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

On the Net

Expand Messages
  • M.W. Grondin
    The pseudonymous NTWrong, whose identity has long been a matter of speculation on biblioblogs, has been running his own b-blog since December, and he is
    Message 1 of 19 , Feb 9, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      The pseudonymous NTWrong, whose identity has long been a matter of
      speculation on biblioblogs, has been running his own b-blog since December,
      and he is evidently none of the people whom other folks guessed he was. Anyway,
      I think that his entry for Feb 4th, "Incipient Gnosticism in Paul's Churches",
      has relevance here, although its treatment of GThom itself is brief:
       
      http://ntcommentaries.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/incipient-gnosticism-in-pauls-churches/

      Comments on this piece are welcome here as well as on "Wrong's" b-blog.
       
      With respect to b-blogs, you all may have noticed that the Thomas-heavy blogs
      have been quiet for some time now. Chris Skinner hasn't posted since September,
      Judy Redman since the end of July, and Andrew Bernhard for over a year. I don't
      know the reasons for these suspensions of activity, but hopefully they don't
      indicate any personal hardship among the b-bloggers (all members of GThomas) or
      their families. We sorely miss the fodder for discussion that they have provided us,
      and hope for their return in the not-too distant future.
       
      Mike Grondin
    • Mark Goodacre
      Hi Mike Thanks for the link. That s a different NT Wrong, I m afraid. I know it gets kind of surreal to talk about real Wrong and pseudo-Wrong and so on
      Message 2 of 19 , Feb 9, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Mike

        Thanks for the link.  That's a different NT Wrong, I'm afraid.  I know it gets kind of surreal to talk about "real Wrong" and pseudo-Wrong and so on but it looks like this guy is not even familiar with the real Wrong.

        I should perhaps do some Thomas blogging in due course since, as you say, there is not much Thomas stuff around the blogs at the moment.

        Cheers
        Mark

        On 9 February 2011 16:36, M.W. Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
         

        The pseudonymous NTWrong, whose identity has long been a matter of
        speculation on biblioblogs, has been running his own b-blog since December,
        and he is evidently none of the people whom other folks guessed he was. Anyway,
        I think that his entry for Feb 4th, "Incipient Gnosticism in Paul's Churches",
        has relevance here, although its treatment of GThom itself is brief:
         
        http://ntcommentaries.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/incipient-gnosticism-in-pauls-churches/

        Comments on this piece are welcome here as well as on "Wrong's" b-blog.
         
        With respect to b-blogs, you all may have noticed that the Thomas-heavy blogs
        have been quiet for some time now. Chris Skinner hasn't posted since September,
        Judy Redman since the end of July, and Andrew Bernhard for over a year. I don't
        know the reasons for these suspensions of activity, but hopefully they don't
        indicate any personal hardship among the b-bloggers (all members of GThomas) or
        their families. We sorely miss the fodder for discussion that they have provided us,
        and hope for their return in the not-too distant future.
         
        Mike Grondin




        --
        Mark Goodacre
        Duke University
        Department of Religion
        Gray Building / Box 90964
        Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
        Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

        http://www.markgoodacre.org
      • M.W. Grondin
        ... Thanks, Mark. It did seem odd that the fellow should come out of hiding without a word about his previous activities, but unfortunately I ignored the
        Message 3 of 19 , Feb 9, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          
          > That's a different NT Wrong, I'm afraid. 
           
          Thanks, Mark. It did seem odd that the fellow should come out of hiding
          without a word about his previous activities, but unfortunately I ignored
          the warning signal of that silence. The wrong Wrong does at least provide
          fodder for numerous new humorous quips, but I better not start up with that.
           
          Best,
          Mike
        • Christopher Skinner
          Mike, The reasons for my silence are twofold: (1) I have been trying to finish two book manuscripts (one is done and the other is nearly done) and it has taken
          Message 4 of 19 , Feb 10, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Mike,

            The reasons for my silence are twofold: (1) I have been trying to finish two book manuscripts (one is done and the other is nearly done) and it has taken up much, if not most of my free time; (2) My new position (which I love) has me teaching four classes per semester. Since they are all new preps, I have been "under the pile" of preparation, so to speak.

