Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 02-22-2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Here's what I recently wrote to the gthomas list, and I think it answers your question just as well:...

Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

These factors suggest to me that Thomas was not merely lent out to a curious seeker for solitary study, but it was presented by a teacher who was there with the text to explain orally what the proper interpretation is. In other words, it looks like the Thomas sayings were transmitted, not in a narrative context, but within an oral interpretative context provided by the teacher.

That seems to go well with the explicitly "secret" nature of the collection.

andrewcriddle · 02-22-2007, 10:36 AM

IMVHO the context for understanding the individual sayings in Thomas is meant to be provided by the adjacent sayings.

If Perrin is right, some of the allusions from one saying to an adjacent saying are only apparent in the (hypothetical) reconstructed Syriac original of Thomas.

Andrew Criddle

gnosis92 · 02-22-2007, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

A lot of people try to put GThomas pretty early, but it seems to me to be a later document.

One thing stands out pretty obviously to me and that is the reference to "James the Just".

This name, "James the Just" never appears in any canonical writings, and seems to me to be a later used title and idea. But by the same token, it also doesn't call James his brother, so I don't know.

What are the thoughts on the dating of GThomas?

That could just as easily imply an early dating, so early it doesn't show up anywhere and this reference became quickly forgotten. The term "just" is pretty ambigous when you're translating from Aramaic to Greek, it could be a reference to James Torah Observance.

Niall Armstrong · 02-22-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

This gets to how Thomas was used. Even though Thomas announces itself as a cache of secret sayings (Prologue), the very next part of Thomas ("he who finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death") states that the value of the text is not so much in knowing the sayings but knowing their (correct) interpretation. Yet, unlike a narrative gospel, the text does almost nothing by itself to frame or otherwise provide an interpretative context for the sayings.

Moreover, if you looks at Goodacre's observation about the missing middles in Thomas, I think what we can learn from that the author of Thomas is not particularly concerned about the reader's inability to fill in the blanks.

Good points! But still an interpretation. And the difficulty remains: when all the other gnostics were picking up the narrative gospel tradition and running with it, this "Thomas" decided to go his own way, and purely coincidentally create something closer to Q than anything else. (And I don't think the composer of Q was particularly worried about readers not being able to fill in the blanks, either)

Quote:

These factors suggest to me that Thomas was not merely lent out to a curious seeker for solitary study, but it was presented by a teacher who was there with the text to explain orally what the proper interpretation is. In other words, it looks like the Thomas sayings were transmitted, not in a narrative context, but within an oral interpretative context provided by the teacher.

But the transmission is also, obviously, by writing. (Not that this invalidates your argument!

)

Quote:

The gnostics in particular seemed to enjoy oral genres for their teachings. I suspect that is because they liked to model themselves after Greek philosophical schools, and creating texts whose interpretation requires an accompanying oral instruction to make sense of them keeps them in business as philosophical tutors.

So where are the other texts like GT? Do we have them, or were they all lost?

Niall Armstrong · 02-22-2007, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Moreover, if you looks at Goodacre's observation about the missing middles in Thomas, I think what we can learn from that the author of Thomas is not particularly concerned about the reader's inability to fill in the blanks.

Sorry, checked Goodacre a little late! Misunderstood the "filling in the blanks". I see that Goodacre reuses "editorial fatigue" here, too. It didn't help in trying to remove Q, and it certainly doesn't date Thomas as post-gospel. This EF might just as well have come from copying (or remembering) from Q as from the Gospels. More likely being from Q, as this was probably also partially spread orally (see Mark's use of Q) and Thomas doesn't do the same mistake with other material.

S.C.Carlson · 02-23-2007, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niall Armstrong

Good points! But still an interpretation. And the difficulty remains: when all the other gnostics were picking up the narrative gospel tradition and running with it, this "Thomas" decided to go his own way, and purely coincidentally create something closer to Q than anything else. (And I don't think the composer of Q was particularly worried about readers not being able to fill in the blanks, either)

I wouldn't say that the "other gnostics were picking up the narrative gospel tradition and running with it"; if anything, they seemed to prefer the dialogue gospel genre.

Stephen

mountainman · 02-23-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niall Armstrong

So where are the other texts like GT? Do we have them, or were they all lost?

The Pythagorean Aphorisms of Iamblichus

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

The gnostics in particular seemed to enjoy oral genres for their teachings. I suspect that is because they liked to model themselves after Greek philosophical schools, and creating texts whose interpretation requires an accompanying oral instruction to make sense of them keeps them in business as philosophical tutors.

Gamera · 02-23-2007, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

These factors suggest to me that Thomas was not merely lent out to a curious seeker for solitary study, but it was presented by a teacher who was there with the text to explain orally what the proper interpretation is. In other words, it looks like the Thomas sayings were transmitted, not in a narrative context, but within an oral interpretative context provided by the teacher.

I don't think we need to imply a highly oral context to Thomas if we see it as wisdom literature, in the mode of Proverbs, Sirach or the Havamal. Thomas has all the signs of a wisdom collection, with it's lack or rather minimal narrative frame, it questions and answers format, its pastiche quality, and its cryptic insider references. Obviously it's more sophisticated in that unlike Hesiod, it's not about crops, but about divine mysteries. But if you changed the speaker's name to Odin, it would fit quite nicely in the rune quest section of the Havamal.

Gamera · 02-23-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niall Armstrong

Good points! But still an interpretation. And the difficulty remains: when all the other gnostics were picking up the narrative gospel tradition and running with it, this "Thomas" decided to go his own way, and purely coincidentally create something closer to Q than anything else. (And I don't think the composer of Q was particularly worried about readers not being able to fill in the blanks, either)

An interesting observation. It may be explained by the fact that Q and Thomas may be in the same genre of wisdom literature. And that would shed some light on how Q was used.

What I find perplexing is that the narrative elements are what becomes the core of Christianity in short order. Paul makes it clear in 1 Cor. 15 and elsewhere that he preaches a "narrative" gospel, not Jesus' teachings or sayings. And presumably Paul predates or is contemporaneous with Q. So Paul is preaching the narrative of Jesus, while Q is being circulated as his teachings. They seem to coalesce in the synoptics.

S.C.Carlson · 02-23-2007, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I don't think we need to imply a highly oral context to Thomas if we see it as wisdom literature, in the mode of Proverbs, Sirach or the Havamal.

I think the text itself contains the implication of a high oral interpretative context to Thomas. Unlike the wisdom literature of Proverbs and Sirach, the text right at the beginning proclaims that these "secret" sayings have to be properly interpreted ("he who finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death").

Other sayings of Thomas strengthen this implication:

Thom 13.6 has Jesus speak three words (or things) to Thomas. What they are, were are not told.
Thom 19 mentions the five trees of paradise and promises that whoever knows them would not taste death. What these trees are, the text does not tell us.

Stephen

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

02-22-2007, 10:36 AM	#12
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	IMVHO the context for understanding the individual sayings in Thomas is meant to be provided by the adjacent sayings. If Perrin is right, some of the allusions from one saying to an adjacent saying are only apparent in the (hypothetical) reconstructed Syriac original of Thomas. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.