in
              Translation" which will be a new translation of the text by April and a
              commentary.

              Wade
            • John Walsh
              Stephen C. Carlson: It is every bit as good as Bill Arnal said it was. John Walsh: I read Seek to See Him and was entranced. Later, at San Antonio s SBL
              Message 6 of 30 , Feb 13, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Stephen C. Carlson: It is every bit as good as Bill Arnal said it was.

                John Walsh: I read Seek to See Him and was entranced. Later, at San
                Antonio's SBL conference, I got to meet April and she recommended Voices of
                the Mystics (which is now available in T&T academic reprint) for a monograph
                I am working on. Her interpretations are very appealing to me and I do not
                think she gets near the attention she deserves.

                --------------------------------------------
                W.J. Walsh
                The Joseph Smith Society
                2519 Branch View Lane
                Missouri City, Texas 77459
                281-403-3032
                wjwalsh@...
                ----------------------------------------------
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... Does her book make any attempt to determine some of the kernel s sequencing of the sayings as well? That was still a very open question in the article.
                Message 7 of 30 , Feb 13, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 08:34 PM 2/12/2005 -0600, Wade and April wrote:
                  >You are right that the article forum was too short to provide all the
                  >details necessary for the arguments concerning individual sayings. It was
                  >always meant to be followed up by a book length version.

                  Does her book make any attempt to determine some of the kernel's
                  sequencing of the sayings as well? That was still a very open
                  question in the article.

                  >The book (I am
                  >pleased to say, being April's husband) is now finished and sent off to the
                  >publisher. They are looking at a September date for the hardback
                  >publication and as I understand it there will be a paperback version
                  >released sometime in 2006. It is called "Recovering the Original Gospel of
                  >Thomas" and is being published by T & T Clark (Continuum).

                  Good news. I hope this means that it'll be ready and available
                  at SBL in Philadelphia.

                  Doing a little more investigation into her stratification, I was
                  surprised to find out how much of Thomas's parallels with the
                  synoptics, particularly those with Matthew, ended up in the kernel.
                  What to make of this, I'm still puzzling out.

                  >A follow up
                  >volume is planned for early 2006 called "The Original Gospel of Thomas in
                  >Translation" which will be a new translation of the text by April and a
                  >commentary.

                  Good to know. I suppose this is going to less technical than
                  the other?

                  Stephen

                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                  Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                  "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                • Wade and April
                  ... From: Stephen C. Carlson ... Yes, the sequencing of the kernel is discussed in detail in the book. The publishers have told us that it will be available
                  Message 8 of 30 , Feb 13, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Stephen C. Carlson"

                    >
                    > At 08:34 PM 2/12/2005 -0600, Wade and April wrote:
                    >>You are right that the article forum was too short to provide all the
                    >>details necessary for the arguments concerning individual sayings. It was
                    >>always meant to be followed up by a book length version.
                    >
                    > Does her book make any attempt to determine some of the kernel's
                    > sequencing of the sayings as well? That was still a very open
                    > question in the article.
                    > ...
                    > Good news. I hope this means that it'll be ready and available
                    > at SBL in Philadelphia.

                    Yes, the sequencing of the kernel is discussed in detail in the book. The
                    publishers have told us that it will be available at the Philidelphia SBL.

                    Wade
                  • Michael Grondin
                    Wade- Can you tell us whether April s book will suggest that the original sequencing of the kernel layer and/or the resequencing as additional layers were
                    Message 9 of 30 , Feb 14, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Wade-

                      Can you tell us whether April's book will suggest that the original
                      sequencing of the kernel layer and/or the resequencing as additional layers
                      were added, was based on keywords?

                      Mike
                    • Mark Goodacre
                      Stephen et al I appreciate the reminder to read this article, which I have finally got round to now. I quite agree -- this makes a really useful contribution
                      Message 10 of 30 , Feb 14, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Stephen et al

                        I appreciate the reminder to read this article, which I have finally
                        got round to now. I quite agree -- this makes a really useful
                        contribution to the debate and I am very much looking forward to the
                        forthcoming books. It is particularly refreshing to see serious
                        consideration being given to the idea that Thomas is built up over
                        time as the result of a series of successive editions rather than a
                        single-author moment. I like the term "Rolling Corpus Model" -- this
                        could catch on!

                        With respect to the place of Q in the article (cf. Bill's and
                        Wieland's exchange below), I am less impressed. In particular, Bill
                        wrote:

                        >>The issue is not whether DeConick had the synoptic parallels
                        >>in her inner heart -- it's that she achieved the layering she proposes
                        >>WITHOUT REFERENCE TO such parallels. As a result, when it turns out that the
                        >>kernal material is what is paralleled in Q, well, that's a remarkable
                        >>confirmation.

                        I am not sure what it confirms except that a lot of the kernel
                        material is the Thomas // Synoptic parallel material. In fact, in
                        looking over the breakdown of Thomas in DeConick's article (193-4), it
                        is not just that the "kernel" material contains all the Q material
                        that is in Thomas; it contains virtually all the Synoptic parallels
                        that are found in Thomas. At first glance, the only direct Synoptic
                        parallel not found in the kernel material is Logion 14c, what comes
                        into the mouth / what comes out of your mouth, Matt 15.17-18R. So to
                        focus solely on the reconstructed kernel's parallels with Synoptic
                        double tradition material (198) cannot tell the whole story. Again,
                        at a glance, there is lots of triple tradition, M and L too.

                        I look forward to some of the more detailed working out of this in the
                        forthcoming book. One of the things that gives me pause at this stage
                        is that the kernel features logia that are good candidates for
                        featuring Synoptic redaction occurring in Thomas, e.g. Thomas 31 and
                        79.