            I hope to be back to blogging sometime soon. I miss it too.

            Chris Skinner
          • M.W. Grondin
            First, a belated thanks to Chris for keeping everyone informed about his work. We look forward to his Thomas book, apparently now in process. Second, I wanted
            Message 5 of 19 , Feb 14, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              First, a belated thanks to Chris for keeping everyone informed about his work.
              We look forward to his Thomas book, apparently now in process.
               
              Second, I wanted to pass along a new item that appeared on the net recently.
              Yahoo runs an "answers" service to which I believe I've previously referred.
              Anyone can pose a question, but since anyone can answer as well, the answers
              seem about as accurate as asking folks on the street. Be that as it may, someone
              posed a question recently about the Gospel of Barnabas (no relation to the Epistle
              of Barnabas, which I've mentioned here before as being historically relevant),
              and a guy with the handle of "Dr. Bob" included a reference to the Gospel
              of Thomas in his response, thus activating my Google Alert. Although "Dr. Bob"
              is evidently a major contributor to Yahoo Answers, I found his claims about
              GThom to be so far off the mark that I felt compelled to respond. Here's the
              relevant verbiage as it now stands:
               
              Q: I was informed that Joseph Barnabas wrote a Gospel which is banned by the church.
              Why is it banned? (Where is the original copy of this Gospel. I want to get a copy for my
              studies. Please help me find one)
               
              [Dr. Bob - excerpt, with my explanatory notes in brackets]
              "Many books -- like the one you [the poser of the question] reference [i.e., Gospel
              of Barnabas] and the famous Gospel of Thomas -- weren't included with these early
              works [i.e., canonical gospels and letters]. They weren't copied by the early church.
              They weren't seen as being scripture. In fact, they weren't even known.

              That's because the Gospel of Thomas was written by someone in a Gnostic sect
              somewhere in Turkey in about 300 A.D., well after the time of Thomas. It's a forgery.
              Whoever wrote it claimed to be Thomas, but wasn't. In the book, the author shows
              that he doesn't know anything about the 1st century in Jerusalem, because he incorrectly
              describes the Jewish burial practices that were so important to Jews and which would have
              been well known by the real Thomas. There is exactly one copy of the Gospel of Thomas."
               
              [my response - excerpt]
              "Almost everything that Dr. Bob writes about the Gospel of Thomas is demonstrably false.
              It couldn't have been written in 300 A.D., because Hippolytus referred to it in 225 A.D. It doesn't
              say anything about Jewish burial practices, and there are versions of it in both Coptic and Greek
              (the latter, parts of three manuscripts.)"
               
              The complete context from which these excerpts are taken can be found at:
               
               
              (I guess this is the Australian version of Yahoo Answers.) Comments?
              (Anyone know of anything in GThom that could be construed as a description
              of Jewish burial practices, e.g.?)
               
              Mike G.
            • M.W. Grondin
              Some further comments on Dr. Bob and Yahoo Answers: I see this morning that Dr. Bob s answer to the Gospel of Barnabas question has been chosen by the asker
              Message 6 of 19 , Feb 14, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Some further comments on "Dr. Bob" and Yahoo Answers:
                 
                I see this morning that Dr. Bob's answer to the Gospel of Barnabas question has
                been chosen by the asker as the best answer given. I have no problem with that,
                as Dr. Bob's comments on GThom had little to do with the original question.
                I did want to add, however, something I didn't mention yesterday, namely that I
                bristled a bit at Dr. Bob's statement that GThom was a "forgery", in that it wasn't
                written by the Apostle Thomas. I bristle not because that isn't so, but because
                Dr. Bob apparently takes that to be a crushing indictment of GThom. Doesn't
                he realize that there are "forgeries" within the canon? Some of the supposedly
                Pauline letters, for example? I think it's pretty obvious that, in his answer to the
                GosBarnabas question, Dr. Bob was consciously or unconsciously whitewashing
                the canon while passing along misleading and spurious charges against GThom.
                 
