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

RE: [GTh] Recovering Thomas

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 15 , Jul 21, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Andrew writes:

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

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

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

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

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

      Judy
    • andrewcriddle
      ... an early ... radical ... parables ... Realm ... a passage ... 76, 96 ... sayings ... seem to me ... like this ... particularly ... suppose the ...
      Message 2 of 15 , Jul 21, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Judy Redman" <jredman@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > If Thomas is potentially based on a paraphrase of Matthew and/or
        an early
        > Greek synoptic harmony, what do you make of what would then be a
        radical
        > re-ordering of the text by Thomas? For example, all of the Thomas
        parables
        > of the Realm/Kingdom that have synoptic parallels that are also
        Realm
        > parables appear in Matthew 13, in vv 24-33 and 44-48 (separated by
        a passage
        > about the use of parables). In Thomas they are sayings 8, 20, 57,
        76, 96
        > and 109.
        >
        > I'm not prepared to commit myself about whether or not the Thomas
        sayings
        > are more primitive than their Synoptic parallels, but it would
        seem to me
        > strange that an author would take a nice, neat, thematic package
        like this
        > one and pull it apart in such a fashion. It would, I think, be
        particularly
        > strange if Thomas were based on a paraphrase of Matthew. I
        suppose the
        > ordering in a Synoptic harmony would depend on which of the
        Synoptics the
        > author chose to take as the primary one, but most of the Realm
        parables
        > don't have parallels in Mark and Luke, so it would probably make
        sense to
        > keep them together. The only one that appears in Mark and Luke is
        the
        > mustard seed.
        >
        > This kind of thing speaks to me more of a shared common source
        than of one
        > being derived from the other, even through an intermediate
        source. Another
        > possibility would be that each derived from oral traditions
        stemming from
        > different eyewitness accounts. If we assume that Jesus told his
        stories
        > more than once (and why would you waste a good story by only using
        it once
        > if you were moving around?), then people who heard him in one
        place might
        > well have slightly different versions of stories to pass on in
        signficantly
        > different orders because that was they way Jesus told them when
        they heard
        > them.
        >
        > Judy
        >
        Hi Judy

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Andrew Criddle
      • sarban
        As a resource for evaluating the relation of Thomas to the Pseudo- Clementines I m posting here the most important parallels between Thomas and the
        Message 3 of 15 , Jul 21, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          As a resource for evaluating the relation of Thomas to the Pseudo-
          Clementines I'm posting here the most important parallels between
          Thomas and the Pseudo-Clementine Literature

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

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

          sold the merchandise he bought the one pearl for himself.



          Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions Such is he whom alone the true

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

          one true pearl,





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

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

          cast divisions upon the earth fire sword war.



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

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

          the word and of confutation







          Thomas 39 Jesus said The Pharisees and scribes have received the

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

          nor have they permitted those to enter who wish.



          Pseudo-Clementine Homilies But you have not inquired

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          they do not suffer to do so.







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

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

          make it .



          Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions But if he set

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

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

          has received commandment not to throw the pearls of His words

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

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

          their barkings and base answers break and weary the preachers of

          God's word.





          Andrew Criddle






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Michael Grondin
          ... Hi Andrew, Your note quotes sayings titled as 12, 16, 39, and 93, but the one titled 12 is actually 76. In addition, one wonders why you list only four now
          Message 4 of 15 , Jul 21, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            [Andrew Criddle wrote]:
            > As a resource for evaluating the relation of Thomas to the Pseudo-
            > Clementines I'm posting here the most important parallels between
            > Thomas and the Pseudo-Clementine Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Thanks,
            Mike
          • sarban
            ... From: Michael Grondin To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 6:01 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Recovering Thomas ... Hi Mike 12 should be 76 as
            Message 5 of 15 , Jul 22, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----

              From: Michael Grondin

              To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com

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

              Subject: Re: [GTh] Recovering Thomas



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

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

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

              Hi Mike

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

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

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



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

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

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



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


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





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

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

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



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



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



              Andrew Criddle




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

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

                Regards,
                Mike
              • Wade Greiner
                ... the Pseudo-Clementines (and only saying 113 among the parallels to the Diatessaron) are parallels to non-Kernel texts. She argues (rightly or wrongly) that
                Message 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.