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

Re: [GTh] Re: Origen and Thomas 2: Homily on Luke I

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    On May 15, 2009 9:35 PM, jmgcormier wrote ... The Nag Hammadi Thomas is not the Gospel of Thomas per se, but a witness to a Coptic
    Message 1 of 3 , May 16, 2009
      On May 15, 2009 9:35 PM, jmgcormier <cobby@...> wrote
      >Could you please clarify a bit of a puzzle (for me, at least)
      >re Origen, his Homily on Luke, and the dating of Nag Hammadi
      >Origen lived from c.185 C.E. to c. 254 C.E. As I recall (from
      >memory ... so please bear with me) ... his Homily on Luke was
      >written c. 233 C.E. (... so far,so good ...)
      >Having said the above, Nag Hammadi Thomas is usually pegged
      >(paleographically) at somewhere close to c. 333 CE.
      >Clearly, then, if Origen wrote his Homily in 233 C.E. how could
      >he comment on a gospel (Nag Hammadi Thomas) which is essentially
      >dated 100 years later ? (i.e. in c.333) Is it not more likely
      >that Origen was commenting on an earlier (or a largely very
      >different) version of Thomas' gospel than the Nag Hammadi one
      >... such as the c. 200 C.E. - 250 C.E. "Greek" version often
      >advocated by Marvin Meyer ... and which is clearly different
      >than the Nag Hammadi version.

      The Nag Hammadi Thomas is not the Gospel of Thomas per se, but
      a witness to a Coptic translation of it. Yes, the Nag Hammadi
      manuscript was penned a century after Origen, but the date of a
      manuscript is not necessarily the date of the text's composition.
      Origen was indeed commenting on a Greek copy of Thomas earlier
      than the Nag Hammadi Coptic manuscript. As to whether it was
      "very different," we have no way of knowing. True, there are
      some differences (in order and to some extent in content) between
      the Greek fragments of Thomas found at Oxyrhynchus and the Coptic
      version found at Nag Hammadi, but all ancient works feature some
      differences among their various copies. All we can say is that,
      for purposes of this analysis, Origen's Greek copy of Thomas does
      not seem to differ from the Nag Hammadi copy in any material respect
      (aside from language), though one must always keep that possibility
      in mind.


      Stephen C. Carlson
      Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
      Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.