                Which leads me to a question for canon-whitewashers like Dr. Bob: which is more
                historically accurate with respect to the words of Jesus - GosThom or GosJohn?
                I'm not sure whether the Jesus Seminar ever calculated percentages for texts as a
                whole, but I think it's obvious (since I ask the question) where my money lies.
                IMO, it's not even close. And while inventing speeches for Jesus might not count
                as "forgery" exactly, it strikes me as an even more serious indictment.
                 
                Mt. Clemens, MI (melting today! hooray!)
              • M.W. Grondin
                I had been thinking lately about mentioning the several times that I ve seen GosThom confused with the Infancy Gospel of Thomas on the net. By serendipitous
                Message 7 of 19 , Feb 14, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  I had been thinking lately about mentioning the several times that I've seen
                  GosThom confused with the Infancy Gospel of Thomas on the net. By
                  serendipitous happenstance, Google Alerts informs me of such a case today.
                  Again, it's on Yahoo Answers, this time the question being as follows:
                   
                  > What does the gospel of Thomas talk about? Is there anything
                  about
                  > the apocalypse?
                   
                  Among the gaggle of goofy and self-serving answers, one was this:
                   
                  > Jesus as a young boy. He kills one of his friends by pushing him off a
                  roof.
                   
                  Obviously, this is a reference to the Infancy Gospel. I'm not even sure why
                  the name of Thomas was associated with it, but that has apparently caused
                  endless confusion both ancient and modern. Again, I felt compelled to add
                  my two cents, to wit:
                   
                  >
                  style="WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT: medium 'Times New Roman'; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px" class=Apple-style-span>Although it's often said that GosThom has nothing apocalyptic in it, there are sayings
                  > that seem so. One is that "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass
                  > away." There is, however, nothing about the death of Jesus, nor it having any atoning
                  > effect. GosThom concentrates on what might be called the "ever-living" Jesus, and how
                  > disciples should live. Nor is GosThom to be confused (as one writer here does) with the
                  > Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which is something completely different.
                   
                  Mike G.
                • Rick Hubbard
                  Hi Mike- You have keyed in on something that I have been interested in for the last couple of years; namely the way that popular culture responds to the
                  Message 8 of 19 , Feb 14, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Hi Mike-

                     

                    You have keyed in on something that I have been interested in for the last couple of years; namely the way that “popular culture” responds to the Gospel of Thomas. As you, I have my “Google Alerts” thingy set to monitor remarks made on the web containing the phrase “gospel of Thomas.” The range of relevancy of these hits to my own interest ranges from close to distant, with the majority falling in the latter category. Nevertheless, I am fascinated by the “presence” Thomas seems to impose on contemporary sensibilities.

                     

                    As a rule, I do not trade in broad generalizations, but it seems to me that remarks about GosThom emanate from 5 categories of web-commentators: A) the lunatic fringe, B) Christian apologists bent on defending canonical scriptures, C) refugees from failed (discredited) religious traditions who are looking desperately for a replacement religion, D) the bored and uniformed just looking for something to jabber about, or, E) folks who have an general interest in the artifacts pertaining to historical development of ideologies. I have no statistics to back up the following assertion; however I would wager that categories A and E are a small minority. Category D is the next smallest group while probably more than two-thirds of the remaining commentators fall into either category B or C.

                     

                    Behind all this speculative taxonomy, however, lurks two legitimate questions: First, what were the motives of the folks who conserved the Gospel of Thomas and, second, how might one describe those for whom the Gospel of Thomas was resonant?

                     

                    Rick Hubbard

                     

                     

                     

                     

                    From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of M.W. Grondin
                    Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 3:12 PM
                    To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: On the Net

                     

                     

                    I had been thinking lately about mentioning the several times that I've seen

                    GosThom confused with the Infancy Gospel of Thomas on the net. By

                    serendipitous happenstance, Google Alerts informs me of such a case today.

