Chris Weimer

definitely independent from the gospels...

premjan

...or maybe the other way around

Vorkosigan

Dependent on them. The "early" Gospel of Thomas is a romantic historical fantasy of historicism.

Chris Weimer

I thought we're talking about the quotes gThomas? Not the infancy gospel of Thomas?

Vorkosigan

No, I meant that it is a fantasy of Crossan and Koester and a couple of others that GThomas the sayings gospel is early.

"Thomas" sayings are found in Mark and "Q." Crossan writes in BoC:

28% (37 out of 132 units) of the GThomas has parallels in the Q Gospel. Of those units 30% (11 of 37) are paralleled in Mark.

Consider this gem:

• Mary said to Jesus: Whom are thy disciples like? He said They are like little children dwelling in a field which is not theirs. When the owners of the field come, they will say: Yield up to us our field. They are naked before them, to yield it up to them and to give them back their field. Therefore I say: If the master of the house knows that the thief is coming, he will keep watch before he comes, and will not let him dig into his house of his kingdom to carry off his vessels. You, then, be watchful over against the world. Gird up your loins with great strength, that the brigands may not find a way to come at you, since the advantage for which you look they will find. May there be among you a man of understanding! When the fruit was ripe, he came quickly, his sickle in his hand, and reaped it. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

This passage is a disordered summary of many pericopes in Mark.

• He said They are like little children dwelling in a field which is not theirs. When the owners of the field come, they will say: Yield up to us our field. They are naked before them, to yield it up to them and to give them back their field.

Vaguely recalls the Parable of the Tenants....also found in GThom 65.

• Therefore I say: If the master of the house knows that the thief is coming, he will keep watch before he comes, and will not let him dig into his house of his kingdom to carry off his vessels

...this is a strong reminder of the Temple Ruckus, where Jesus prevents the vessels from being carried off.

• You, then, be watchful over against the world.

The end of Mark 13, of course.

• When the fruit was ripe, he came quickly, his sickle in his hand, and reaped it. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Mark 4. The image comes from Joel, and the second sentence, from one of several sources, most likely Isa.

Now the Thomas-first crowd wants us to imagine that Mark took this, scattered it around his gospel, and then expanded it. But the cite from Joel is vintage Markan hypertextuality; Joel 3:13 places the verse in an eschatological context. Another problem is the reference to the Temple Ruckus there. That is a construction of Mark on every level; the reference to the vessels comes from Nehemiah. If GThom is earlier than Mark, how does it have events and sayings that seem like they were created by the author of Mark?

Vinnie

Vork, you are talking about the fantasy of others, but in your own fantasy Thomas somehow mentions the temple ruckus. Where at? Thomas 21:6-7 is actually more reminiscient of Johannine thought (e.g. Jh 15:18-21).

No we don't. We don't know how Mark received this material or in what form (collected or disordered). We know how Thomas did. Thomas 21 contians a parable (1-4) followed by three sayings dealing with the theme of defense and vigilance. That may give reason for Thomas to link them. But morei mportant in the catchword associations in Thomas 21. "Each of its constituent parts is linked to an adjoining member through the use of interlocking catchwords.." (Patterson p. 29 GThm&Je) ... "The use of this mnemonic device suggests that the cluster was formed not out of complex theological inteests, but rather, out of a concern for the primarily oral context in which it would have been used and the resulting necessity of committing it to memory." Patterson

Also Thom 21:9 vs Mark 4:29. The saying in Mark is formulated more closely to Joel 3:13 to provide the growing seed with a more apocalyptic conclusion. Thomas knows neither ths parable nor the apocalyptic application of the saying as found in Mark (which many scholars view as secondary).

Either Thomas surgically revomed these sayings from the synoptics (Vork) or the more likely conclusion that he received them independently and the cluster became linked by topic and catchword association. The evangelists came across similar material and evolved in their theological interests.

The overwhelming weight of the evidence suggests Thomas' independence of the canonicals.

Possibly things you think Mark creatd he did not. The Thomas material seeming independent is strong evidence of this. Also maybe you need to distinguish between Mark wholesale creating something and the Markan creation occuring through secondary expansion and allegorizing of existing, more primitive material and so on...

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Vinnie, you may be right about the 'vessels' comment relating to John...but do you think that really helps your case?

Sure. Two problems. First, even if we accept this as an oral device, it only shows that the sayings had entered an oral tradition -- it says nothing about their origin (in any case this type of elaborate structure is literary and written rather than oral). Second problem: by asserting that these are oral in nature, you essentially assert that they are fluid, for oral literature is never remembered the same way twice. Yet Mark and Matt picked them in recognizably parallel forms.

And finally, I just can't resist once again pointing out the protean nature of the "oral tradition." When there is a complex pattern of interlocking catchwords, by god, it is oral tradition. When the order of things gets scrambled, it's "the somewhat capricious process of oral transmission" (Patterson) which nevertheless can nail catchwords to phrases like a printing press whenever necessary. Whatever the exegete needs, the oral tradition can supply. That oral tradition is just so useful, it would have to be invented if it didn't exist.

