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

Recovering Thomas

Expand Messages
  • sarban
    I ve recently been reading April DeConick s Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas. which has been previuosly discussed on this group. I ve found it a
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 20, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I've recently been reading April DeConick's 'Recovering the Original
      Gospel of Thomas.' which has been previuosly discussed on this group.

      I've found it a very informative and thought-provoking book and I would
      recommend it to other list members.

      I find the proposed history of development of Thomas broadly
      convincing but remain convinced that the earliest ascertainable form of
      Thomas, the 'Thomas Kernel' is dependent on the synoptics.

      This means obviously that I am dating the Kernel later than DeConick
      does, but in terms of its relatively primitive theology the Kernel certainly
      dates from before the Bar-Kochba war and its effects on the relation of
      Christianity to Judaism, and is probably older than the reign of Hadrian
      particularly if one is to avoid either an improbably late date for final
      Thomas or an improbably rapid development from the Kernel to the final
      form.

      This makes very interesting the discussion on pages 242-243 of
      'Recovering ,,, Thomas' where the Kernel is convincingly linked to the
      Diatessaron and the Pseudo-Clementines.

      The type of relation between Thomas and the Diatessaron is difficult to
      decide (although the Old Syriac which sometimes shares the
      agreements between the Diatessaron and Thomas and sometimes does
      not is IMO an important part of the puzzle) IE we cannot say whether
      the Diatessaron (or an earlier form thereof) influenced Thomas or
      whether Thomas (or an earlier form thereof) influenced the Diatessaron.

      The relation of Thomas to the Pseudo-Clementines may be another
      matter. There is a strong case that the gospel parallels in the Pseudo-
      Clementines (which is where the parallels to Thomas are all found)
      come from an early synoptic harmony also used by Justin Martyr and
      lying behing the Gospel of the Ebionites.

      Since parallels between Thomas and this material appear to be entirely
      limited to synoptic type pasages, it is most plausible to suppose that
      the Thomas Kernel is not only ultimately dependent on the synoptics
      but dependent on them via a synoptic harmony, also used by Justin
      etc. With a date of the Thomas Kernel in the very early 2nd century
      this is a startling idea (most scholars would put the first synoptic
      harmonies considerably later) but it seems the best explanation for
      the data.

      Andrew Criddle

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Judy Redman
      I am still waiting for my copy of Recovering ... Thomas to arrive - I stupidly tried to test the university s purchase system, rather than simply paying for
      Message 2 of 15 , Jul 20, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        I am still waiting for my copy of "Recovering ... Thomas" to arrive - I
        stupidly tried to test the university's purchase system, rather than simply
        paying for it and getting the cost reimbursed from my grant. I've read
        DeConick's article in Vigiliae Christianae 56 (2) 2002, though, and am
        looking forward to reading her further work on this.

        Andrew, how are you defining "dependent on"? When I read/hear it, I think
        that it's saying that the writer had copies of a manuscript from which s/he
        copied passages more or less directly into her/his new document. Using that
        definition, it seems extremely unlikely to me that GTh is dependent on the
        Synoptics. Unless Mike is right and Coptic GTh is a total rearrangement of
        the text to fit it around some sort of numerically based secret code (sorry,
        Mike, if this is too simplistic a summary of your argument), I think GTh
        bears the hallmarks of a document that is very close to the oral
        transmission phase of its existence, whereas the Synoptics have undergone
        some quite extensive editing. I find it very difficult to believe that the
        author of Thomas would deliberately take the carefully ordered material from
        the Synoptics and rip it apart and scatter it around, unless Mike is
        correct.

        I have no difficulty with the possibility that the Thomas Kernel and the
        Synoptics are based on common sources, although I find common oral tradition
        more convincing than written material, but for me that's not the same as
        Thomas being dependent on the Synoptics.

        Judy

        --
        "One can easily understand a child who is afraid of the dark. The real
        tragedy of life is when grown men and women are afraid of the light." -
        Plato

        Rev Judy Redman
        Uniting Church Chaplain
        University of New England
        Armidale 2351
        ph: +61 2 6773 3739
        fax: +61 2 6773 3749
        web: http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
        email: jredman@...