                    Again, it's on Yahoo Answers, this time the question being as follows:

                     

                    > What does the gospel of Thomas talk about? Is there anything about

                    > the apocalypse?

                     

                    Among the gaggle of goofy and self-serving answers, one was this:

                     

                    > Jesus as a young boy. He kills one of his friends by pushing him off a roof.

                     

                    Obviously, this is a reference to the Infancy Gospel. I'm not even sure why

                    the name of Thomas was associated with it, but that has apparently caused

                    endless confusion both ancient and modern. Again, I felt compelled to add

                    my two cents, to wit:

                     

                    > Although it's often said that GosThom has nothing apocalyptic in it, there are sayings

                    > that seem so. One is that "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass

                    > away." There is, however, nothing about the death of Jesus, nor it having any atoning

                    > effect. GosThom concentrates on what might be called the "ever-living" Jesus, and how

                    > disciples should live. Nor is GosThom to be confused (as one writer here does) with the

                    > Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which is something completely different.

                     

                    Mike G.

                  • David C Hindley
                    Mike, It is because in the Ante Nicene Fathers series, in the introduction to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, it is identified as the Gospel of Thomas mentioned
                    Message 9 of 19 , Feb 14, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mike,
                       
                      It is because in the Ante Nicene Fathers series, in the introduction to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, it is identified as the Gospel of Thomas mentioned by Church fathers in spite of the fact the IGT does not contain the saying the fathers attribute to it (which is, of course, from GOT).
                       
                      It may mean the hapless soul who wrote that post though he had it all figured out, without having to step too deep in the pool. I see it as a case where a Christian has read beyond the BIble. Baby steps, Mike, someday leads to great strides.
                       
                      Respectfully,

                      Dave Hindley
                      Newton Falls, Ohio USA

                       


                      From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of M.W. Grondin
                      Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 3:12 PM
                      To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: On the Net

                      I had been thinking lately about mentioning the several times that I've seen
                      GosThom confused with the Infancy Gospel of Thomas on the net. By
                      serendipitous happenstance, Google Alerts informs me of such a case today.
                      Again, it's on Yahoo Answers, this time the question being as follows:
                       
                      > What does the gospel of Thomas talk about? Is there anything
                      about
                      > the apocalypse?
                       
                      Among the gaggle of goofy and self-serving answers, one was this:
                       
                      > Jesus as a young boy. He kills one of his friends by pushing him off a
                      roof.
                       
                      Obviously, this is a reference to the Infancy Gospel. I'm not even sure why
                      the name of Thomas was associated with it, but that has apparently caused
                      endless confusion both ancient and modern. Again, I felt compelled to add
                      my two cents, to wit:
                       
                      >
                      style="WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT: medium 'Times New Roman'; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px" class=Apple-style-span>Although it's often said that GosThom has nothing apocalyptic in it, there are sayings
                      > that seem so. One is that "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass
                      > away." There is, however, nothing about the death of Jesus, nor it having any atoning
                      > effect. GosThom concentrates on what might be called the "ever-living" Jesus, and how
                      > disciples should live. Nor is GosThom to be confused (as one writer here does) with the
                      > Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which is something completely different.
                       
                      Mike G.
                    • M.W. Grondin
                      ... I didn t know that, Dave, but still the name Thomas must have been in the original title, right? Why do you suppose that was? Mike
                      Message 10 of 19 , Feb 14, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > It is because in the Ante Nicene Fathers series, in the introduction to
                        > the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, it is identified as the Gospel of Thomas
                        > mentioned by Church fathers ...

                        I didn't know that, Dave, but still the name 'Thomas' must have been in the
                        original title, right? Why do you suppose that was?