That's not an argument against anything, Vinnie. Mark's hypertextual context for the saying is correct for the parable. Thomas removed the saying from the parable, and took it out of its hypertextual context.

...Thomas has three sets of material: gnostic stuff, , Q-type stuff with a definite Cynic flavor, and stuff built out of the OT. Apparently only the last two interested Mark, and the last most of all. Whoever compiled the Q material also was interested in the last two. Mark and Matt seem to have independently hit upon the same usage of this material. How? How come neither of them adapted any of the other sayings, which are often striking and powerful. "Because they were gnostic" comes the answer. So how did Mark and Matt in 70 or 80 know what would be gnostic in the second century? Don't tell me -- wait -- they knew of the oral tradition! that went back to Jesus and so knew what to avoid....

The evidence makes more sense running in the other direction: Thomas knows a great deal of material canonical and extracanonical out of which he abstracts many sayings.

Meier makes the same point, cited by Holding:

• Is it likely that the very early source of Jesus' sayings that the Gospel of Thomas supposedly drew upon contained within itself material belonging to such diverse branches of 1st-century Christian tradition as Q, special M, special L, Matthean and Lucan redaction, the triple tradition, and possibly the Johannine tradition? What were the source, locus, and composition of this incredibly broad yet very early tradition? Who were its bearers? Is it really conceivable that there was some early Christian source that embraced within itself all these different strands of what became the canonical Gospels? Or is it more likely that the Gospel of Thomas has conflated material from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, with possible use of Mark and John as well? Of the two hypotheses I find the second much more probable, especially given all we have seen of such conflating tendencies in other 2d-century Christian documents. Indeed, it may even be that the Gospel of Thomas is directly dependent not on the four canonical Gospels, but on some conflation of them that had already been composed in Greek.

There is no evidence that suggests this. Just a kind of wishful-thinking interpretation -- as in your example above, where evidence of orality -- spurious in any case-- is taken for evidence of age. The two are not related at all. Holding had one of his more inspired moments with this one:

• "It is quite possible that some part of GThom represents a compiliation of quotes made by memory, with some Gnostic and other redactions. (This should not be confused with the "secondary orality" thesis, which holds that the memory quoted from is one preserved from the time of Jesus - what I am suggesting here is that GThom was composed by memory from someone remembering snatches of the written gospels!) A traditional parallel is found in the works of Justin Martyr, who himself quotes from memory, often mixing together words from different books, combining 2-3 passages in one quotation [Wils.SGThom, 9n]. Against this idea, Montefiore [MonTur.ThEv, 42] objects that a compiler working from memory would not have used as many "doublets" (closely similar sayings) as the author of GThom. This objection I find most peculiar: One would suspect that the OPPOSITE would be true - that someone working by memory would engage in "word association" in order to call up the memory of more sayings, and thus end up with many that were similar in text and in nature! The objection here therefore fails. (See also our note on "catchwords" below.)

"

Pulling sayings out of Gospel context has been a common Christian habit for 2000 years....the whole catchword argument is simply an illusion. There are multiple explanations for it, and the others are even more compelling than imagining orality, which has nothing to do with age anyway.

Holding's article is here:

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/thomasgospel.html

Possibly.

That independence is an illusion. The 'early" thomas is ideology-driven-scholarship.

Holding sinks the last nail in the coffin by citing Pagels:

• "GThom itself unwittingly admits to being a later document than the canonical Gospels. Jenkins notes Pagels' assessment [PJ.HG, 72] that GThom "claims to give teachings that Jesus didn't give in public. It would be incomprehensible if the reader didn't know something about Jesus and his teachings." In other words, the appeal to "secret teachings" implies public teachings were there first!"

Actually, Mark rarely created anything wholesale, nor did I ever claim so. By "creation of Mark" I mean that the event or parable is from the writer's hand based (usually) on the OT or some common saying that the writer knows.

Vorkosigan

Answerer

If you want to know more, I recommend the following book, its one of the best out there.......

Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes: The Initiatory Teachings of the Last Supper

Vinnie

It doesn't hinder or support anything until you come up with a methodology for determining the literary dependence of one text upon another and demonstrate how Thomas fits the bill. Thus far we have next to nothing...

It also shows that the author did not directly use the text of Mark. Now your argument changes to Thomas is indirectly dependent upon Mark. Indirect dependence tends to get as hypothetical as it comes where exegetes can back-reason virtually anything they want, any form critical tradition history, development of a pericope and so on...

Please state unequivocally what you are arguing: Thomas is directly dependent upon the synoptic tradition, or Thomas is indirectly dependent. If indirect please explain why (if you have not done so already in this post as I am yet to finish it).

Written works are fluid as well. Copyright laws in antiquity were none existent and texts were prone to constant alteration and revision. But yes, being oral means they were certainly fluid.

Can you please provide me with the numbers of each of the passages in Mk, Mt and Lk?

That is the nature of oral tradition. Its not entirely sytematic. Its fluid and dynamic. Do ou have anything of substance to add against oral tradition?

