Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 07-13-2003, 12:27 PM

Here I critique the arguments put forth by Bernard Muller for a late dating of the Gospel of Thomas. I conclude that his treatment provided no evidence which necessitates a second century dating of Thomas and he has not shown how any Thomas Logions were dependent upon the synoptic texts in the positive arguing portion of his article.

His article is linked at the top and my critique of various material from it is in blue as my intro states:

Thomas is early and autonomous btw

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

Critical feedback is welcomed!

Vinnie

Peter Kirby · 07-15-2003, 06:48 PM

Hi Vinnie,

Thanks for sharing this article with us. I have notified Bernard Muller about it by e-mail and have invited him to join us here at IIDB. We will see how he may respond.

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.

But you also take a stand on a controversial question, i.e., you maintain that "realized eschatology" (the kingdom is here now) was present in the first century. This needs to be developed more. Besides Thomas itself, the evidence adduced here are (1) the stratification of Q and (2) the concerns of the Thessalonian community. (1) This is just a can of worms within a can of worms! But even Kloppenborg says that you shouldn't infer tradition history from literary composition; the compilers of early Q could have been eschatologists who were compiling ethical advice, no more including apocalyptic here than one would in a grocery list. Yet the existence and especially the layering of Q is, to borrow a phrase from Josh McDowell, "hotly contested." (2) This was the better point, I think. But I am not convinced. The Thessalonian community assumes that the kingdom will come in the future and is worried because it isn't coming soon enough (some saints have fell asleep). Everyone in this context assumes a future eschatology. It could be maintained that a complete breakdown of future eschatology to be replaced with the redefinition of the kingdom as present now would have to wait until the second century. Of course, 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.

Thanks again!

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie · 07-17-2003, 10:55 AM

Im about 17 pages into an article on Thomas itself that should be put on my site within a few weeks to a month. In it I've re-dialoged with some of Muller's arguments and I'll also be hitting your question a little bit better.

1) the stratification of Q and (2) the concerns of the Thessalonian community.

""""""""""""""(1) This is just a can of worms within a can of worms! But even Kloppenborg says that you shouldn't infer tradition history from literary composition; the compilers of early Q could have been eschatologists who were compiling ethical advice, no more including apocalyptic here than one would in a grocery list. Yet the existence and especially the layering of Q is, to borrow a phrase from Josh McDowell, "hotly contested."""""""""""""""

An article on Q will be forthcoming after an article on Thomas. I agree the issue is hotly contested. In fact, I concur that reasonable and very well informed scholars deny the existence of Q. My article is weak, like Muller's in that there are a few hotly disputed assumptions that deserve special and lengthy treatment. I agree with Kloppenborg as well but I would maintain that the Q1 / Thomas similarities (both included material and material they lack) cannot be coincidental. Further, though there is no indication itself that Q1 is older and more authentic by mere stratification alone, I believe Crossan has demonstrated that the material in Q is more widely attested in antiquity than the Q2 material, and thus is older. Other considerations on Q come to mind as well. My treatment of Thomas leads me to designate the THomas / Q1 overlaps as very ancient.

"""""""""(2) This was the better point, I think. But I am not convinced. The Thessalonian community assumes that the kingdom will come in the future and is worried because it isn't coming soon enough (some saints have fell asleep). Everyone in this context assumes a future eschatology. It could be maintained that a complete breakdown of future eschatology to be replaced with the redefinition of the kingdom as present now would have to wait until the second century. Of course, 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.""""""""

Maybe we missed each other on this? I said the Thess community expected the coming of the Lord. They were surprised some died before he returned.

Its the Corinthian community that I was talking about. Paul clearly is dealing with opponents there who seem to espouse a view similar to GThom. I refer to Koester's discussion of "Wisdom in Corinth" for the time being until I finish my Thomas article. With that being said, on what grounds could it be maintained that Paul's Corinthian opponets assumed a future eschatology? Is the opposite implied or is agnosticism the prudent course?