                        Mike
                      • Bob Schacht
                        ... Original title? When did these things get their titles? Did these titles start out as descriptive phrases in other letters, which came to be attached to
                        Message 11 of 19 , Feb 14, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 08:47 PM 2/14/2011, M.W. Grondin wrote:
                          > It is because in the Ante Nicene Fathers series, in the introduction to
                          > the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, it is identified as the Gospel of Thomas
                          > mentioned by Church fathers ...

                          I didn't know that, Dave, but still the name 'Thomas' must have been in the
                          original title, right? Why do you suppose that was?

                          Original title? When did these things get their titles?

                          Did these "titles" start out as descriptive phrases in other letters, which came to be attached to the originals as titles?

                          For example, I can imagine Timothy or someone else referring to "the letter of Paul to the Corinthians" as a purely descriptive phrase,  which then got picked up and used by others as a term of reference, even if there was more than one letter, which then became a title.  But could there be an analogous process for gospels?
                          How did that process work?

                          Bob Schacht
                          Northern Arizona University
                        • Gnostradamus
                          Hello Mike, Excuse me for jumping in here. The intro might have something to do with it.
                          Message 12 of 19 , Feb 15, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hello Mike,

                            Excuse me for jumping in here. The intro might have something to do with it.

                            http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancythomas-a-mrjames.html

                            The stories of Thomas the Israelite, the Philosopher, concerning the works of the Childhood of the Lord.

                            I. I, Thomas the Israelite, tell unto you, even all the brethren that are of the Gentiles, to make known unto you the works of the childhood of our Lord Jesus Christ and his mighty deeds, even all that he did when he was born in our land: whereof the beginning is thus:

                            James

                            --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "M.W. Grondin" <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > > It is because in the Ante Nicene Fathers series, in the introduction to
                            > > the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, it is identified as the Gospel of Thomas
                            > > mentioned by Church fathers ...
                            >
                            > I didn't know that, Dave, but still the name 'Thomas' must have been in the
                            > original title, right? Why do you suppose that was?
                            >
                            > Mike
                            >
                          • M.W. Grondin
                            Thanks, James. That s what I get for not doing my homework. I was generally acquainted with the contents of IGT, but obviously didn t recall the intro. In
                            Message 13 of 19 , Feb 15, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thanks, James. That's what I get for not doing my homework. I was generally
                              acquainted with the contents of IGT, but obviously didn't recall the intro. In fact,
                              the intros to the various versions are remarkably diverse, as shown on:
                               
                               
                              I have to say that, to my mind, this is a thoroughly loathsome work (hence,
                              perhaps, my reluctance to revisit it). How a Christian could have thought that
                              he was doing Jesus any great favor by presenting him as an arrogant little snot
                              is beyond me.
                               
                              In more pleasant news, Chris Skinner has started blogging again. I'm not sure
                              whether his workload will permit much activity, but today he discusses three
                              reviews of the John-Thomas book we discussed here when it first came out:
                               
                               
                              One of the three reviews (the least favorable one) was by Steve Davies.
                              Sure would like to read that, but unfortunately, none of the reviews appear
                              to be available online.
                               
                              Best to all,
                              Mike G.
                            • sarban
                              ... From: M.W. Grondin To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 3:47 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: On the Net ... I didn t know that, Dave, but
                              Message 14 of 19 , Feb 15, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                 
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 3:47 AM
                                Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: On the Net

                                 

                                > It is because in the Ante Nicene Fathers series, in the introduction to
                                > the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, it is identified as the Gospel of Thomas
                                > mentioned by Church fathers ...

                                I didn't know that, Dave, but still the name 'Thomas' must have been in the
                                original title, right? Why do you suppose that was?

                                Mike

                                Hi Mike
                                 
                                It seems likely that the Infancy Gospel was not originally supposed to have been written by Thomas.
                                In some manuscripts and versions there is no named author and in one important manuscript the work
                                is attributed to James.
                                 
                                This still leaves the puzzle as to why the work was eventually attributed to Thomas.
                                 