                        Two other things concerned me about the article, one minor and one
                        major, and both related in different ways to E. P. Sanders. The minor
                        thing was the use of Sanders and Davies's _Studying the Synoptic
                        Gospels_ on 182 (especially n. 50) as supporting the Two-Source
                        Theory. It does not; the book supports the Farrer Theory, or, as
                        they call it, Mark Without Q. But this is a common oversight; I
                        could list several examples of the same thing. The more major thing
                        was the use of the old form-critical tendencies model on 188, with
                        citations of Bultmann, Dibelius and Taylor without any mention of, let
                        alone critical engagement with, Sanders's critique of that model in
                        _Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition_. Although deConick's model is
                        not based solely on the tendencies approach, it is clear that it does
                        play a part, e.g. note "simple sayings and apothegms, unless
                        representing anachronistic material, belong to the earliest layer"
                        (188).

                        Mark


                        On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:15:45 -0500, Stephen C. Carlson
                        <scarlson@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > To follow up on an old message of mine, I've finally got
                        > around to reading April D. DeConick, "The Original GOSPEL
                        > OF THOMAS," VC 56 (2002): 167-199.
                        >
                        > It is every bit as good as Bill Arnal said it was.
                        >
                        > I think that her analysis is so incredibly cogent that it has
                        > to be reckoned with rather than ignored. Both her method and
                        > her result feel right in ways I didn't expect and it seems that
                        > her approach opens up a lot of potentially fruitful avenues of
                        > research that didn't exist before, getting us past the whole
                        > sterile dependence/independence debate we've seen from Schrage
                        > to Paterson. Thomas's history is just too dynamic for such
                        > a simple-minded approach.
                        >
                        > The only criticism that could be levelled is a really a
                        > function of the forum: there isn't enough room in a journal
                        > article to show all her work for me to be 100% satisfied
                        > (without duplicating all her work) that the criteria were
                        > applied correctly to the particular logoi. Based on how
                        > the criteria are described, my initial impression is that
                        > it seems unlikely than any subconscious Q bias could have
                        > been at work in the selection or application of them.
                        >
                        > Stephen Carlson
                        >
                        > At 11:38 AM 11/17/2004 -0500, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                        > >William Arnal <warnal@...> wrote:
                        > >>Wieland Willker wrote:
                        > >>>That's exactly what I am questioning. What a coincidence that everything
                        > >>>from Q is in the earliest layer of Thomas. Can we really be objective
                        > >>>here? I think that one is biased by knowing all the Synoptic material
                        > >>>very well. One then excludes all strange and unusual stuff and gets
                        > >>>something that is similar to Q. Oh surprise!
                        > >>
                        > >>You probably ought to read the article before criticizing it, no? What you
                        > >>really seem to be objecting to here is that an "external" confirmation of
                        > >>her layering exists at all -- there's a kind of weird inversion of logic,
                        > >>that such confirmation indicates the FALSITY of the method, rather than its
                        > >>accuracy! * * * The issue is not whether DeConick had the synoptic parallels
                        > >>in her inner heart -- it's that she achieved the layering she proposes
                        > >>WITHOUT REFERENCE TO such parallels. As a result, when it turns out that the
                        > >>kernal material is what is paralleled in Q, well, that's a remarkable
                        > >>confirmation.
                        > >
                        > >That's not quite what Wieland's objection is about, at least as far I am
                        > >able to understand it. He recognizes that the stated method formally
                        > >excludes references to Q parallels in identifying the layers, but he
                        > >questions, as I would too, whether the method is sufficiently *rigorous*
                        > >to live up to its billing. I haven't read her article yet, but, based on your
                        > >recommendation, I probably will and the rigorousness of her method is
                        > >going to be an important consideration in evaluating the merits of her
                        > >case.
                        > >
                        > >Stephen Carlson
                        > >
                        > >--
                        > >Stephen C. Carlson,
                        > >mailto:scarlson@...
                        > >"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >--------------------------------------------------------------------
                        > >Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
                        > >To unsubscribe from this group,
                        > >send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        > --
                        > Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                        > Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                        > "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                        >
                        > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                        > Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
                        > To unsubscribe from this group,
                        > send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >


                        --
                        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                        Dept of Theology and Religion
                        University of Birmingham
                        Elmfield House, Selly Oak tel.+44 121 414 7512
                        Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

                        http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
                        http://NTGateway.com
                      • Wade and April
                        ... From: Michael Grondin ... Hi Mike, I can t say too much about how she sees the sequencing since it hasn t been published yet and I don t want my summary
                        Message 11 of 30 , Feb 15, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Michael Grondin"

                          >
                          > Wade-
                          >
                          > Can you tell us whether April's book will suggest that the original
                          > sequencing of the kernel layer and/or the resequencing as additional
                          > layers
                          > were added, was based on keywords?
                          >
                          > Mike

                          Hi Mike,

                          I can't say too much about how she sees the sequencing since it hasn't been
                          published yet and I don't want my summary to be the only thing out there
                          describing it. I will be happy to discuss it with the list once the book is
                          out and her argument is accessible to everyone.

                          That being said, I can say that she does not base any sequencing of the
                          kernal or additional layers on keywords.

                          Wade
                        • Wade and April
                          ... From: Mark Goodacre ... Mark, She deals with this material and subject matter in much more detail and very differently in the book than in the article.
                          Message 12 of 30 , Feb 15, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "Mark Goodacre"

                            > The more major thing
                            > was the use of the old form-critical tendencies model on 188, with
                            > citations of Bultmann, Dibelius and Taylor without any mention of, let
                            > alone critical engagement with, Sanders's critique of that model in
                            > _Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition_. Although deConick's model is
                            > not based solely on the tendencies approach, it is clear that it does
                            > play a part, e.g. note "simple sayings and apothegms, unless
                            > representing anachronistic material, belong to the earliest layer"
                            > (188).
                            >
                            > Mark

                            Mark,

                            She deals with this material and subject matter in much more detail and very
                            differently in the book than in the article.