        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sarban
        > Sent: Friday, 21 July 2006 5:47 AM
        > To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [GTh] Recovering Thomas
        >
        > I've recently been reading April DeConick's 'Recovering the
        > Original Gospel of Thomas.' which has been previuosly
        > discussed on this group.
        >
        > I've found it a very informative and thought-provoking book
        > and I would recommend it to other list members.
        >
        > I find the proposed history of development of Thomas broadly
        > convincing but remain convinced that the earliest
        > ascertainable form of Thomas, the 'Thomas Kernel' is
        > dependent on the synoptics.
        >
        > This means obviously that I am dating the Kernel later than
        > DeConick does, but in terms of its relatively primitive
        > theology the Kernel certainly dates from before the
        > Bar-Kochba war and its effects on the relation of
        > Christianity to Judaism, and is probably older than the reign
        > of Hadrian particularly if one is to avoid either an
        > improbably late date for final Thomas or an improbably rapid
        > development from the Kernel to the final form.
        >
        > This makes very interesting the discussion on pages 242-243
        > of 'Recovering ,,, Thomas' where the Kernel is convincingly
        > linked to the Diatessaron and the Pseudo-Clementines.
        >
        > The type of relation between Thomas and the Diatessaron is
        > difficult to decide (although the Old Syriac which sometimes
        > shares the agreements between the Diatessaron and Thomas and
        > sometimes does not is IMO an important part of the puzzle) IE
        > we cannot say whether the Diatessaron (or an earlier form
        > thereof) influenced Thomas or whether Thomas (or an earlier
        > form thereof) influenced the Diatessaron.
        >
        > The relation of Thomas to the Pseudo-Clementines may be
        > another matter. There is a strong case that the gospel
        > parallels in the Pseudo- Clementines (which is where the
        > parallels to Thomas are all found) come from an early
        > synoptic harmony also used by Justin Martyr and lying behing
        > the Gospel of the Ebionites.
        >
        > Since parallels between Thomas and this material appear to be
        > entirely limited to synoptic type pasages, it is most
        > plausible to suppose that the Thomas Kernel is not only
        > ultimately dependent on the synoptics but dependent on them
        > via a synoptic harmony, also used by Justin etc. With a date
        > of the Thomas Kernel in the very early 2nd century this is a
        > startling idea (most scholars would put the first synoptic
        > harmonies considerably later) but it seems the best
        > explanation for the data.
        >
        > Andrew Criddle
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------------------
        > ----------
        > Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
        > Interlinear translation:
        > http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/x_transl.htm
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Michael Grondin
        ... Just to be clear, is it correct to assume that this is _your_ position, and that it does not agree with DeConick? I.e., that it s her claim that (kernel?)
        Message 3 of 15 , Jul 20, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          [Andrew Criddle wrote]:
          > This makes very interesting the discussion on pages 242-243 of
          > 'Recovering ,,, Thomas' where the Kernel is convincingly linked
          > to the Diatessaron and the Pseudo-Clementines.
          >
          > ... we cannot say whether the Diatessaron (or an earlier form
          > thereof) influenced Thomas or whether Thomas (or an earlier
          > form thereof) influenced the Diatessaron.

          Just to be clear, is it correct to assume that this is _your_ position,
          and that it does not agree with DeConick? I.e., that it's her claim
          that (kernel?) Thomas definitely influenced the Diatessaron,
          rather than the other way round?

          > The relation of Thomas to the Pseudo-Clementines may be another
          > matter. There is a strong case that the gospel parallels in the Pseudo-
          > Clementines (which is where the parallels to Thomas are all found)
          > come from an early synoptic harmony also used by Justin Martyr and
          > lying behing the Gospel of the Ebionites.

          This talk of parallels between Thomas and the Pseudo-Clementines
          surprises me. I don't recall this from her earlier paper, but more than
          that, I don't recall anyone making that claim before. I think it rather
          extraordinary that _all_ the kernel sayings are paralleled in P-C (even
          though 'parallel' is often a slippery notion). In glancing over that
          portion of P-C that appears in _New Testament Apocrypha_, I
          notice a few scattered about, but there are also some sayings that
          _don't_ appear in Thomas, kernel or otherwise. One such is "Many
          will come from east and west, from north and south, and repose
          in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (H VIII, NTA p. 563,
          // Mt 22:14). I suppose it's DeConick's position that P-C borrowed
          from Thomas and added stuff of its own. Is it your position that
          Thomas borrowed from P-C, but left some stuff out? In any
          case, it would be interesting to get a copy of pp. 242-3 of
          DeConick's text to see what she herself says to establish the
          connection between the kernal and P-C. Is there any way you
          can make those two pages publicly available?

          (BTW, I'm unable to find even a guess on the dating of the P-C's.
          They seem to have had a more convoluted history than most.
          What does DeConick say? Other guesses?)

