Ben C Smith

I like to think that the juxtaposition of Thomas 13 with Thomas 14 was supposed to suggest to the reader that the three words had something to do with fasting, prayer, and alms. (See also Thomas 6; diet is a fourth item in both 6 and 14, but it is not written in as neat a parallel as the other three items are.)

Then again, maybe that is reaching on my part (I suspect I would make a pretty poor gnostic), and maybe one would still need a teacher to explain the connection more precisely.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

Yes, Stevan Davies has mentioned that possibility.

If you were a better gnostic, you might think that the three words were Kaulakau, Saulasau, and Zeesar.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

That may well be where I got it. If so, it had to have been 5+ years ago. I have not read him in ages.

Do you think the gospel of Thomas is that gnostic? I mean, with a capital G?

And what do you think of the theory that this gospel predates the gospel of John? (IIRC, even Goodacre thinks that.)

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

Don't know. It all depends on what that high oral context was, and, unfortunately, the text isn't particularly helpful at telling us what that is.

I don't know how sure Goodacre is of that point, but Thomas's Predating John would account for its relative lack of Johannine material. Even so, such a dating of Thomas wouldn't necessary exclude a gnostic oral context for Thomas, but it would limit some of the more developed forms, such as Valentinianism.

Stephen

Niall Armstrong

Not sure how, or if, I should respond to this. I do not wish to presuppose your argument, so perhaps you can state it for yourself.

I suppose I should (again?) specify what I find difficult with the de-particularizing case: It is claimed Thomas took certain passages from the Synoptic (narrative) Gospels and rewrote them within a non-narrative context. This just coincidentally both looked like Q and had a lot of material in common with Q.
It seems a lot more simple to maintain the Stevan Davies thesis, that GThomas was an elaboration upon Q (both non-narrative), which so irritated "Mark" that he wrote his gospel in argument against it, and then the fashion for narrative gospels washed over all, so both "Matthew" and "Luke" decided to "particularize" Q within the Markan narrative, and no-one bothered writing anything like Q or GThomas again. Am I wrong to think this a simpler explanation?

Niall Armstrong

For me the difficulty with Stevan Davies theory is that it makes Doherty's explanation of GMark slightly more complicated. If GMark was based on GThomas, then the latter probably had "Jesus said" quotes in it already (and references to the known apostle Peter). That makes the "inventor" of an earthly Jesus not "Mark" but "Thomas".

Gamera

There is a relationship between wisdom literature and riddles, including references to insider knowledge. I believe the rune quest section of the Havamal is written in riddling insider fashion, making it almost indecipherable to modern scholars. Of course Jesus's sayings are often themselves riddles --that's what a parable is really. So a mss of Jesus' sayings would perforce often involve "secret knowledge" if the author was inclined toward a guru/acolyt relationship, as gnostic authors clearly were.

I guess my point is, put traditional wisdom/riddle literature in the hands of gnostic and you'll get references to secret knowledge almost inevitably. But I think that's a result of the genre and the preoccupation of gnosticism, not a reliance on orality.

Solo

Anybody here came to dwell in the light ? And if yes, what did you do ? And then after you were one and you became two - then what did you do ?

Got postictal psychosis ? Then blessed you are for you have truly come to know the Father !

Jiri