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

Re: [GTh] Recovering Thomas

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 15 , Jul 20, 2006
      [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 2 of 15 , Jul 21, 2006
        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 3 of 15 , Jul 21, 2006
          --- 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 4 of 15 , Jul 21, 2006
            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 5 of 15 , Jul 21, 2006
              --- 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 6 of 15 , Jul 21, 2006
                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 7 of 15 , Jul 21, 2006
                  [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 8 of 15 , Jul 22, 2006
                    ----- 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 9 of 15 , Jul 24, 2006
                      [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 10 of 15 , Sep 1 9:33 AM
                        > [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 11 of 15 , Sep 1 6:25 PM
                          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 12 of 15 , Sep 4 4:47 PM
                            --- 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 13 of 15 , Sep 23 10:55 AM
                              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.