          Regards,
          Mike Grondin
        • sarban
          From: Michael Grondin To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 4:19 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Recovering Thomas ... DeConick speaks of the weighty
          Message 4 of 15 , Jul 21, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            From: Michael Grondin

            To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com

            Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 4:19 AM

            Subject: Re: [GTh] Recovering Thomas



            [Andrew Criddle wrote]:
            >> This makes very interesting the discussion on pages 242-243 of
            >> 'Recovering ,,, Thomas' where the Kernel is convincingly linked
            >> to the Diatessaron and the Pseudo-Clementines.
            >
            >> ... we cannot say whether the Diatessaron (or an earlier form
            >> thereof) influenced Thomas or whether Thomas (or an earlier
            >> form thereof) influenced the Diatessaron.

            >Just to be clear, is it correct to assume that this is _your_ position,
            >and that it does not agree with DeConick? I.e., that it's her claim
            >that (kernel?) Thomas definitely influenced the Diatessaron,
            >rather than the other way round?


            DeConick speaks of the weighty possibility that 'an early form of
            the Gospel of Thomas .....was known to Tatian and may have
            been one of the sources for the Pseudo-Clementines.'
            In any case her dating of the final form of Thomas before 130 CE
            prevents the Diatessaron from influencing Thomas)
            FWIW I think an early Syriac/Aramaic Gospel may have
            influenced both but the evidence is too ambiguous to be surwe.


            >> The relation of Thomas to the Pseudo-Clementines may be another
            >> matter. There is a strong case that the gospel parallels in the Pseudo-
            >> Clementines (which is where the parallels to Thomas are all found)
            > >come from an early synoptic harmony also used by Justin Martyr and
            > >lying behing the Gospel of the Ebionites.

            >This talk of parallels between Thomas and the Pseudo-Clementines
            >surprises me. I don't recall this from her earlier paper, but more than
            >that, I don't recall anyone making that claim before. I think it rather
            >extraordinary that _all_ the kernel sayings are paralleled in P-C (even
            >though 'parallel' is often a slippery notion). In glancing over that
            >portion of P-C that appears in _New Testament Apocrypha_, I
            >notice a few scattered about, but there are also some sayings that
            _>don't_ appear in Thomas, kernel or otherwise. One such is "Many
            >will come from east and west, from north and south, and repose
            >in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (H VIII, NTA p. 563,
            >// Mt 22:14). I suppose it's DeConick's position that P-C borrowed
            >from Thomas and added stuff of its own. Is it your position that
            >Thomas borrowed from P-C, but left some stuff out? In any
            >case, it would be interesting to get a copy of pp. 242-3 of
            >DeConick's text to see what she herself says to establish the
            >connection between the kernal and P-C. Is there any way you
            >can make those two pages publicly available?




            I'm sorry for being confusing here I did not mean to suggest that all
            the Canonical Gospel type sayings in the Kernel are paralleled in the
            Pseudo-Clementines. What I meant to say was that the only Thomas
            sayings paralleled in the Pseudo-Clementines are ones which occur in
            the putative kernel and have canonical Gospel parallels. (DeConick
            lists a non canonical type parallel between Thomas 62 'I tell my
            mysteries to those who are worthy of my mysteries' and the
            Pseudo-Clementine 'keep the mysteries for me and the sons of my
            house' but this is IMO weak)

            The main sayings concerned are Logions 9 16 39 40 68 76 93
            (DeConick lists some others but they don't seem to be agreements of
            Thomas and the Pseudo-Clementines against the canonical Gospels)

            The relation of Thomas to the Pseudo-Clementines is an old claim
            Quispel made it and Baarda in his important article 'Thomas and Tatian'

            You're right here about DeConick's position. My suggestion is that
            Thomas and the Pseudo-Clementines both used an early synoptic
            harmony.

            >(BTW, I'm unable to find even a guess on the dating of the P-C's.
            >They seem to have had a more convoluted history than most.
            >What does DeConick say? Other guesses?)


