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

Re: [GTh] Re: On the Net

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.