                            Wade
                          • Wade and April
                            ... From: Andrew Criddle ... I don t think you can prove literary dependence on the synoptics from the Kernel being heavily synoptic in nature. For literary
                            Message 13 of 30 , Mar 9, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ----- Original Message -----

                              From: Andrew Criddle



                              >
                              > I have finally been able to read April DeConick's article (VC 56 2002
                              > pp 167-199) 'The Original Gospel of Thoms.
                              >
                              > I found it very interesting and the 'Thomas Kernel' the original core
                              > of our Thomas was more convincing than I expected.
                              >
                              > However I did rightly or wrongly have some problems/reservations.
                              >
                              > a/ The Thomas Kernel is so heavily synoptic in nature that IMO it
                              > would have to be dependent on the Synoptics or their immediate
                              > sources rather than be an independent sayings tradition.



                              I don't think you can prove literary dependence on the synoptics from the
                              Kernel being "heavily synoptic in nature." For literary dependence I think
                              you would need to show a close relation between the literary form of the
                              sayings in the synoptics and the Kernel and be able to say or explain the
                              ordering differences between the two.



                              The fact that the Kernel has parallels in the synoptic would just imply that
                              they come from similar oral traditions or pre-synoptic literary traditions,
                              which is not particularly unexpected. There were probably several sayings
                              gospels floating about in the first century and they were probably both
                              quite similar and strikingly different in places.



                              After Andrew Criddle said:



                              >>>>>>>>>>>>

                              > (IMVHO the most plausible sources for the Kernel would be Mark
                              > and the form of Q used by Matthew)
                              >>>>>>>>>>>>



                              Mark Goodacre added:



                              >>>>>>>>>>>>>

                              If you are referring to the kernel as isolated by DeConick, you would
                              have to have such an expansive "form of Q" here that it would be
                              pointless to talk about Q at all. DeConick's kernel features the full
                              range of Synoptic parallel material, triple tradition, double
                              tradition, (so-called) Mark-Q overlap, M and L, as well as good
                              candidates for MattR and LukeR of Mark.
                              >>>>>>>>>>>>>>



                              Me again:



                              April certainly does not argue in the article (or in the upcoming book) that
                              the Kernel depends on a "Q" in any way. The dependence issue is, it seems
                              to me, quite complex and still a bit up in the air. Was there really one Q
                              that Matthew and Luke were looking at? It seems to me more likely that if
                              there was a Q that the author of Matthew and the author of Luke had
                              different versions of it. In an oral culture before printing presses the
                              idea that they had identical copies of any document seems suspect. If they
                              had different versions of Q how do we know whether difference between
                              Matthew and Luke are redactions by the authors or simply reflect the
                              differing versions of Q they had? Even when the redaction is consistent
                              with a Lukan point of view, how do we know that the Lukan point of view was
                              not influenced by his reading of the Q he had? There is, it seems to me,
                              still a lot to work out regarding all this.



                              Wade (Not April)
                            • sarban
                              ... From: Mark Goodacre To: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas Kernel ... One
                              Message 14 of 30 , Mar 9, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: "Mark Goodacre" <Goodacre@...>
                                To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 8:55 AM
                                Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas Kernel


                                >
                                >
                                > I am less persuaded by this article than others appear to be (cf. my
                                > previous message on this, especially in relation to form-critical
                                > questions). But I agree with the observation here about Synoptic
                                > dependence. The kernel in the breakdown of Thomas in DeConick's
                                > article (193-4) contains virtually all the Synoptic parallels that are
                                > found in Thomas. At first glance, the only direct Synoptic parallel
                                > not found in the kernel material is Logion 14c, what comes into the
                                > mouth / what comes out of your mouth, Matt 15.17-18R. One of the
                                > things that gives me pause is that the kernel features logia that are
                                > good candidates for featuring Synoptic redaction occurring in Thomas,
                                > e.g. Thomas 31 and 79.
                                >
                                One important omission in the 'Kernel' is saying 113 parallel
                                Luke 17:20-21

                                > > (IMVHO the most plausible sources for the Kernel would be Mark
                                > > and the form of Q used by Matthew)
                                >
                                > If you are referring to the kernel as isolated by DeConick, you would
                                > have to have such an expansive "form of Q" here that it would be
                                > pointless to talk about Q at all. DeConick's kernel features the full
                                > range of Synoptic parallel material, triple tradition, double
                                > tradition, (so-called) Mark-Q overlap, M and L, as well as good
                                > candidates for MattR and LukeR of Mark.
                                >
                                I agree that the 'Kernel' is based on Mark as well as any form
                                of Q.

                                IMHO much of M comes from the version of Q used by Matthew
                                which again IMHO is much closer to original Q than the form of
                                Q used by Luke (FWIW I think that much of L is Lukan creation.)

                                There isn't much L in the 'Kernel' possible examples are
                                saying 10 parallel Luke 12:49
                                saying 63 parallel Luke 12:16-21
                                saying 72 parallel Luke 12:13-14
                                saying 79 parallels Luke 11:27-28 and Luke 23:29
                                most of these have been (before the discovery of Thomas)
                                plausibly suggested as candidates for Q

                                (FWIW I agree that there are plausible candidates in the 'Kernel'
                                for Matthean and Lukan redaction however if the 'Kernel' ever
                                existed at all it really cannot on chronological; grounds have been
                                based on both Matthew and Luke in their present forms)

                                Andrew Criddle
                              • sarban
                                ... From: Wade and April To: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas Kernel ... think
                                Message 15 of 30 , Mar 9, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "Wade and April" <wadeg@...>
                                  To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 1:47 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas Kernel


                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                  >
                                  > From: Andrew Criddle
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > a/ The Thomas Kernel is so heavily synoptic in nature that IMO it
                                  > > would have to be dependent on the Synoptics or their immediate
                                  > > sources rather than be an independent sayings tradition.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > I don't think you can prove literary dependence on the synoptics from the
                                  > Kernel being "heavily synoptic in nature." For literary dependence I
                                  think
                                  > you would need to show a close relation between the literary form of the
                                  > sayings in the synoptics and the Kernel and be able to say or explain the
                                  > ordering differences between the two.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > The fact that the Kernel has parallels in the synoptic would just imply
                                  that
                                  > they come from similar oral traditions or pre-synoptic literary
                                  traditions,
                                  > which is not particularly unexpected. There were probably several sayings
                                  > gospels floating about in the first century and they were probably both
                                  > quite similar and strikingly different in places.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  'Our' Thomas is by my calculation 60% Synoptic in nature.

