Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Stumpjumper · 05-06-2006, 04:27 AM

I'm working through John Dominick Crossan's The Historical Jesus and he makes an argument about the early authorship and multi-layering of the Gospel of Thomas.

He writes that there are two separate layers within the Gospel and that one was composed by the fifties C.E. possibly in Jerusalem under James's authority and that after his martyrdom in 62 C.E. the collection, and possibly that particular community, migrated to Syrian Edessa where the second layer was added to the first.

Is there any online information that adds to or confirms this reading of the Gospel of Thomas?

Roger Pearse · 05-06-2006, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by singletrack1

I'm working through John Dominick Crossan's The Historical Jesus and he makes an argument about the early authorship and multi-layering of the Gospel of Thomas.

He writes that there are two separate layers within the Gospel and that one was composed by the fifties C.E. possibly in Jerusalem under James's authority and that after his martyrdom in 62 C.E. the collection and possible that particular community migrated to Syrian Edessa where the second layer was added to the first.

Is there any online information that adds to or confirms this reading of the Gospel of Thomas?

I have not read the book, but some simple bits of data are available to everyone (corrections welcome, of course).

1. The 2nd century Greek fragments (P.Oxy.654.5-9) do not agree with the fourth century full Coptic text (Saying 2) at one point. The Coptic text is plainly gnostic, while the Greek is not. Thus we have evidence of at least two versions, one gnostic and one not (in the small bits remaining).

2. Gnosticism starts with Basilides in the early second century (ca. 120-130).

3. The paleographers tell us that the Greek fragments are no later than 180-200, and of course the text must have been composed rather earlier than this.

4. (Subjective) The gnosticism even in the Coptic text is not explicitly Valentinian. This might mean that it predates the diffusion of Valentinian ideas from 140 on.

This all gives a date of between 120 and 170 (probably earlier than 170). Subjectively, I feel that around 130-150 would fit all of these pieces of data best.

If there is any raw data that I have missed, I'd be interested to hear of it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Stumpjumper · 05-06-2006, 05:43 AM

That has been my view, not in as much detail of course, of the Gospel of Thomas as well. I have Marvin Meyer's book that has a compilation and notes on the Gospel of Thomas and three others and that seems to be his view.

Crossan's position takes a different approach, though. I haven't made it very far in his book though so maybe he develops that position further later on...

Roger Pearse · 05-06-2006, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by singletrack1

That has been my view, not in as much detail of course, of the Gospel of Thomas as well. I have Marvin Meyer's book that has a compilation and notes on the Gospel of Thomas and three others and that seems to be his view.

Crossan's position takes a different approach, though. I haven't made it very far in his book though so maybe he develops that position further later on...

I would always drive all these ideas from whatever the raw data happens to be, and stay close to it. We have so little data that any other process seems exceedingly risky to me.

Two more points, which seem to me more likely to involve subjective judgments:

1. Some of the text is supposed to reflect a similar saying found in the canonical gospels, but in a more primitive form.

2. I have read somewhere of a possible relationship to the Diatessaron.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-06-2006, 07:35 AM

I think the first layer of Thomas is probably quite early indeed and could even be pre-Markan. It's very similar to Q in that it's essentially a collection of wisdom sayings lacking any theistic or apocalyptic implications for Jesus. It does not call Jesus the Messiah, it does not call him God, it does not have any miracles, it does not have a resurrection or virgin birth, it lacks any of the Markan narrative developments, it has no Pauline soteriology. It doesn't even have a crucifixion. All of this bespeaks a very primitive stage of development to me. I think the absence of any Messianic characterization for Jesus is especially telling.

I also don't think it's Gnostic, at least not the kind of Gnosticism that was found at Nag Hammadi. Gnostics used it and developed it but I don't think it shows any of the earmarks of Gnosticism as it was expressed in the 2nd Century.

I'm pretty much in agreement with Crossan in that Thomas was an early sayings collection in the vein of the Q source.

