Bernard Muller

Hi Peter, Hi Vinnie,
I wrote a reply to a batch of critiques by Vinnie on my page on GThomas. You can access it at
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/thomcritique1.html
Regards, Bernard

PS: My site on GThomas:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/thomas.shtml

Bernard Muller

Hi Peter,
Some replies on things you wrote:
"I agree with you that Muller's article is deficient in interacting with published work on the question and assumes a particular point of view on controversial issues, such as the Gnosticism of Thomas and his view on the Markan invention of a parable genre."

Published work: From what I learned from Vinnie and Patterson, plus what I gathered from many websites on these issues, including a debate involving J. S. Kloppenborg, I do not see any use for that: The field is a swamp, I rather stay on firm ground. However, maybe Vinnie can make some sense from all of this, bring order in the chaos, and harmonize the mess (backed up with solid evidence & argumentation, of course!), but I am very doubtful. As for me, I have better things to do with my money and time.

Gnosticism: It was just a very brief comment about the alleged Gnosticism in GThomas on my page. I never used that to date GThomas. Vinnie blew that out of proportion. Since then, I changed one word in my statement, because before, the same could have been interpreted as I opening a big can of worms and not addressing the issue.

Markan invention of a parable genre: Once again, I never used that to arrive at a conclusion (even if it seems so in Vinnie's critique). I mention that, only to strengthen even more a pre-existing conclusion, at the condition that my readers already agree with me on that issue.
The conclusion in question is fully supported by my analysis of Matthew's parable on the weeds and not dependant on the alleged Markan invention.
The later is not coming from the blue; I have two pages to support that. Here is the first one:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/appd.shtml

"Muller himself needs to grapple with the same issues, if he is going to use this as an argument for the late dating of Thomas."

This refers to eschatology, either expected or realized. As far as I know, I addressed the issue at length on my page on GThomas:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/thomas.shtml

Regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Hi Peter, Hi Vinnie,
I wrote a reply to another batch of critiques by Vinnie on my page on GThomas. You can access it at
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/thomcritique2.html
Regards, Bernard

PS: My site on GThomas:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/thomas.shtml

Vinnie

Thanks for taking the time to respond! I haven't had a chance to read your response yet as I've just learned of it. I actually found my own critique of your paper quite lacking in certain areas so I redid it. I think I even contradicted myself on one point and as I admitted in this thread, my article was weak in that, like your own, IMO, "there are a few hotly disputed assumptions that deserve special and lengthy treatment."

Of course, any ECW paper suffers from these as there are all sorts of assumptions going into any work.

For a sneak peak of what my main Thomas page will look like i put it up:

http://www.acfaith.com/gthomasq.html

I have several sections left that need to be written and I have several more that need only be converted to html. The links up there are not working yet as I have not uploaded the files to them yet (they are at home).

I think early next week most of the study will be all set to the point where I can put up and link what I have thus far. I just finished redialoging with Muller's paper today but now, it is apparent that I will probably have to do that all over again. That is cool though as I would rather dialogue with those whose views I attempt to critique that way I can challenge and have my own views challenged in the process.

I'll respond to anything else later in the week or early next week.

Thanks again,

Vinnie

Bernard Muller

Hi Peter, Hi Vinnie,
I wrote still on more reply to the last batch of critiques by Vinnie on my page on GThomas. You can access it at
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/thomcritique3.html
Regards, Bernard

PS: My site on GThomas:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/thomas.shtml

Bernard Muller

Here is my answer to Vinnie about 'God & mammon (mam.)' (as in Mt6:24, Lk16:13) not appearing in GThomas 47.