                                Andrew Criddle

                              • Stephen Carlson
                                ... As far as I m aware, the attribution to Thomas (and its line mentioning Thomas the Israelite) are later additions to the text, sometime between the sixth
                                Message 15 of 19 , Feb 15, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:47 PM, M.W. Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:

                                  > It is because in the Ante Nicene Fathers series, in the introduction to
                                  > the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, it is identified as the Gospel of Thomas
                                  > mentioned by Church fathers ...

                                  I didn't know that, Dave, but still the name 'Thomas' must have been in the
                                  original title, right? Why do you suppose that was?


                                  As far as I'm aware, the attribution to Thomas (and its line mentioning Thomas the Israelite) are later additions to the text, sometime between the sixth and ninth centuries.  Earlier versions don't have that.

                                  Stephen
                                  --
                                  Stephen C. Carlson
                                  Graduate Program in Religion
                                  Duke University
                                • David C Hindley
                                  James & Mike, Don t know why, but Mike s reply never ended in my in-box. The introduction I speak of was that of the translator, Alexander Walker, on page 352
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Feb 15, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    James & Mike,

                                    Don't know why, but Mike's reply never ended in my in-box.

                                    The introduction I speak of was that of the translator, Alexander Walker, on
                                    page 352 of ANF volume VIII:

                                    "The Gospel of Thomas. - Like the Protoevangelium of James, the Gospel of Thomas
                                    is of undoubted antiquity. It is mentioned by name by Origen(1), quoted by
                                    Irenaeus(2) and the author of the Philosphumena(3), who says that it was used by
                                    the Nachashenes, a Gnostic sect of the second century. Cyril of Jerusalem (d.
                                    386) attributes the authorship not to the apostle, but to a Thomas who was of
                                    the three disciples of Manes (4). This fact, of course, indicates that Cyril
                                    knew nothing of the antiquity of the book he was speaking of. This Manichaean
                                    origin has been adopted by many writers, of whom the best known are in recent
                                    times R. Simon and Mingarelli.

                                    [A discussion about the two Greek forms and a Latin translation are omitted
                                    here]

                                    It seems pretty clear, from the contents of the book, that its author was a
                                    Gnostic, a Docetist, and a Marcosian; and it was held in estimation by the
                                    Nachashenes and the Manichaeans. Its bearing upon Christian art(5), and to some
                                    extent, Christian dogma, is well know." (Numbered footnotes were added by me)

                                    (1) Origen, Luc. hom. I, where it is assigned along with Gospel of Matthias
                                    among the heterodox gospels
                                    (2) Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.20.1, quotes the Infancy Gospel ch 6 where the child
                                    Jesus converses with his teacher Zacchaeus. He says the Marcosian sect, a
                                    subsect of the Valentinian school, included it among their sacred scriptures.
                                    (3) Hippolytus, Ref. V 7.20, mentions it in connection with Naassenes and quotes
                                    from a text resembling the Coptic GOT.
                                    (4) Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. IV 36 & VI 31.
                                    (5) Giving life to the clay bird
                                    Footnotes 1,3,4 from Beate Blatz, "The Coptic Gospel of Thomas", in the E.T. of
                                    Schneemelcher's _NT Apocrypha_, vol. 1, revised ed. Footnote 2 is from _An
                                    introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha_ By F. Lapham, page 129.

                                    Aside from the story of Jesus' alphabet lesson preserved in Irenaeus, and the
                                    allusion to the clay bird coming alive in Christian art, all the other citations
                                    probably refer to the GOT revered by the present list. How Walker and his
                                    comrades could seriously think that the silly collection of stories was
                                    composed/revered by Naassenes, Marcosian Valentinians and the Manichaeans is
                                    beyond me.

                                    However, I do seriously believe the OP references a person who had read the
                                    "Gospel of Thomas" of the ANF volume, and did not realize the initial question
                                    he was responding to was about the Coptic GOT, or did not know what the Coptic
                                    GOT was.

                                    Respectfully,

                                    Dave Hindley
                                    Newton Falls, Ohio USA



                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                                    Gnostradamus
                                    Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:43 AM
                                    To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: [GTh] Re: On the Net

                                    Hello Mike,

                                    Excuse me for jumping in here. The intro might have something to do with it.