RUmike · 05-06-2006, 08:14 AM

Regarding Thomas' independence of the synoptics, which would mean an early dating of at least one layer of Thomas: (Mahlon Smith on an old Crosstalk post)

Quote:

The basic problems with every version of the hypothesis that Thom is dependent on Matt & Luke are:

(1) it has to conclude that the editor(s) of this text acted inconsistently: on the one hand, prefering the Lukan form of double-tradition (Q) passages; on the other, prefering Matthean pericopes in single-tradition (special M or L) passages. But an even more serious objection is that

(2) this hypothesis cannot explain why Thom generally does not reproduce Markan material even though this is where Matt & Luke are in greatest agreement. One cannot account for this simply by arguing that Thom did not know Mark, since in a few places (like the parable of the mustard seed) GThom is actually closer to Mark than to either Matt or Luke. And even if one granted that Thom did not have a copy of Mark handy, one would be hard pressed to explain why he omits Markan passages that were taken over by Matt & Luke. A particularly good example of this type of glaring omission is that difficult logion in Mark 4:11f (//Luke 8:8//Matt 13:11,13)

"To you has been given to know the secret of the KofG, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that seeing they may see but not perceive & hearing they may hear but not understand..."

Now there's a logion that the author of GThom 1 should have found right up his alley. IF the writer who began "These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke...Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death" had really known Mark 4:11f or a synoptic parallel he probably would have made it the very next saying in his work & issued an invitation to readers like this: "Here's a real brain-twister, guys & gals. Let's see what any of you can make of it! Solve it & you're guaranteed immortality!"

Amaleq13 · 05-06-2006, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I'm pretty much in agreement with Crossan in that Thomas was an early sayings collection in the vein of the Q source.

IIRC, Meier holds this view as well.

Zeichman · 05-06-2006, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I have not read the book, but some simple bits of data are available to everyone (corrections welcome, of course).

1. The 2nd century Greek fragments (P.Oxy.654.5-9) do not agree with the fourth century full Coptic text (Saying 2) at one point. The Coptic text is plainly gnostic, while the Greek is not. Thus we have evidence of at least two versions, one gnostic and one not (in the small bits remaining).

What are these obviously gnostic sayings in the Coptic text? 114 is commonly regarded as an interpolation, and Stevan Davies (The Gospel of THomas and Christian Wisdom) made the case that everything else which might be considered gnostic makes more sense as Wisdom literature or textual corruption. Either way, there is little to be interpreted doceticly, no notion of a divine pantheon, etc. The focus on creation, many believe, is best explained as a reaction agaist apocalyptic eschatology, given the clear familiarity with such imagery.

The issue of dating, from my understanding, comes from whether or not you believe the document is gnostic, and the extent of it if you do believe it the case. If it cannot be shown to be gnostic, the nearly-complete Thomas may well be dated alongside Mark or Q, being redacted to Lord knows how late.

Chris Weimer · 05-06-2006, 10:14 AM

Zeichman et al., you may remember this from the forum.

I think the main problem in dating Thomas is tied to Q. Thomas has been shown to have "conversations" with Matthew (Wayment, JECS 12.3), but at other points, he is closer to Luke in the double tradition. I think Thomas does indeed go back, at its earliest layers, to at least Q and the early sayings tradition, and like every other gospel, it has been continually updated. I propose once after Matthew, and again (x times) afterwards.

Clivedurdle · 05-06-2006, 10:17 AM

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=1463453

Elaine Pagels discussing gT.

Quote:

At the center of Beyond Belief is what Pagels identifies as a textual battle between The Gospel of Thomas (rediscovered in Egypt in 1945) and The Gospel of John. While these gospels have many superficial similarities, Pagels demonstrates that John, unlike Thomas, declares that Jesus is equivalent to "God the Father" as identified in the Old Testament. Thomas, in contrast, shares with other supposed secret teachings a belief that Jesus is not God but, rather, is a teacher who seeks to uncover the divine light in all human beings. Pagels then shows how the Gospel of John was used by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon and others to define orthodoxy during the second and third centuries. The secret teachings were literally driven underground, disappearing until the Twentieth Century. As Pagels argues this process "not only impoverished the churches that remained but also impoverished those [Irenaeus] expelled."......

