Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 06-26-2003, 08:40 PM

Anyone have any?

Vinnie

Peter Kirby · 06-26-2003, 09:10 PM

The three best that I have read are Patterson's The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, Valantasis's The Gospel of Thomas, and Davies's The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated & Explained (ignore the editor's preface). You can find more books here (I've read all of these too):

http://www.gospelthomas.com/bibliography.html

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie · 06-29-2003, 07:29 PM

Do any of these works consider, in detail, the question of canonical redactional material in GThomas? I think Patterson's does right? Personally, I think Thomas is independent of the canonicals and the material which overlaps with Q1 is ANCIENT as dependence on Q is unlikely and it seems more probable that they both appear to have drawn from the same ANCIENT source/s. This view is shared by Koester, Mack, etc. As far as I know, the dependence of Thomas on Q1 isn't well evidenced or accepted by many(?). This would naturally create problems for the mythical theory as well

When indpendent authors are appealing to the same sayings material and this same material is used early and widely by other authors (see Koester on the inaugural sermon in Q!), it seems impossible to say the Christ-myth cult ripped a sayings list. This material, by its nature, must be defined specifically as Jesus-sayings material.

I've read Koeste's excellent discusison, Crossan's comments on Q and Thomas in the Birth of Christianity and Meier's treatment along with several articles on line. I've browsed through Miller's discussion for dependence but I'm not too inclined to put much faith in an ultra-apologists argument for dependence of THomas on the Canonicals when, if I remembr orrectly, he denies Markan priority!

I'm in the process of writing something very lengthy on Q, Thomas and Jesus but I need to hold it back a little. Kloppenborg is on the way. I have to read the book that so many scholars base their views of Q on

Its very interesting and non-coincidental that the Thomas parallels to Q lack the apocalyptic material which Q scholars designate as being a later stage in Q. This tells me that schoilars like Kloppenborg, Koester etc., are on the right track.

Meier produced some good argumentation at points for his view of dependence but he endorsed nonsense like "just one redactional piece of material in the gospel indicates dependence"! Unfortunately he fails to consider the possible layering of Thomas, the possibility of the intrusion of canonical material in a later stage of the tradition, the translators natural and documented vulnerabilities at harmonizing texts with the synoptic Gospels and so forth.

When all those who argue dependence can do is point to a pharse here or a verse there the argument seems to be on pretty shaky ground.

Crossan also offers a brief but decent discussion of how one determines dependence in the BoC which is helpful.

Vinnie

Peter Kirby · 06-29-2003, 09:24 PM

I found Meier's analysis of the Gospel of Thomas in A Marginal Jew to be shoddy and superficial, easily the worst chapter in an otherwise quite helpful series. A reply to Meier would be a good thing, but it shouldn't be taken as refuting the best arguments that might be made for dependence. Some of this literature is not in English, and I haven't read it, but I've seen references:

Schrage, W., Das Verh�ltnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelien�bersetzungen: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur gnostischen Synoptikerdeutung, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift f�r die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Alteren Kirche, Alfred T�pelmann, Berlin, 1964.

M�nard, J.�., L'�vangile selon Thomas, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1975.

But there is some material in English.

Blomberg, C.L., Tradition and redaction in the parables of the Gospel of Thomas, in: D. Wenham, ed., The Jesus tradition outside the Gospels, 1984, 177-205.

Tuckett, C.M., Thomas and the Synoptics, Novum Testamentum 30, 1988, 132-157.

Nicholas Perrin, Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron, 2002.

The books by Valantasis and Davies are commentaries and focus on the meaning of the text, not its relationship to the NT. The book by Patterson is the only one of the three to spend some space (about 100 pages) on the independence of Thomas. There are other items arguing for the independence of Thomas from the NT (which again I haven't read, except for Crossan).

Sieber, J.H., A redactional analysis of the synoptic gospels with regard to the question of the sources of the Gospel according to Thomas, Claremont Graduate School, 1965.

John Dominic Crossan, Four Other Gospels (Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press 1985), pp. 15-64.

Hedrick, C.W., Thomas and the Synoptics: Aiming at a consensus, Second Century 7, 1990, 1-56.

McLean, B, 1995. "On the Gospel of Thomas and Q," in Piper R (ed), The Gospel Behind the Gospels Leiden: Brill 321-345.