                                  The suggested 'Kernel' is 75% Synoptic in nature.

                                  IMHO this raises the percentage from one where independent
                                  use of some very early oral tradition is plausible to where some
                                  sort of literary dependence is likely.

                                  Andrew Criddle
                                • Stephen C. Carlson
                                  ... Those are certainly important criteria but not the only ones. The presence of redaction, for example, is another good sign of literary dependence. In the
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Mar 9, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 07:47 AM 3/9/2005 -0600, Wade wrote:
                                    >I don't think you can prove literary dependence on the synoptics from the
                                    >Kernel being "heavily synoptic in nature." For literary dependence I think
                                    >you would need to show a close relation between the literary form of the
                                    >sayings in the synoptics and the Kernel and be able to say or explain the
                                    >ordering differences between the two.

                                    Those are certainly important criteria but not the only ones.
                                    The presence of redaction, for example, is another good sign
                                    of literary dependence. In the case of Thomas, which has its
                                    own organization (catchword) and may have even been composed
                                    in Syriac or Aramaic instead of Greek, the exclusive reliance
                                    on wording and sequence for showing literary dependence is
                                    probably not justified.

                                    Stephen Carlson
                                    --
                                    Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                    Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                                    "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                                  • Wade and April
                                    ... From: sarban ... Accepting these numbers (I haven t done any calculations myself, but I have no reason to doubt yours) I am not sure why this would
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Mar 10, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      From: "sarban"

                                      > 'Our' Thomas is by my calculation 60% Synoptic in nature.
                                      >
                                      > The suggested 'Kernel' is 75% Synoptic in nature.
                                      >
                                      > IMHO this raises the percentage from one where independent
                                      > use of some very early oral tradition is plausible to where some
                                      > sort of literary dependence is likely.
                                      >
                                      > Andrew Criddle

                                      Accepting these numbers (I haven't done any calculations myself, but I have
                                      no reason to doubt yours) I am not sure why this would suggest anything at
                                      all about dependence. Surely this increase in percentage is to be expected.
                                      Since the Kernel is smaller than the full Gospel of Thomas and some of the
                                      accretions in the full Gospel would be late and couldn't possibly be found
                                      in the Synoptic Gospels, it is (it seems to me) inevitable that the
                                      percentage of synoptic sayings in the Kernal will be larger than the
                                      percentage in the full Gospel.

                                      The picture that emerges from a model like this goes (I think) something
                                      like this: In the beginning (shortly following Jesus' death) all the sayings
                                      of Jesus were found only in the memories of folk that heard them. At some
                                      point they began to write their memories down and probably in the process
                                      added to them, subtracted from them and redacted them. There were probably
                                      several collections of Jesus' sayings that were written down. One very
                                      early set of them was the Kernel. Another might be the earliest strata of Q
                                      or (for those of you who find the stratification of a minimal hypothetical
                                      text to be a bit too much to bear) various versions of Q or just some set of
                                      sayings collections. One would expect the sayings in these collections to
                                      have a lot of parallel sayings whether they have literary dependence or not
                                      since they would be drawing on the same oral traditions. Some would have
                                      sayings that others would not and the parallel sayings would not (except
                                      perhaps rarely) look absolutely identical. You would expect that in many
                                      cases the gist of the parallel sayings would be the same and there would be
                                      sometimes identical phrases and keywords within the sayings but the parallel
                                      sayings would have some (often significant) differences in form from one
                                      sayings gospel to the next. Some of these sayings gospels get incorporated
                                      (with additions, subtractions, and redactions) into narratives like Matthew,
                                      Mark, and Luke, some are probably lost forever, and at least one (Thomas)
                                      remains a sayings gospel but gets expanded with new sayings, and redactions
                                      of the old. Some sayings in Thomas may also have fallen out of the
                                      tradition. Clearly the redactions and additions made in the Synoptics and
                                      Thomas would most usually not be the same. Therefore when you look at the
                                      earliest layer in Thomas you would expect to find that it has more parallels
                                      with the synoptics than the full Thomas does because the Kernel Thomas and
                                      the Synoptics had a common source (early oral tradition) while the
                                      accretions and redactions in both presumably do not often share a common
                                      source. Therefore the Kernel Thomas would be expected to have a larger
                                      percentage of Synoptic material than the full Thomas. And none of that
                                      requires any literary dependence between the Synoptics and Thomas.

                                      Note that I am not saying that there cannot be literary dependence there,
                                      but I don't think it is required just due to the relative percentages of
                                      Synoptic sayings found in the Kernel and the full Gospel of Thomas.
                                      Literary dependence requires, I think, a bit more evidence.

                                      Wade
                                    • Mark Goodacre
                                      ... This view is some way from the consensus in Q scholarship, though, isn t it? As you may know, I am not myself yet persuaded by the existence of Q, but one
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Mar 15, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:28:13 -0000, sarban <sarban@...> wrote:

                                        > IMHO much of M comes from the version of Q used by Matthew
                                        > which again IMHO is much closer to original Q than the form of
                                        > Q used by Luke (FWIW I think that much of L is Lukan creation.)