            The general position is that the Homilies and Recognitions in their

            present form are 4th century but their common source is early third


            Andrew Criddle


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • andrewcriddle
            ... I think ... which s/he ... Using that ... on the ... rearrangement of ... code (sorry, ... think GTh ... undergone ... that the ... material from ... and
            Message 5 of 15 , Jul 21, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Judy Redman" <jredman@...> wrote:
              >
              > ...................................
              > Andrew, how are you defining "dependent on"? When I read/hear it,
              I think
              > that it's saying that the writer had copies of a manuscript from
              which s/he
              > copied passages more or less directly into her/his new document.
              Using that
              > definition, it seems extremely unlikely to me that GTh is dependent
              on the
              > Synoptics. Unless Mike is right and Coptic GTh is a total
              rearrangement of
              > the text to fit it around some sort of numerically based secret
              code (sorry,
              > Mike, if this is too simplistic a summary of your argument), I
              think GTh
              > bears the hallmarks of a document that is very close to the oral
              > transmission phase of its existence, whereas the Synoptics have
              undergone
              > some quite extensive editing. I find it very difficult to believe
              that the
              > author of Thomas would deliberately take the carefully ordered
              material from
              > the Synoptics and rip it apart and scatter it around, unless Mike is
              > correct.
              >
              > I have no difficulty with the possibility that the Thomas Kernel
              and the
              > Synoptics are based on common sources, although I find common oral
              tradition
              > more convincing than written material, but for me that's not the
              same as
              > Thomas being dependent on the Synoptics.
              >
              > Judy
              >
              > --
              Hi Judy

              When I said that Thomas was dependent on the synoptics I
              meant to include indirect as well as direct dependence.
              In fact I don't think the Thomas Kernel was directly based
              on the separate Greek gospels as we have them but on sources
              (oral or written) derived from them.

              These sources may include an early Syriac/Aramaic paraphrase
              of Matthew and an early Greek synoptic harmony.

              I don't however see clear evidence in any of the Thomas sayings
              with synoptic parallels that they are more primitive than the
              synoptic versions of these sayings.

              Andrew Criddle
            • Judy Redman
              ... There are times when I find email frustrating because you can t do tone of voice. This is a genuinely interested question, not an attempt to say Look,
              Message 6 of 15 , Jul 21, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Andrew writes:

                > When I said that Thomas was dependent on the synoptics I
                > meant to include indirect as well as direct dependence.
                > In fact I don't think the Thomas Kernel was directly based on
                > the separate Greek gospels as we have them but on sources
                > (oral or written) derived from them.
                >
                > These sources may include an early Syriac/Aramaic paraphrase
                > of Matthew and an early Greek synoptic harmony.
                >
                > I don't however see clear evidence in any of the Thomas
                > sayings with synoptic parallels that they are more primitive
                > than the synoptic versions of these sayings.

                There are times when I find email frustrating because you can't do tone of
                voice. This is a genuinely interested question, not an attempt to say
                "Look, you idiot..." but I suspect you could read the latter into the
                wording. Please don't.

                If Thomas is potentially based on a paraphrase of Matthew and/or an early
                Greek synoptic harmony, what do you make of what would then be a radical
                re-ordering of the text by Thomas? For example, all of the Thomas parables
                of the Realm/Kingdom that have synoptic parallels that are also Realm
                parables appear in Matthew 13, in vv 24-33 and 44-48 (separated by a passage
                about the use of parables). In Thomas they are sayings 8, 20, 57, 76, 96
                and 109.

                I'm not prepared to commit myself about whether or not the Thomas sayings
                are more primitive than their Synoptic parallels, but it would seem to me
                strange that an author would take a nice, neat, thematic package like this
                one and pull it apart in such a fashion. It would, I think, be particularly
                strange if Thomas were based on a paraphrase of Matthew. I suppose the
                ordering in a Synoptic harmony would depend on which of the Synoptics the
                author chose to take as the primary one, but most of the Realm parables
                don't have parallels in Mark and Luke, so it would probably make sense to
                keep them together. The only one that appears in Mark and Luke is the
                mustard seed.

                This kind of thing speaks to me more of a shared common source than of one
                being derived from the other, even through an intermediate source. Another
                possibility would be that each derived from oral traditions stemming from
                different eyewitness accounts. If we assume that Jesus told his stories
                more than once (and why would you waste a good story by only using it once
                if you were moving around?), then people who heard him in one place might
                well have slightly different versions of stories to pass on in signficantly
                different orders because that was they way Jesus told them when they heard
                them.

