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

RE: [GTh] Re: On the Net

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.