                                        This view is some way from the consensus in Q scholarship, though,
                                        isn't it? As you may know, I am not myself yet persuaded by the
                                        existence of Q, but one of my concerns is that as soon as one opens Q
                                        up to contain a large amount of M material, one is not really talking
                                        about the same entity, is one? Indeed, one begins to move closer
                                        there to a Q sceptical position in which the difference between Q and
                                        M is which parts of non-Marcan Matthew Luke used in his book.

                                        > There isn't much L in the 'Kernel'

                                        There is not *that* much in Thomas overall, so the examples in the
                                        "kernel" are primarily the examples in Thomas.

                                        > possible examples are
                                        > saying 10 parallel Luke 12:49
                                        > saying 63 parallel Luke 12:16-21
                                        > saying 72 parallel Luke 12:13-14
                                        > saying 79 parallels Luke 11:27-28 and Luke 23:29
                                        > most of these have been (before the discovery of Thomas)
                                        > plausibly suggested as candidates for Q

                                        I disagree about the last, and could justify this at greater length.
                                        Luke 11.27-28, for example, is as strong a candidate for a Lucan
                                        creation as I can think of; I do have an article on this and one of
                                        these days I must get round to publishing it. It argues that Luke
                                        11.27-28 // Thom. 79a is a saying composed / redacted by Luke and
                                        taken over by Thomas. I'd be happy to share should you wish.

                                        Mark

                                        --
                                        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                        Dept of Theology and Religion
                                        University of Birmingham
                                        Elmfield House, Selly Oak tel.+44 121 414 7512
                                        Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

                                        http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
                                        http://NTGateway.com
                                      • sarban
                                        ... From: Mark Goodacre To: Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 10:40 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas Kernel ... The
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Mar 15, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: "Mark Goodacre" <Goodacre@...>
                                          To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                                          Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 10:40 AM
                                          Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas Kernel


                                          >
                                          > On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:28:13 -0000, sarban <sarban@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > > IMHO much of M comes from the version of Q used by Matthew
                                          > > which again IMHO is much closer to original Q than the form of
                                          > > Q used by Luke (FWIW I think that much of L is Lukan creation.)
                                          >
                                          > This view is some way from the consensus in Q scholarship, though,
                                          > isn't it? As you may know, I am not myself yet persuaded by the
                                          > existence of Q, but one of my concerns is that as soon as one opens Q
                                          > up to contain a large amount of M material, one is not really talking
                                          > about the same entity, is one? Indeed, one begins to move closer
                                          > there to a Q sceptical position in which the difference between Q and
                                          > M is which parts of non-Marcan Matthew Luke used in his book.
                                          >
                                          The statistical analysis at
                                          http://www.davegentile.com/synoptics/main.html

                                          If interpreted in terms of Q at all, seems to imply that the
                                          form of Q used by Matthew and M proper are part of the
                                          same source, and this source was somewhat different from the
                                          form of Q used by Luke.

                                          Andrew Criddle
                                        • sarban
                                          ... From: Tom Saunders To: Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 9:46 PM Subject: [GTh] Thomas Kernel ... ...
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Mar 19, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            From: "Tom Saunders" <tom@...>
                                            To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                                            Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 9:46 PM
                                            Subject: [GTh] Thomas Kernel


                                            >
                                            <SNIP>
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Mark does not explain the bridal chamber concept beyond what Thomas does.
                                            Mark connects the bridal chamber idea to non-sequential allegory, like
                                            Matthew that does not explain the concept as process. If Morton Smith forged
                                            that Clement letter, he made some really good guesses about how bridal
                                            chamber signnificance has to work. Thomas and Phillip, together can tell us
                                            'bunches' about the bridal chamber concept.
                                            >
                                            <SNIP>
                                            >
                                            > Like I said Morton Smith had to make some really good guesses about the
                                            bridal suite concept. He didn't have Phillip, or Thomas.
                                            >
                                            > Tom Saunders
                                            > Platter, OK
                                            >
                                            Morton Smith certainly knew of the Gospel of Thomas when
                                            he wrote 'Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark'
                                            Thomas was first published with Coptic Text and English
                                            Translation in the very early 1960's and Morton Smith refers to
                                            Thomas on several occasions.

                                            Morton Smith does not appear to refer to the Gospel of Philip,
                                            and a really accurate translation with Coptic text does not seem
                                            to have become available before the very late 1960's which would
                                            have been too late for him to use.

                                            However the initial (inaccurate) translation by Wilson of Philip was
                                            made in 1962 and Morton Smith presumably had obtained some
                                            idea of Philip's teaching from that, even though he does not
                                            apparently specifically refer to it.

                                            Andrew Criddle
                                          • Michael Grondin
                                            ... What is your evidence that Matthew was ever in Alexandria, Tom? You make a lot of statements about Matthew that don t seem to have any evidentiary basis.
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Mar 19, 2005
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              > ... what are the odds that Matthew having been with Mark and the early
                                              > Alexandrian lineage didn't know about Thomasine Gnosis?

                                              What is your evidence that "Matthew" was ever in Alexandria, Tom? You make a
                                              lot of statements about Matthew that don't seem to have any evidentiary
                                              basis.

                                              -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Remarks on LeLoup's Philip book:

                                              1. The translation starts out with a gaffe:

                                              "A Hebrew who makes someone else a Hebrew is called a proselyte."

                                              Although the Coptic isn't unambiguous, anyone familiar with the term
                                              'proselyte' ought to know that a proselyte is the one being converted, not
                                              the converter. Since LeLoup's book was originally published in French,
                                              however, I'm not sure whether the error is attributable to him or to the
                                              anonymous French-English translator(s).

                                              2. I haven't gone through the entire LeLoup book, but I notice that on page
                                              4, he claims that each of the pages of Codex II "contains from 33 to 37
                                              lines". This is not true. It's ALMOST true for the first six tractates
                                              (although some pages contain 32 lines), but the 7th tractate (_Thomas the
                                              Contender_) averages about 42 lines per page.