. --Patrick O’Kelley

From Publishers Weekly
In this majestic new book, Pagels (The Gnostic Gospels) ranges panoramically over the history of early Christianity, demonstrating the religion's initial tremendous diversity and its narrowing to include only certain texts supporting certain beliefs. At the center of her book is the conflict between the gospels of John and Thomas. Reading these gospels closely, she shows that Thomas offered readers a message of spiritual enlightenment. Rather than promoting Jesus as the only light of the world, Thomas taught individuals that "there is a light within each person, and it lights up the whole universe. If it does not shine, there is darkness." As she eloquently and provocatively argues, the author of John wrote his gospel as a refutation of Thomas, portraying the disciple Thomas as a fool when he doubts Jesus, and Jesus as the only true light of the world. Pagels goes on to demonstrate that the early Christian writer Irenaeus promoted John as the true gospel while he excluded Thomas, and a host of other early gospels, from the list of those texts that he considered authoritative. His list became the basis for the New Testament canon when it was fixed in 357. Pagels suggests that we recover Thomas as a way of embracing the glorious diversity of religious tradition. As she elegantly contends, religion is not merely an assent to a set of beliefs, but a rich, multifaceted fabric of teachings and experiences that connect us with the divine. Exhilarating reading, Pagels's book offers a model of careful and thoughtful scholarship in the lively and exciting prose of a good mystery writer.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Beyond Belief : The Secret Gospel of Thomas (or via: amazon.co.uk)

My comment - assume mid second century for GT. If John is a response.....

05-06-2006, 04:27 AM	#1
Stumpjumper Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The general vicinity of Philadelphia Posts: 4,734	The dating of the Gospel of Thomas I'm working through John Dominick Crossan's The Historical Jesus and he makes an argument about the early authorship and multi-layering of the Gospel of Thomas. He writes that there are two separate layers within the Gospel and that one was composed by the fifties C.E. possibly in Jerusalem under James's authority and that after his martyrdom in 62 C.E. the collection, and possibly that particular community, migrated to Syrian Edessa where the second layer was added to the first. Is there any online information that adds to or confirms this reading of the Gospel of Thomas?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-06-2006, 05:43 AM	#3
Stumpjumper Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The general vicinity of Philadelphia Posts: 4,734	That has been my view, not in as much detail of course, of the Gospel of Thomas as well. I have Marvin Meyer's book that has a compilation and notes on the Gospel of Thomas and three others and that seems to be his view. Crossan's position takes a different approach, though. I haven't made it very far in his book though so maybe he develops that position further later on...

05-06-2006, 07:35 AM	#5
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I think the first layer of Thomas is probably quite early indeed and could even be pre-Markan. It's very similar to Q in that it's essentially a collection of wisdom sayings lacking any theistic or apocalyptic implications for Jesus. It does not call Jesus the Messiah, it does not call him God, it does not have any miracles, it does not have a resurrection or virgin birth, it lacks any of the Markan narrative developments, it has no Pauline soteriology. It doesn't even have a crucifixion. All of this bespeaks a very primitive stage of development to me. I think the absence of any Messianic characterization for Jesus is especially telling. I also don't think it's Gnostic, at least not the kind of Gnosticism that was found at Nag Hammadi. Gnostics used it and developed it but I don't think it shows any of the earmarks of Gnosticism as it was expressed in the 2nd Century. I'm pretty much in agreement with Crossan in that Thomas was an early sayings collection in the vein of the Q source.

05-06-2006, 10:14 AM	#9
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Zeichman et al., you may remember this from the forum. I think the main problem in dating Thomas is tied to Q. Thomas has been shown to have "conversations" with Matthew (Wayment, JECS 12.3), but at other points, he is closer to Luke in the double tradition. I think Thomas does indeed go back, at its earliest layers, to at least Q and the early sayings tradition, and like every other gospel, it has been continually updated. I propose once after Matthew, and again (x times) afterwards.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.