                Judy
              • andrewcriddle
                ... an early ... radical ... parables ... Realm ... a passage ... 76, 96 ... sayings ... seem to me ... like this ... particularly ... suppose the ...
                Message 7 of 15 , Jul 21, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Judy Redman" <jredman@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > If Thomas is potentially based on a paraphrase of Matthew and/or
                  an early
                  > Greek synoptic harmony, what do you make of what would then be a
                  radical
                  > re-ordering of the text by Thomas? For example, all of the Thomas
                  parables
                  > of the Realm/Kingdom that have synoptic parallels that are also
                  Realm
                  > parables appear in Matthew 13, in vv 24-33 and 44-48 (separated by
                  a passage
                  > about the use of parables). In Thomas they are sayings 8, 20, 57,
                  76, 96
                  > and 109.
                  >
                  > I'm not prepared to commit myself about whether or not the Thomas
                  sayings
                  > are more primitive than their Synoptic parallels, but it would
                  seem to me
                  > strange that an author would take a nice, neat, thematic package
                  like this
                  > one and pull it apart in such a fashion. It would, I think, be
                  particularly
                  > strange if Thomas were based on a paraphrase of Matthew. I
                  suppose the
                  > ordering in a Synoptic harmony would depend on which of the
                  Synoptics the
                  > author chose to take as the primary one, but most of the Realm
                  parables
                  > don't have parallels in Mark and Luke, so it would probably make
                  sense to
                  > keep them together. The only one that appears in Mark and Luke is
                  the
                  > mustard seed.
                  >
                  > This kind of thing speaks to me more of a shared common source
                  than of one
                  > being derived from the other, even through an intermediate
                  source. Another
                  > possibility would be that each derived from oral traditions
                  stemming from
                  > different eyewitness accounts. If we assume that Jesus told his
                  stories
                  > more than once (and why would you waste a good story by only using
                  it once
                  > if you were moving around?), then people who heard him in one
                  place might
                  > well have slightly different versions of stories to pass on in
                  signficantly
                  > different orders because that was they way Jesus told them when
                  they heard
                  > them.
                  >
                  > Judy
                  >
                  Hi Judy

                  We know that a good deal of rearrangement of the order of Jesus'
                  sayings occurred in the formation of the Gospels.

                  Those who believe in Q usually hold that Matthew drastically
                  rearranged the order of sayings in Q for his own purposes.

                  Those who dispense with Q hold that Luke drastically rearranged
                  the order of sayings in Matthew for his own purposes.

                  If your concern is that the order of sayings in Thomas is less
                  structured than in the canonical Gospels then DeConick has an
                  interesting analysis of the structure of the Thomas kernel which
                  she sees as arranged in 5 sermons (sermon 1 eschatological urgency
                  sermon 2 discipleship sermon 3 committal to Jesus sermon 4 selection
                  of the elect sermon 5 the kingdom's imminence)These sermons in some
                  ways repeat the same material with a different emphasis Of the 6
                  kingdom parables you mentioned one occurs in each of the first four
                  sermons and two in the fifth. (I'm a bit uneasy saying this because
                  it is not clear whether saying 8 the fisherman parable is a kingdom
                  poarable IN THOMAS)

                  There is also Perrin's interesting analysis in 'Thomas and Tatian'
                  about how the order of the sayings in Thomas is determined by using
                  catchwords in Syriac.

                  My personal suspicion is that DeConick is over confident in assuming
                  that the order of the sayings in the Thomas kernel can be determined
                  from their order in existing Thomas. It is possible that the order
                  of sayings within Thomas was very fluid in the early stages of
                  Thomas' development and only achieved fixity in the late stages.

                  Andrew Criddle
                • sarban
                  As a resource for evaluating the relation of Thomas to the Pseudo- Clementines I m posting here the most important parallels between Thomas and the
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jul 21, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    As a resource for evaluating the relation of Thomas to the Pseudo-
                    Clementines I'm posting here the most important parallels between
                    Thomas and the Pseudo-Clementine Literature

                    Thomas 12 Jesus said The kingdom of the Father is like a merchant

                    who had merchandise and found a pearl This merchant was wise he

                    sold the merchandise he bought the one pearl for himself.



                    Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions Such is he whom alone the true

                    Prophet deems wise, even he who sells all that he has and buys the

                    one true pearl,





                    Thomas 16 Jesus said Perhaps men think that I have come to cast

                    peace upon the world, and they do not know that I have come to

                    cast divisions upon the earth fire sword war.



                    Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions He said, `I am not come to send

                    peace on earth, but a sword".... He proclaims the war of

                    the word and of confutation







                    Thomas 39 Jesus said The Pharisees and scribes have received the

                    keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered

                    nor have they permitted those to enter who wish.



                    Pseudo-Clementine Homilies But you have not inquired

                    whose is the time of the kingdom, and whose is the seat of

                    prophecy, though He Himself points out Himself, saying, The

                    scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; all things whatsoever

                    they say to you, hear them." Hear them, He said, as entrusted with

                    the key of the kingdom, which is knowledge, which alone can open

                    the gate of life, through which alone is the entrance to eternal life.

                    But truly, He says, they possess the key, but those wishing to enter

                    they do not suffer to do so.







                    Thomas 93 Jesus said Do not give what is holy to dogs lest they

                    throw them on the dung heap Do not throw pearls to swine lest they

                    make it .