                                              Biting my tongue as to the rest,

                                              Mike Grondin
                                              Mt. Clemens, MI
                                            • Tom Saunders
                                              Every time I look at the relation of Mathean stuff to Thomas, I do make assumptions. I think what is getting me is that Matthew does not mention the Gnostic
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Mar 21, 2005
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Every time I look at the relation of Mathean stuff to Thomas, I do make assumptions.

                                                I think what is getting me is that Matthew does not mention the Gnostic agenda directly, but the texts of Thomas, Mary, Pistis Sopia, Stromata, Ap of Peter, and others put Matthew right in the middle of the Gnostic push to what Thomasine Gnosis must be about. The use of scripture to acquire transcendence, the kind Heracleon, Clement, and Origen talk about.

                                                The idea that Matthew was in Egypt from the 70's to the 90's, and didn't somehow become directly involved with Alexandrians would be more questionable, than the other way around. Can you show that he didn't have direct contact with Egyptian (Alexandrian) Christianity? Also, why is Matthew in text after text as one of the 'select' Apostles with knowledge of apostasis (Resurrection), when we know some of these texts like Thomas were around before Mark or Matthew died?

                                                As to Morton Smith, who reputes to have found "Clement's letter to Theodore," in 1957. Andrew Criddle is right, Smith could have seen Thomas or Phillip in 1957, but I doubt it. He might have heard of some texts being found, but none of us have figured out anything about Thomas that has not taken years. I support Jack Kilmon's idea about Mark having Peter's notes and that is why Mark's gospel looks like it could be 'older,' but I don't buy for a minute at this point that it was first. Clement would have used it. (IMO)

                                                Mike thank you for pointing out Leloup's flaws. Is his reference to Philip in Acts, as the 'Philip' correct? Anybody? How about Swete? ( "A Hebrew who makes someone else a Hebrew is called a proselyte." Would this be like a "Day with Kay Arthur?" Good 'slam' Gphil....! It is like the 'blind leading the blind' thingy and I never saw it before you pointed it out.)

                                                According to "Early Greek Philosophy," Penguin, Barnes, 2000, the 'Presocratic era' stopped about 100 BC. What is left of Empedocles seems to be very "Thomas like."

                                                "For it is noble to say twice what should be said." (Ibid p.120) This idea shows up in Thomas.....

                                                "I shall tell a two fold tale. For they grew to be one alone from many, and now they grew apart again to be many from one." (Ibid. p. 120)

                                                One very telling passage of Empedocles seems to contain the idea behind parables, which are like written paintings. "Empedocles uses an analogy with the way painters can use a limited number of colours to create all sorts of different colours and represent all the different productions of nature." Fr. 23: (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

                                                "As painters, men well taught by wisdom in the practice of their art, decorate temple offerings when they take in their hands pigments of various colours, and after fitting them in close combination - more of some and less of others - they produce from them shapes resembling all things, creating trees and men and women, animals and birds and water-nourished fish, and long-lived gods too, highest in honor; so let not error convince you in your mind that there is any other source for the countless perishables that are seen, but know this clearly, since the account you have heard is divinely revealed."

                                                The fifth century Pythagoreans provide a basis for some of the ideas in Thomas that I do not see coming from Judean influence. I see this influence as not one or the other, but both. Clement references to the Pythagoreans are too many and specific not to take them seriously as a source for Thomas wisdom.

                                                But, as appears, the philosophers of the Greeks, while naming God, do not know Him. But their philosophical speculations, according to Empedocles, "as passing over the tongue of the multitude, are poured out of mouths that know little of the whole." For as art changes the light of the sun into fire by passing it through a glass vessel full of water, so also philosophy, catching a spark from the divine Scripture, is visible in a few. Also, as all animals breathe the same air, some in one way, others in another, and to a different purpose; so also a considerable number of people occupy themselves with the truth, or rather with discourse concerning the truth. For they do not say aught respecting God, but expound Him by attributing their own affections to God. For they spend life in seeking the probable, not the true. But truth is not taught by imitation, but by instruction. For it is not that we may seem good that we believe in Christ, as it is not alone for the purpose of being seen, while in the sun, that we pass into the sun. But in the one case for the purpose of being warmed; and in the other, we are compelled to be Christians in order to be excellent and good. For the kingdom belongs pre-eminently to the violent, who, from investigation, and study, and discipline, reap this fruit, that they become kings. (Clement Str. Bk. 6)

                                                This is kingdom building, and as Clement says it starts with the mysteries hidden in the parables. "Wherefore the holy mysteries of the prophecies are veiled in the parables -- preserved for chosen men, selected to knowledge in consequence of their faith; for the style of the Scriptures is parabolic." (Ibid)

                                                I have spotted three, sets of 'triad' parables that can be seen as relative to kingdom building......

                                                Sayings 63, 64, 65, are all about property owners, all of whom do not posses "Gnosis" and do not posses the power of 'monadic' guidance in their lives.

                                                Sayings 96, 97, and 98 are all about the aspect of being a 'craftsman.' 96, and 97, are about women and grain, 96, being the baker who can be seen as 'craftsman.' Saying 98, is the 'sword and the wall' parable, 'kingdom of the sword.'

                                                Sayings 107, 108, and 109, are another triad. Sayings 107, the 99 sheep, and 109 is the treasure of the pearl, and saying 108, is "The treasure." Jesus said, "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him." Perhaps, the Holy Grail?