                                    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancythomas-a-mrjames.html

                                    The stories of Thomas the Israelite, the Philosopher, concerning the works of
                                    the Childhood of the Lord.

                                    I. I, Thomas the Israelite, tell unto you, even all the brethren that are of the
                                    Gentiles, to make known unto you the works of the childhood of our Lord Jesus
                                    Christ and his mighty deeds, even all that he did when he was born in our land:
                                    whereof the beginning is thus:

                                    James

                                    --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "M.W. Grondin" <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > It is because in the Ante Nicene Fathers series, in the introduction
                                    > > to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, it is identified as the Gospel of
                                    > > Thomas mentioned by Church fathers ...
                                    >
                                    > I didn't know that, Dave, but still the name 'Thomas' must have been
                                    > in the original title, right? Why do you suppose that was?
                                    >
                                    > Mike
                                    >




                                    ------------------------------------

                                    Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
                                    Coptic-English translation: http://www.gospel-thomas.net/x_transl.htm
                                    Related Biblioblogs:
                                    PEJE IESOUS (Chris Skinner) http://pejeiesous.com Judy's Research Blog (Judy
                                    Redman) http://judyredman.wordpress.com The Forbidden Gospels (April DeConick)
                                    http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com
                                    ------------------------------------
                                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  • M.W. Grondin
                                    Hi Bob, I agree with your comments about titles. I didn t mean to imply that the first ms of IGT had a title on it. What I was trying to say was that some mss
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Feb 16, 2011
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi Bob,
                                       
                                      I agree with your comments about titles. I didn't mean to imply that the first
                                      ms of IGT had a title on it. What I was trying to say was that some mss of
                                      IGT must have had that title.
                                       
                                      I'm reminded of the Gospel of Philip. Why was it given that name? True enough,
                                      Philip is mentioned in it, but only once, and even that in a very minor role. So
                                      I think that the original authors didn't name their work after him, and if not that,
                                      then probably nothing at all. But texts have to have names, else how can other
                                      folks refer to them? So my guess is that an untitled condition couldn't last long.
                                       
                                      Mike
                                    • M.W. Grondin
                                      Thanks to Stephen and Andrew for responding to the question I posed about IGT. I d be interested to know of sources. One that I found on the net is
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Feb 17, 2011
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Thanks to Stephen and Andrew for responding to the question I posed
                                        about IGT. I'd be interested to know of sources. One that I found on the
                                        net is particularly good, so I'm passing it along. Tony Burke, who runs a
                                        blog called 'Apocryphicity', wrote his Ph.D. thesis in 2001 on IGT. The
                                        thesis (400+ pages) and other info about IGT is available at:
                                         
                                         
                                        In his thesis, Burke writes (p.4):
                                        > ... the  true  title  is  ... "The
                                        Childhood  Deeds  of  the  Lord  Jesus."
                                         
                                        I haven't delved into Burke's thesis deeply enough to see whether he says
                                        anything about any of the mss being untitled, or not containing a reference
                                        to Thomas. Perhaps someone else has the time to do that and can quote
                                        the relevant portion of Burke's thesis, or any other source, for that matter.
                                         
                                        Mike
                                      • Stephen Carlson
                                        ... My source is: Tony Chartrand-Burke, “The Greek Manuscript Tradition of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” Apocrypha 14 (2004): 129-151, at 144. Stephen --
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Feb 17, 2011
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:00 PM, M.W. Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:

                                          Thanks to Stephen and Andrew for responding to the question I posed
                                          about IGT. I'd be interested to know of sources.

                                          My source is:

                                          Tony Chartrand-Burke, “The Greek Manuscript Tradition of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” Apocrypha 14 (2004): 129-151, at 144.

                                          Stephen
                                          --
                                          Stephen C. Carlson
                                          Graduate Program in Religion
                                          Duke University
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.