Gregory J. Riley (Resurrection Reconsidered) and Elaine Pagels (Beyond Belief) argue that GJohn responds to GThomas.

Don't forget to look at the essays linked from my site and from that of Davies:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

See especially the provocative essay of Davies arguing for the dependence of Mark on Thomas. Davies would tell you that the majority of scholars think of Thomas as being dependent on the New Testament but couldn't tell you why, beyond that it is "Gnostic."

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie · 06-30-2003, 08:21 AM

I have part of Davies paper on Mark using THomas printed out. My ink went after the tenth page though :banghead:

I'm using it as I found Davies comments to smash Meier's nonsense about "one redactional saying in THomas demonstrates dependence". As Davies wrote in smashing this claim:

Quote:

"However, there are several ways that independent material in Thomas could misleadingly appear to have been derived originally from redacted passages in the synoptics:

1. The scribes who copied Thomas almost certainly harmonized elements of Thomasine sayings with the canonical versions with which they were familiar. Such harmonization is a well known phenomenon in the text traditions of the synoptic gospels themselves especially in the Coptic textual tradition.

2. It is likely that whoever translated Thomas from Greek to Coptic did so in light of his knowledge of the sayings as they are found in the canonical gospels and so some harmonizing is to be expected in Coptic Thomas.

3. Coincidence and chance undoubtedly played a role. If, for example, Luke made a slight change in a saying that he found in Mark, Thomas may have coincidentally thought it proper to make the same change in a saying that he found in oral tradition, or oral tradition may have contained that supposed change.

4. Insofar as fragments of passages in Luke or Matthew are said to indicate redaction, this presupposes that we have at hand for comparison a perfect version of the same text of Mark that Matthew or Luke used. We do not. In some cases, what appear to be minor redactional changes made by Matthew or Luke may actually reflect the original text of Mark.

5. Redactional material in Luke or Matthew may derive from those authors' knowledge of material in Thomas. Gregory Riley (1995) has recently argued that Luke 12:14 and 5:39 indicate that some parts of Luke's gospel "must post-date and be dependent on sayings formed in Thomas Christianity."

Such considerations would be without much merit if there were a considerable number of sayings in Thomas that certainly reflect the redactional tendencies of Mark or Matthew or Luke. There are few, if any, that do. Those arguing for the dependence of Thomas on the synoptics are therefore forced to concern themselves with a single word here, a phrase there. Such textual details are best accounted for by harmonization processes such as those enumerated above. Today, thanks especially to Patterson's work, we can say that the independence of Thomas from the synoptics is as reliable a conclusion as is the existence, at one time, of the document we call Q. Neither conclusion will ever be universally accepted, but I think both should be. "

Further, in BoC Crossan points out that arguments for dependence must be "finally cumulative". One instance isn't going to get the job done. Not to mention that a lot of the material Meier labels special L or M may in fact have been a part of Q itself. Plusm parallels says nothing without a working theory in regards to pre-canonical tradition.

Quote:

I found Meier's analysis of the Gospel of Thomas in A Marginal Jew to be shoddy and superficial, easily the worst chapter in an otherwise quite helpful series.

THe only points that were good were about four where he tries todemonstrate the account assumed the canonical Gospels. Other than that, I am finding more and more that there is a clear canonical prejudice in the minds of numerous NT scholars who are pawning off theology as history. Crossan was simply Brilliant when briefly addressing Meier's mantra on Q in BoC. I really enjoy his writing style at times and he cuts right to the point. Its funny how L. T. Johnson accuses Crossan of fixing the evidence when scholars like him put the canonicals on an untouchable pedestal!

I'm skeptical of reading anything by Blomberg. For some reason I think "evangelical apologist trying to do history (apologize)" when I hear the name.