A) This is an argument based on evidence of the lowest category, that is silence. One expects to see something right here, but it is not here and makes conclusion about it. Who knows what went in the mind of the scribe when he wrote GTh47? Maybe he was disturbed in his writing and forgot about it, if it ever was his intention to have the aforementioned segment in GTh47. This is not as if he had written something concrete: we are looking at a blank here. And GThomas is well known to eliminate and truncate, even important stuff, when compared to parallels in the gospels!
OK, that's a general (not specific) argument but it needs to be said.
B) Now let's look at logions 63 & 64, which you (and some scholars) claim to commend 'God & Mam.' to be in 47.
a) Yes, I admit, 63 can be interpreted as referring to 'against mammon': the man is wealthy already but thinks to become wealthier, (unexpectedly) he dies (which for GTh is punishment & proof of no salvation). But I also note there is no 'God' mentioned in it, contrary to the parallel parable in (only) Lk12:16-21. I mean there is nothing in the Thomassan parable as being 'for God'. But if "Thomas" knew about GLuke **and** wanted to make a point 'for God', one would expect the insertion of the idea included in the ending of Luke's parable, that is God punishing the wealthy man because he is not thinking about his salvation and, above all, "not rich towards God". But I see a blank; isn't it?
b) In 64, we can stretched it as alluding to 'for God', but GTh has no king in it (as in the parallel parable Mt22:1-10) who normally means God (in parabolic language). The Thomassan parable is more likely about: if you turn down a good thing from a host (likely God), (because you think you have more important things to do,) you will be replaced. I do not see here an emphasis to consider God as a master.
c) So 63 & 64 are rather very weak in the domain of "for God & against mammon". In GTH, they are themes which are much stronger and a lot more evident & documented. If "Thomas" knew about the Synoptics, then he diluted away any strong allusion to the idea 'for God & against mammon' in logions 63 & 64.
Note: the last sentence in 64 appears to be an interpolation because it acts as a written interpretation of the logion (a no no in GTh) and does not match the parable (like, in it, no merchants are among the initial invites, and not all the first potential guests are "buyers/businessmen"). It looks some late copyist venting his hate against big buyers & merchants.
C) Finally, I want to show that, according to the beginning of logion 47, the author probably did not want to make a point 'for God & against mam.'.
I'll quote 47 first:
"Jesus said, "
[A] It is impossible for a man to mount two horses or to stretch two bows.
[B] And it is impossible for a servant to serve two masters; otherwise, he will honor the one and treat the other contemptuously.
[C] No man drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine. And new wine is not put into old wineskins, lest they burst; nor is old wine put into a new wineskin, lest it spoil it.
[D] An old patch is not sewn onto a new garment, because a tear would result.""
Note: [A] in not in the Synoptics, but [B] (Mt6:24, Lk16:13) and [C] & [D] are (of course, not as exactly worded!). In 'Q', [B] is immediately followed by "you cannot serve both God and mammon".
I agree, as in the Synoptics, the God & mammon clause would be an excellent conclusion/interpretation for [B]. BUT, let's remember, written interpretation of sayings in GTh is a no no!
And [A] & [B] have a very strong motive (two of these, two of that), which means that [A] and [B] were likely seen as being understood as one block, not two or rather three (note: the whole logion is presented as being one saying, not several!).
Anyway [A] (and [C] & [D]) takes away the interpretation of the combination [A] + [B] as 'for God & against mammon'. I do not see a horse and a bow standing for God! But a 'master', own its own, makes sense. And then a master can be served, but not a bow, and hardly a horse, rather the other way around.
More 'God & Mam.' would look very strange as a written interpretation of **part** of the saying (that is the whole of logion 47), in the middle of it. That would look even stranger if 'God & Mam.' was at the end of the logion.
(and remember: interpretation of a saying has to be understood, not read!).

That's my thoughts right now against your argument, which is coming from scholars like Patterson (I shall say no more!). And it would not take to be a genius to find some more. But that will suffice for now.
Here ends my answer to the critiques of Vinnie, totally biased & unwarranted I may add (except on a few minor points I acknowledged earlier).

Best regards, Bernard

Vinnie

I'll have a response up on Wednesday. I'm taking home your responses tonight to work on them and incorporate them into my Thomas study.

Vinnie