Re: [GTh] Recovering Thomas
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Grondin
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
>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
>> The main sayings concerned are Logions 9 16 39 40 68 76 93
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
>> 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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- [Andrew Criddle from DeConick's latest book]:
> The list of the kernel isThis list agrees in almost all particulars with her earlier paper ("The
> Also 12 and 68(2) are regarded as very early additions to the kernel
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. (?)
> [Andrew Criddle wrote]:the Pseudo-Clementines (and only saying 113 among the parallels to the
> What DeConick thinks important is that none of the parallels with
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.
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 writes:
> By the way, the paperback should be out of this by now too.I've had a paperback copy for a couple of weeks now. I ordered it first in
> She has had her author copies for a couple of months now.
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 theThe Continuum website says the publication date is 31 August, but I plan to
> publisher's so it should be out fairly soon too.
wait a week or two before ordering, given my previous experience. They say
the price is 85 pounds sterling.
"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." -
Rev Judy Redman
Uniting Church Chaplain
University of New England
ph: +61 2 6773 3739
fax: +61 2 6773 3749
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "sarban" <sarban@...> wrote:
> "I find the proposed history of development of Thomas broadly
> convincing but remain convinced that the earliest ascertainable
> 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.
- George Lamsa describes "for whose sake heaven and
earth came into being" as an Aramaic idiom denoting respect.
Michael Buckner, M. Div., Ph. D.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]