Vinnie

06-26-2003, 08:40 PM	#1
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Gospel of Thomas book suggestions? Anyone have any? Vinnie

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

06-26-2003, 09:10 PM	#2
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	The three best that I have read are Patterson's The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, Valantasis's The Gospel of Thomas, and Davies's The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated & Explained (ignore the editor's preface). You can find more books here (I've read all of these too): http://www.gospelthomas.com/bibliography.html best, Peter Kirby

06-29-2003, 07:29 PM	#3
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Do any of these works consider, in detail, the question of canonical redactional material in GThomas? I think Patterson's does right? Personally, I think Thomas is independent of the canonicals and the material which overlaps with Q1 is ANCIENT as dependence on Q is unlikely and it seems more probable that they both appear to have drawn from the same ANCIENT source/s. This view is shared by Koester, Mack, etc. As far as I know, the dependence of Thomas on Q1 isn't well evidenced or accepted by many(?). This would naturally create problems for the mythical theory as well When indpendent authors are appealing to the same sayings material and this same material is used early and widely by other authors (see Koester on the inaugural sermon in Q!), it seems impossible to say the Christ-myth cult ripped a sayings list. This material, by its nature, must be defined specifically as Jesus-sayings material. I've read Koeste's excellent discusison, Crossan's comments on Q and Thomas in the Birth of Christianity and Meier's treatment along with several articles on line. I've browsed through Miller's discussion for dependence but I'm not too inclined to put much faith in an ultra-apologists argument for dependence of THomas on the Canonicals when, if I remembr orrectly, he denies Markan priority! I'm in the process of writing something very lengthy on Q, Thomas and Jesus but I need to hold it back a little. Kloppenborg is on the way. I have to read the book that so many scholars base their views of Q on Its very interesting and non-coincidental that the Thomas parallels to Q lack the apocalyptic material which Q scholars designate as being a later stage in Q. This tells me that schoilars like Kloppenborg, Koester etc., are on the right track. Meier produced some good argumentation at points for his view of dependence but he endorsed nonsense like "just one redactional piece of material in the gospel indicates dependence"! Unfortunately he fails to consider the possible layering of Thomas, the possibility of the intrusion of canonical material in a later stage of the tradition, the translators natural and documented vulnerabilities at harmonizing texts with the synoptic Gospels and so forth. When all those who argue dependence can do is point to a pharse here or a verse there the argument seems to be on pretty shaky ground. Crossan also offers a brief but decent discussion of how one determines dependence in the BoC which is helpful. Vinnie

06-29-2003, 09:24 PM	#4
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	I found Meier's analysis of the Gospel of Thomas in A Marginal Jew to be shoddy and superficial, easily the worst chapter in an otherwise quite helpful series. A reply to Meier would be a good thing, but it shouldn't be taken as refuting the best arguments that might be made for dependence. Some of this literature is not in English, and I haven't read it, but I've seen references: Schrage, W., Das Verh�ltnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelien�bersetzungen: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur gnostischen Synoptikerdeutung, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift f�r die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Alteren Kirche, Alfred T�pelmann, Berlin, 1964. M�nard, J.�., L'�vangile selon Thomas, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1975. But there is some material in English. Blomberg, C.L., Tradition and redaction in the parables of the Gospel of Thomas, in: D. Wenham, ed., The Jesus tradition outside the Gospels, 1984, 177-205. Tuckett, C.M., Thomas and the Synoptics, Novum Testamentum 30, 1988, 132-157. Nicholas Perrin, Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron, 2002. The books by Valantasis and Davies are commentaries and focus on the meaning of the text, not its relationship to the NT. The book by Patterson is the only one of the three to spend some space (about 100 pages) on the independence of Thomas. There are other items arguing for the independence of Thomas from the NT (which again I haven't read, except for Crossan). Sieber, J.H., A redactional analysis of the synoptic gospels with regard to the question of the sources of the Gospel according to Thomas, Claremont Graduate School, 1965. John Dominic Crossan, Four Other Gospels (Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press 1985), pp. 15-64. Hedrick, C.W., Thomas and the Synoptics: Aiming at a consensus, Second Century 7, 1990, 1-56. McLean, B, 1995. "On the Gospel of Thomas and Q," in Piper R (ed), The Gospel Behind the Gospels Leiden: Brill 321-345. Gregory J. Riley (Resurrection Reconsidered) and Elaine Pagels (Beyond Belief) argue that GJohn responds to GThomas. Don't forget to look at the essays linked from my site and from that of Davies: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html See especially the provocative essay of Davies arguing for the dependence of Mark on Thomas. Davies would tell you that the majority of scholars think of Thomas as being dependent on the New Testament but couldn't tell you why, beyond that it is "Gnostic." best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.