                    Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions But if he set

                    forth pure truth to those who do not desire to obtain salvation, he

                    does injury to Him by whom he has been sent, and from whom he

                    has received commandment not to throw the pearls of His words

                    before swine and dogs, who, striving against them with arguments

                    and sophisms, roll them in the rand of carnal understanding, and by

                    their barkings and base answers break and weary the preachers of

                    God's word.





                    Andrew Criddle






                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Michael Grondin
                    ... Hi Andrew, Your note quotes sayings titled as 12, 16, 39, and 93, but the one titled 12 is actually 76. In addition, one wonders why you list only four now
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jul 21, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      [Andrew Criddle wrote]:
                      > As a resource for evaluating the relation of Thomas to the Pseudo-
                      > Clementines I'm posting here the most important parallels between
                      > Thomas and the Pseudo-Clementine Literature

                      Hi Andrew,
                      Your note quotes sayings titled as 12, 16, 39, and 93, but the
                      one titled 12 is actually 76. In addition, one wonders why you
                      list only four now whereas you mentioned seven earlier in the
                      following statement:

                      > The main sayings concerned are Logions 9 16 39 40 68 76 93

                      Aside from that, however, I'm finding it difficult to understand
                      what importance or interest there is in these parallels. Your
                      earlier statement:

                      > What I meant to say was that the only Thomas sayings
                      > paralleled in the Pseudo-Clementines are ones which occur
                      > in the putative kernel and have canonical Gospel parallels.

                      ... seems to suggest that DeConick is using the parallels as
                      supporting evidence that those Thomas sayings she identifies
                      as the kernel are really earlier than the others. Is that it? If so,
                      it seems rather weak evidence in itself, since not only is it
                      not the case that _all_ kernel sayings are paralleled in the
                      Ps-Clem's, but even that _most aren't_ (based on your list).
                      But this may not be what DeConick had in mind, so I won't
                      pursue it at this point. What I would like to know is why the
                      Ps-Clem parallels are important to DeConick.

                      May I also add to my earlier request (that pp. 242-3 be made
                      publicly available) that you or anyone else who has the book
                      list (by number) those sayings and parts of sayings that she
                      now includes in the supposed kernel? (I could list those which
                      appear in her earlier article, but the list in her book may differ.)

                      Thanks,
                      Mike
                    • sarban
                      ... From: Michael Grondin To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 6:01 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Recovering Thomas ... Hi Mike 12 should be 76 as
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jul 22, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ----- Original Message -----

                        From: Michael Grondin

                        To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com

                        Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 6:01 AM

                        Subject: Re: [GTh] Recovering Thomas



                        [Andrew Criddle wrote]:
                        >> As a resource for evaluating the relation of Thomas to the Pseudo-
                        >> Clementines I'm posting here the most important parallels between
                        >> Thomas and the Pseudo-Clementine Literature

                        >Hi Andrew,
                        >Your note quotes sayings titled as 12, 16, 39, and 93, but the
                        >one titled 12 is actually 76. In addition, one wonders why you
                        >list only four now whereas you mentioned seven earlier in the
                        >following statement:

                        >> The main sayings concerned are Logions 9 16 39 40 68 76 93

                        Hi Mike

                        12 should be 76 as you say, my stupid mistake sorry.

                        I left out 9 where there is apparently a parallel in the Recognitions with 'on the road' rather than 'along the road' as in the synoptics 40 which has a parallel in the Homilies with 'the Father' rather than 'my Father' in the synoptics and 68 where there is a parallel with the Homilies in being hated rather than having men hate you as in the synoptics.

                        The four I included all have more than one point of agreement against the synoptics.



                        >Aside from that, however, I'm finding it difficult to understand
                        >what importance or interest there is in these parallels. Your
                        >earlier statement:

                        >> What I meant to say was that the only Thomas sayings
                        >> paralleled in the Pseudo-Clementines are ones which occur
                        >> in the putative kernel and have canonical Gospel parallels.

                        >.... seems to suggest that DeConick is using the parallels as
                        >supporting evidence that those Thomas sayings she identifies
                        >as the kernel are really earlier than the others. Is that it? If so,
                        >it seems rather weak evidence in itself, since not only is it
                        >not the case that _all_ kernel sayings are paralleled in the
                        >Ps-Clem's, but even that _most aren't_ (based on your list).
                        >But this may not be what DeConick had in mind, so I won't
                        >pursue it at this point. What I would like to know is why the
                        >Ps-Clem parallels are important to DeConick.



                        What DeConick thinks important is that none of the parallels with the Pseudo-Clementines (and only saying 113 among the parallels to the Diatessaron) are parallels to non-Kernel texts. She argues (rightly or wrongly) that his supports early knowledge of a version of Thomas which contained the kernel but not later sayings.