Patterson states that Mark's apocalytic application of the saving in v. 29 is secondary and cites a number of works defending htis point. I have to leave it at that until further investigation. That saying could have come from anywhere though. Mark may have added it there because it fit. Sayings often have diverse and complicated tradition histories. You treat them in too much of a one dimensional fashion.

There is no solid evidence Thomas received it from Mark. Thomas does not seem to know either the parable or its apocalytic setting which kind of undercuts any attempt at arguing for its dependence. Instead you are left to assert Thomas, for whatever reason, surgically chopped this out of mark, inserted it into his own work and removed all traces of Marcan redaction in this process and virtually every other? Is Thomas a forgery? Did its author have the acumen of a modern form-critic?


Thomas is not gnostic. Some of its material may have rudimentary gnosticism but in no meaningful sense can Thomas be labeled gnostic (see Davies on this point). Also, I think the Cynic flavored stuff may suggest a first century date rather than a second. Most are under the conviction that Jesus gave up home and family but later on Christians largely settled back into families and communities. I think the social setting of this material should be dated early rather than late but I could be way off base.

Mark has the secret element going on.

I'm not following you? Thomas certainly spun its sayings as much as Mark and others did. There was a core underneath it all. Thats it. A number of the "gnostic" themes in Thomas are found elsewhere and early. See Paul's opponents at 1 Corinthians.

You argument also is methodologically weird to me. Mark didn't use a whole TON of sayings material that would have been right up his alley. Why didn't he include all these wonderful Q sayings, the sermon on the plane, etc? We can speculate but its irrelevant. We have to judge on the basis of what the evangelists included, not on what he didn't include.

Meier offered one of the worst treatmens of the Gospel of Thomas in modern history. It was all but laughable. Just ask Peter kirby.

First he starts off assumuing Thomas is Gnostic and therefore late.
The Gospels created and modified oral tradition when they were made.
Thomas being late second century must be seen as dependent upon them.

From this point Meier decided to come through and find marginal instances of overlap that supposedly support his case. Matthean and Lukan and Marcan redaction in Thomas? Where at? Meier showed nothing conclusive here. He didn't even dialogue with the opposition on these points. It looked more like Meier was presenting a summary of his views rather than an argument in defense of them.

Thomas shares material with a number of sources (Mark, Q, Luke, Matthew and so forth). These sources all in turn used a number of other, earlier sources. Either Thomas had access to these sources or those sources. Shared material is not an argument at all. It falsely turns a simply premise into a conclusion:

THomas shares material with these sources.
Therefore Thomas was dependent.

That is a very faulty and simple methodology. It has to be shown that Thomas used these sources. We posit synoptic relations because the order and wording is so extensive that literary dependence must be posited. Something similar must be shown for Thomas. Order is uselss in Thomas' case and specific redactional material in Thomas of the synoptic authors is extremely hard to come by. What's left? Not much.

All Meier an Holding have is overlap. Overlap is nothing but overlap.Further, this quote posits a one dimensional Thomas. Itas author(s) probably compiled sayings from a number of sources. He probably searched for them, possibly found lists or parables, sayings, topical lists, catchword lists and so on. Over time Thomas came to include such a broad stream of tradition.

There is nothing strange here. Ultimately, how many sources do you think underlie the Gospel of Mark?

Parable lists, miracle lists, passion, an earlier proto gospel, apocalyptic discourse, sayings collection and oral tradition? Why is it so hard to fathom when we treat GThomas in a similar fashion?

What examples of Justin can you cite? As far as I am aware Justin largley used systematic harmonizations of Matthew and Luke.

And again, for indirect dependence from memory we can argue convincenly either way. Its all but a useless stance to take. Once you posit indirect dependence you posit agnosticism.

Do Justin and other second and third century authors writing from meory have so many doublets as well? We can't really test it since sayings gospels died out by the turn of the first century. Holding's assertion has the convenience of untestability.

Holding has nothing inspiring here, just untestable speculation. Also speculative is the thesis that Thomas has doubles because in the oral tradition its author used the sayings were linked topically and by catchwords and different lists popped up. As I said, anything can be explained under the "from memory" theory.

You are correct, however, in that evidence of orality does not indicate age.

There is no evidence that would have us date THomas in the fifties. I think it originated about the same time as Mark and may have been finished, largely, by the end of the first century.

Final nail in the coffin? Hello. That statement could have been made in 40 C.E. There may have been a solid bed of oral tradition that was known and the author decided to introduce more material here. 50 C.e., 60 c.e., 70 c.e. Whenever. There is nothing remotely resembling a timestamp on that.

Also, here we see Thomas arbitrarily become later than the canonicals is just biased scholarship. Do you accept the inspiration of the NT canon as well? Since when do synoptic gospels designate all "public teachings of Jesus"??? These authors made use of traditions that circulated and were used for 20-50 years. Secret sayings in Thomas conjures absolutely nothing in regards to the synoptic gospels as if its author is adding stuff they don't have. Is that interpretation a conclusion or an argument?

Vinnie

Amaleq13

How do you differentiate between ignorance of parables or apocalyptic sayings and a deliberate avoidance of them?