                                                Tom Saunders
                                                Platter, OK







































                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • BitsyCat1@aol.com
                                                ... John Inquires Thomasine Gnosis? I m not sure Thomas is Gnostic at all. How can you define a Thomasine Gnostic if the literature is Wisdom literature. The
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Mar 22, 2005
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  In a message dated 3/22/05 6:29:39 AM, tom@... writes:


                                                  > Gnostic push to what Thomasine Gnosis must be about.  The use of scripture
                                                  > to acquire transcendence, the kind Heracleon, Clement, and Origen talk about.
                                                  >
                                                  >

                                                  John Inquires

                                                  Thomasine Gnosis? I m not sure Thomas is Gnostic at all. How can you
                                                  define a Thomasine Gnostic
                                                  if the literature is Wisdom literature.

                                                  The Gnostic influence negligible reduced to tweaking in places.

                                                  I presume that Origen and others used the New Testament also to achieve
                                                  Transcendence.

                                                  What makes Thomas different?

                                                  Before claiming a Thomasine Gnosis, one would have to prove Thomas is
                                                  Gnostic.

                                                  Regards,
                                                  John Moon
                                                  Springfield,Tenn 37172


                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Michael Grondin
                                                  ... I don t see that he s in the middle of the Gnostic push (ugh) in GosThom. He s mentioned, but not in a particularly favorable light. You re a long way
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Mar 22, 2005
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Tom Saunders writes:

                                                    > I think what is getting me is that Matthew does not mention the Gnostic
                                                    > agenda directly, but the texts of Thomas, Mary, Pistis Sopia, Stromata, Ap
                                                    > of Peter, and others put Matthew right in the middle of the Gnostic push
                                                    > to what Thomasine Gnosis must be about.

                                                    I don't see that he's "in the middle of the Gnostic push" (ugh) in GosThom.
                                                    He's mentioned, but not in a particularly favorable light. You're a long way
                                                    from making the point here. You'd have to show that the other texts you
                                                    mention are examples of "Thomasine Gnosis", and then you'd have to explain
                                                    why the prototype of "Thomasine Gnosis" doesn't present Matthew in a more
                                                    positive way.

                                                    > The idea that Matthew was in Egypt from the 70's to the 90's, and didn't
                                                    > somehow become directly involved with Alexandrians would be more
                                                    > questionable, than the other way around.

                                                    Who says Matthew was in Egypt from the 70's to the 90's? The Egyptian Coptic
                                                    Church claims Mark as its founder, but doesn't mention Matthew, to the best
                                                    of my recollection. So where are you getting this from?

                                                    > ... why is Matthew in text after text as one of the 'select' Apostles with
                                                    > knowledge of apostasis (Resurrection), when we know some of these texts
                                                    > like Thomas were around before Mark or Matthew died?

                                                    Not only do we NOT know that, but many scholars would deny it - regardless
                                                    of when these two evangelists died (which we don't know either, BTW.) It's
                                                    true that Matthew is mentioned in several texts we would call "gnostic", but
                                                    so is Peter, and HE isn't regarded as any kind of a "gnostic" role-model. So
                                                    where does that leave your theory? As to "knowledge of apostasis", I'm not
                                                    sure what you're getting at there. Theoretically, all twelve witnessed the
                                                    evidence of the resurrection, so it can't be the case that certain ones were
                                                    selected for inclusion in "gnostic" texts because THEY had done so and
                                                    others hadn't. You need to give this more thought.

                                                    > Mike thank you for pointing out Leloup's flaws. Is his reference to
                                                    > Philip in Acts, as the 'Philip' correct?

                                                    Of course.

                                                    > ( "A Hebrew who makes someone else a Hebrew is called a proselyte." Would
                                                    > this be like a "Day with Kay Arthur?" Good 'slam' Gphil....! It is like
                                                    > the 'blind leading the blind' thingy and I never saw it before you pointed
                                                    > it out.)

                                                    In spite of the fact that I thought what I was saying was clear as day,
                                                    you've apparently succeeded in misunderstanding it. The LeLoup translation
                                                    is INCORRECT at that point. It's not a case of GPhil "slamming" anybody -
                                                    it's a case of either LeLoup or the English translator(s) of the French
                                                    having made a mistake.

                                                    Mike Grondin
                                                    Mt. Clemens, MI
                                                  • BitsyCat1@aol.com
                                                    ... John Observes That would be Mark ( John-Mark),In Alexandria. Mark is considered the Originator of the Coptic Church. He is did apparently did found the
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Mar 23, 2005
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      In a message dated 3/23/05 6:44:29 AM, tom@... writes:


                                                      > Matthew is philosophically essential to the Thomasine transition, by virtue
                                                      > that we can see the influence of this text in the body of Thomas. Clement's
                                                      > statement about Apostles being skilled Craftsmen in all the areas of human
                                                      > gifts (Str. Bk 6) puts Matthew in the Craftsman-Pneumatic class of individuals.
                                                      > Jack Kilmon's references in past posts reference Matthew and Mark ending
                                                      > their days in Egypt.  (A little help here!)
                                                      >
                                                      >

                                                      John Observes

                                                      That would be Mark ( John-Mark),In Alexandria. Mark is considered the
                                                      Originator of the Coptic Church.

                                                      He is did apparently did found the Markan school there in Alexandria.

                                                      Presumably, though it may be difficult to prove. The students of the
                                                      school would have transmitted the Markan tradition.
                                                      Alexandria would for many years have been far more important to the
                                                      emerging Church than Rome.
                                                      There was no established Roman Church, or Monolithic organization
                                                      coming out of Rome. The Bishops in theory would have been essentially equal, during
                                                      the formation of the early church.

                                                      The Bishops of Alexandria would have held great power and influence.

                                                      There is a long established tradition and history of John-Mark being
                                                      in Alexandria, a tradition
                                                      which I have never seen anyone attempt to disprove, or disagree with in any
                                                      meaningful way.

                                                      All the early writings seem to accept this as fact.