                        >May I also add to my earlier request (that pp. 242-3 be made
                        >publicly available) that you or anyone else who has the book
                        >list (by number) those sayings and parts of sayings that she
                        >now includes in the supposed kernel? (I could list those which
                        >appear in her earlier article, but the list in her book may differ.)





                        The full list of sayings listed on 242-3 by DeConick as paralleled in The Pseudo-Clementines is 9,16,32,39,40,54,62,64,68,76,93,95.

                        The parallels to the Diatessaron are Quispel 6,8,9,16,21,25,32,33,35,36,39,40,44,45,46,47,48,55,57,63,64,66,68,74,79,86,89,90,91,94,95,96,98,100,104,109,113

                        and Baarda 4,8,9,10,16,20,21,26,32,33,34,35,38,39,40,44,45,46,47,48,54,55,56,57,61,63,64,65,68,69,72,73,76,78,79,86,89,91,93,94,96,99,100,104,107,113



                        The list of the kernel is 2,4(2-3),5,6(2-3),8,9,10,11(1),14(4),15,16(1-3),17,20(2-4),21(5),21(10-11),23(1),24(2-3),25,26,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,38(1),39,40,41,42,44(2-3),45,46(1-2a,c),47,48,54,55,57,58,61(1),62(1-2),63(1-4),64(1-11),65(1-8),66,68(1),69(2),71,72,73,74,76,78,79,81,82,86,89,90,91(2),92,93,94,95,96(1-3),97,98,99,100(1-3),102,103,104,107,109,111(1)



                        Also 12 and 68(2) are regarded as very early additions to the kernel



                        Andrew Criddle




                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Michael Grondin
                        ... This list agrees in almost all particulars with her earlier paper ( The Original _Gospel of Thomas_ ), with some uncertainty due to the use of lower-case
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jul 24, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          [Andrew Criddle from DeConick's latest book]:
                          > The list of the kernel is
                          > 2,4(2-3),5,6(2-3),8,9,10,11(1),14(4),15,16(1-3),17,20(2-4),21(5),21(10-11),23(1),24(2-3),25,26,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,38(1),39,40,41,42,44(2-3),45,46(1-2a,c),47,48,54,55,57,58,61(1),62(1-2),63(1-4),64(1-11),65(1-8),66,68(1),69(2),71,72,73,74,76,78,79,81,82,86,89,90,91(2),92,93,94,95,96(1-3),97,98,99,100(1-3),102,103,104,107,109,111(1)
                          >
                          > Also 12 and 68(2) are regarded as very early additions to the kernel

                          This list agrees in almost all particulars with her earlier paper ("The
                          Original _Gospel of Thomas_"), with some uncertainty due to the use of
                          lower-case letters in her paper (some of which are easily translatable into
                          the standard numbering, some not.) It is confusing, however, that _all_ the
                          parts of 62, 63, 65, and 96 are shown in parens. Is this your doing or hers?
                          Since #62, e.g., contains only two parts, why doesn't it appear as simply
                          '62' instead of '62(1-2)'? But I notice this also in her paper, where 33 and
                          47 are split into parts, but every part is labelled 'kernel', so one wonders
                          why she bothered to split it. (?)

                          Regards,
                          Mike
                        • Wade Greiner
                          ... the Pseudo-Clementines (and only saying 113 among the parallels to the Diatessaron) are parallels to non-Kernel texts. She argues (rightly or wrongly) that
                          Message 12 of 15 , Sep 1, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > [Andrew Criddle wrote]:
                            >
                            > What DeConick thinks important is that none of the parallels with
                            the Pseudo-Clementines (and only saying 113 among the parallels to the
                            Diatessaron) are parallels to non-Kernel texts. She argues (rightly or
                            wrongly) that his supports early knowledge of a version of Thomas
                            which contained the kernel but not later sayings.
                            >

                            Hi Andrew,

                            The argument you refer to is found on pages 242-243 of Recovering
                            (hardback copy). She does think it is significant that the sayings in
                            the Pseudo-Clementines show familiarity with only kernal sayings, but
                            equally important to her argument is that the Pseudo-Clementines show
                            knowledge of clusters of sayings in Thomas that are not found in the
                            synoptics. She also thinks that if you just look at the kernal a
                            natural hermeneutic is apparent and that the Pseudo-Clementines also
                            show familiarity with that hermeneutic, unlike the synoptics. That
                            combined with the fact that other syrian authors do show familiarity
                            with the non-kernal material lead her to think that the author of the
                            Pseudo-Clementines might have had knowledge of a source very much like
                            her reconstructed kernal. (All from pp. 242-243.)

