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

Re: [GTh] Recovering Thomas

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 15 , Jul 21 12:57 AM
    • 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 2 of 15 , Jul 21 4:56 AM
      • 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 3 of 15 , Jul 21 6:11 AM
        • 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 4 of 15 , Jul 21 12:02 PM
          • 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 5 of 15 , Jul 21 3:28 PM
            • 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 6 of 15 , Jul 21 10:01 PM
              • 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 7 of 15 , Jul 22 2:35 AM
                • 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 8 of 15 , Jul 24 12:06 PM
                  • 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.