                                                      Regards,
                                                      John Moon
                                                      Springfield,Tenn 37172


                                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    • sarban
                                                      ... From: To: Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas Kernel John Observes That would
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Mar 23, 2005
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                                        From: <BitsyCat1@...>
                                                        To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                                                        Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 1:32 PM
                                                        Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas Kernel



                                                        John Observes

                                                        That would be Mark ( John-Mark),In Alexandria. Mark is considered the
                                                        Originator of the Coptic Church.

                                                        <SNIP>

                                                        There is a long established tradition and history of John-Mark being
                                                        in Alexandria, a tradition
                                                        which I have never seen anyone attempt to disprove, or disagree with in any
                                                        meaningful way.

                                                        All the early writings seem to accept this as fact.


                                                        Andrew Observes

                                                        The problem with the tradition of John-Mark in Alexandria is that
                                                        our earliest witness is Eusebius (apart from the Mar Saba letter
                                                        containing 'Secret Mark').

                                                        In fact the whole early history of Christianity in Alexandria is
                                                        extremely obscure.

                                                        In Eusebius's list of bishops of Alexandria after Mark the first to
                                                        be other than a mere name is Demetrius who became bishop
                                                        around 189 CE.

                                                        Andrew Criddle
                                                      • Michael Grondin
                                                        ... No, Mike did not add to what John Moon had written. Mike s note was posted first, and without knowledge of what John wrote. Also, Mike s point was
                                                        Message 27 of 30 , Mar 23, 2005
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          Tom Saunders writes:

                                                          > John Moon asks....
                                                          >
                                                          > Mike adds.....

                                                          No, Mike did not "add" to what John Moon had written. Mike's note was posted
                                                          first, and without knowledge of what John wrote. Also, Mike's point was
                                                          essentially unrelated to John's. Unfortunately, John's note provided you
                                                          with an excuse (albeit illegitimate) to bury my specific questions in your
                                                          voluminous response to him.

                                                          > Thomas by its structure and form is a Contemplation tool of descending,
                                                          > ... The legend of Pythagorean numbers from one to ten is ascending,
                                                          > from ten to one is descending. Thomas by its form of 114 sayings has to
                                                          > be a descending tool, from 114 to one, the monad. Thomas is a methodology
                                                          > based upon Jesus being the monadic force in the text.

                                                          The characterization of Thomas as "descending" because it's composed of
                                                          Jesus sayings is a sophomoric non sequitur. One might as well say that it
                                                          goes from one up to 114, and is thus "ascending". This "analysis" in terms
                                                          of "ascending" and "descending" is in fact a baseless pseudo-analysis.

                                                          > Jack Kilmon's references in past posts reference Matthew and Mark ending
                                                          > their days in Egypt. (A little help here!)

                                                          I'm afraid there's no help for you. I've reread Jack's note of March
                                                          18th, and although he mentions Matthew and Mark, he doesn't claim that
                                                          Matthew was in Egypt. As far as I can see, that's a result of your own
                                                          pronounced proclivity to jump to a conclusion. (So much ground to cover;
                                                          so much jumping to do!)

                                                          > Synoptics are 'primers' for Thomasine Gnosis.

                                                          Oh, that's all they were. Well, then, so much for the synoptics! Apparently,
                                                          the whole world of early Christian writings is about to be consumed by
                                                          "Thomasine Gnosis" in your imagination. Makes one wonder why Thomas was
                                                          considered heretical, huh? But I'm being uncharitable. This is probably just
                                                          a typically misleading way of saying something else. Unfortunately, the
                                                          prose shortcomings probably aren't worth unravelling, since they're but
                                                          one symptom of the sloppiness that pervades the whole. But why
                                                          let the facts and careful reasoning get in the way of a good story, eh?

                                                          Mike Grondin
                                                          Mt. Clemens, MI
                                                        • BitsyCat1@aol.com
                                                          ... John Observes I read the response and Im pretty sure it didn t address my point. Other than to admit that there were other documents which were already in
                                                          Message 28 of 30 , Mar 23, 2005
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            In a message dated 3/23/05 12:40:24 PM, mwgrondin@... writes:


                                                            > No, Mike did not "add" to what John Moon had written. Mike's note was
                                                            > posted
                                                            > first, and without knowledge of what John wrote. Also, Mike's point was
                                                            > essentially unrelated to John's. Unfortunately, John's note provided you
                                                            > with an excuse (albeit illegitimate) to bury my specific questions in your
                                                            > voluminous response to him.
                                                            >

                                                            John Observes

                                                            I read the response and Im pretty sure it didn't address my point. Other
                                                            than to admit that there were other documents which were already in the Canon,
                                                            which the early church fathers used
                                                            to attain transcendence.

                                                            I dont believe after all that, that Thomasine Gnosis, ..that particular
                                                            term, is any clearer.

                                                            I believe that Thomasine Gnosis is a Modern term. It is unrelated to the
                                                            original writing of this or any other document. Certainly not first century,
                                                            or for the late daters 2nd and 3rd.

                                                            Its a term that has come about by observing that historically other
                                                            groups may have used Thomas
                                                            or a Thomas Kernel, in their beliefs.

                                                            The problem in this.

                                                            No one could know this until 1. Thomas was found, 2 Then extensive work
                                                            done on Comparing and translating it. 3 Then comparing it both to synoptics and
                                                            other documents of various centuries.

                                                            That's significant.

                                                            That makes the idea of Thomasine gnosis a new one. For only after all
                                                            those things had occurred
                                                            could the term then be coined.

                                                            There may have been groups that claimed A GNOSI, or special knowledge.
                                                            They may well have had
                                                            similar documents.

                                                            But coming behind them and calling that Thomasine Gnosis, is not a
                                                            valid point.

                                                            No one in those groups or at the time of writing of Thomas held any
                                                            such view.

                                                            That is the point.



                                                            Regards,
                                                            John Moon
                                                            Springfield<tTnn.37172


                                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.