                            By the way, the paperback should be out of this by now too. She has
                            had her author copies for a couple of months now. (As a fun aside,
                            the paperback edition has an illustration on the cover by April
                            DeConick herself. It is a drawing of Thomas she did.)

                            The companion volume to Recovering has just arrived at the publisher's
                            so it should be out fairly soon too. "The Original Gospel of Thomas
                            in Translation" is a saying by saying commentary that was originally
                            supposed to be a part of Recovering. The page count got too large,
                            however, and they asked that she separate the two into different volumes.

                            She also co-edited a volume published by Brill "Thomasine Traditions
                            in Antiquity" with Jon Ma. Asgeirsson and Risto Uro. Along with
                            contributions from the three of them (and others) there is an article
                            by Marvin Meyer on saying 42 which I point out because (if I remember
                            correctly) it is a saying that there has been a fair amount of
                            discussion of on this list.

                            Finally, DeConick has left her position at Illinois Wesleyan
                            University to take a post at Rice University in Houston. She is the
                            Ilsa Carroll and Percy E. Turner Professor of Biblical Studies at Rice
                            starting this fall. I know she is interested in teaching graduate
                            students and may do a Gospel of Thomas seminar at Rice next year.
                            (This year she is doing a graduate seminar on the Gnostic Gospels.)
                            She will also be offering a class on Coptic every now and then, I
                            believe. She will also be giving a couple of lay-level Gospel of
                            Thomas talks at the Biblical Archeological Society's "Lost
                            Christianities" program in Austin this month.

                            Wade
                          • Judy Redman
                            ... I ve had a paperback copy for a couple of weeks now. I ordered it first in mid July from Continuum (the publishing company of which T&T Clark appears to
                            Message 13 of 15 , Sep 1, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Wade writes:

                              > By the way, the paperback should be out of this by now too.
                              > She has had her author copies for a couple of months now.

                              I've had a paperback copy for a couple of weeks now. I ordered it first in
                              mid July from Continuum (the publishing company of which T&T Clark appears
                              to be a subsidiary) and a week or ten days later received a snail-mail
                              letter telling me that it wasn't yet available and I should order again
                              later, despite the fact that their website said it was. I emailed them and
                              was told that it was, indeed, available, so I tried again in late July and
                              it arrived mid-August.

                              > The companion volume to Recovering has just arrived at the
                              > publisher's so it should be out fairly soon too.

                              The Continuum website says the publication date is 31 August, but I plan to
                              wait a week or two before ordering, given my previous experience. They say
                              the price is 85 pounds sterling.

                              Judy
                              --
                              "One can easily understand a child who is afraid of the dark. The real
                              tragedy of life is when grown men and women are afraid of the light." -
                              Plato

                              Rev Judy Redman
                              Uniting Church Chaplain
                              University of New England
                              Armidale 2351
                              ph: +61 2 6773 3739
                              fax: +61 2 6773 3749
                              web: http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
                              email: jredman@...
                            • Adaire
                              ... form of ... . . . Bart D. Ehrman makes the point in his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture and even more succinctly in his Misquoting Jesus that the
                              Message 14 of 15 , Sep 4, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "sarban" <sarban@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > "I find the proposed history of development of Thomas broadly
                                > convincing but remain convinced that the earliest ascertainable
                                form of
                                > Thomas, the 'Thomas Kernel' is dependent on the synoptics."
                                >
                                > Andrew Criddle
                                >

                                .
                                .
                                .
                                Bart D. Ehrman makes the point in his "The Orthodox Corruption of
                                Scripture" and even more succinctly in his "Misquoting Jesus" that
                                the monasteries of Egypt were extremely careful in preserving
                                manuscripts unaltered and intact. I think that "Thomas" coming from
                                the Pachomian monasteries is probably far superior as to the original
                                words of Jesus than the synoptics.

                                The politics and war at the end of the first century and the
                                beginning of the second were probably the cause of the reinvention of
                                Jesus' words and teachings.

                                Adaire Cain
                              • Mike Buckner
                                George Lamsa describes for whose sake heaven and earth came into being as an Aramaic idiom denoting respect. Michael Buckner, M. Div., Ph. D.
                                Message 15 of 15 , Sep 23, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  George Lamsa describes "for whose sake heaven and
                                  earth came into being" as an Aramaic idiom denoting respect.



                                  Michael Buckner, M. Div., Ph. D.
                                  <theoriginalteachingsofjesus.com>


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