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

Re: [GTh] Recovering Thomas

Expand Messages
  • andrewcriddle
    ... I think ... which s/he ... Using that ... on the ... rearrangement of ... code (sorry, ... think GTh ... undergone ... that the ... material from ... and
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.