A further argument I would put forth is the Gospel of Thomas itself. The torso appears to be 1st century to me and I also find it to be independent (or "autonomous" a la Patterson) of the canonical Gospels and I find the wording to be more original in many places (the critics of this notwithstanding). I am dialoging with all these issues right now in my article.

And my article up there was written hastily, as was mentioned to me by someone. The one I am working on now is going slow and carefully so that I try my best to hit all the relevant points.

Hopefully Bernard Muller will join us and thanks for emailing him!

Vinnie

Peter Kirby · 07-20-2003, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Its the Corinthian community that I was talking about. Paul clearly is dealing with opponents there who seem to espouse a view similar to GThom. I refer to Koester's discussion of "Wisdom in Corinth" for the time being until I finish my Thomas article. With that being said, on what grounds could it be maintained that Paul's Corinthian opponets assumed a future eschatology? Is the opposite implied or is agnosticism the prudent course?

Koester may be building on the argument of Davies in The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom. I do think that a case can be made that some in Corinth had a realized eschatology.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
A further argument I would put forth is the Gospel of Thomas itself. The torso appears to be 1st century to me and I also find it to be independent (or "autonomous" a la Patterson) of the canonical Gospels and I find the wording to be more original in many places (the critics of this notwithstanding). I am dialoging with all these issues right now in my article.

What scholarly material pro dependence will you be discussing? I think that you should take into consideration at least Christopher Tuckett's Novum Testamentum article mentioned earlier. If you are not able to obtain this essay, maybe I could snail mail a copy to you.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie · 07-20-2003, 12:01 PM

That is the only thing my study is lacking. I'm searching for pro-material now. Books are getting expensive! Its either going to have to be Schrage, Tuckett, Grant and Freedmon or one of the other studies done. Have you read any of these? Which in your mind is the best pro-dependence work out there? Tucketts?

Meier cites several of the arguments in his work and Patterson dialogued with them regularly in his work so I feel I have a good understanding of what said scholars argue. It would be better to read them for myself though.

I am responding to Meier's entire discussion throughout the text as he summarizes a lot of authors then I plan on just discussing like 15 sayings or so. Its not feasible to discuss every logion in the Gospel of Thomas as my article is already 27 pages and I didn't even discuss instances of earlier wording and various logions for dependence yet nor did I argue for an early dating of Thoms! I actually dicsussed Muller again and I will probably axe the other article from my site when this one is up. The final product will probably be around about 40-50 pages.

I'd love to take a stab at Tuckett's work. I do not know of anyway to possess such articles? Can they be ordered from anywhere? Just through libraries or what? And if possible I would gladly accept a copy through snail mail. I'd be more than happy to reimburse you for any costs. If this is possible let me know.

Vinnie

Peter Kirby · 07-20-2003, 03:44 PM

Vinnie, send me a PM or e-mail with your mailing address. I got the article by using a photocopy machine at UC Irvine. If there isn't a big library nearby, the best way to obtain such items is through interlibrary loan. Some journals sell back issues and some don't.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller · 07-27-2003, 08:22 PM

Hi Peter, Hi Vinnie
This is my first go at it, so excuse any mistake.
I came back from a trip, a few days ago: that explains my silence so far.
I join this forum according to Peter's request but have little time to be an active participant.
I read all about the thread concerning the dating of GThomas and, of course, I would have lot of things to reply to; but again I have little time now.
Regardless, because of the critiques of Vinnie, I made clarifications & additions on my page on GThomas, including a postcriptum at the end of my section on the prologue.
I understand that Winnie is preparing an article on the dating of GThomas, so maybe it would be better for me to wait for it. Now, the situation is rather messy.
Please note that, in my main website: http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/ I have a page to explain my position on the parables and another one on Q
I am happy that on another thread, my page on Daniel has been recommended for reading.
Best regards
Bernard

Bernard Muller · 07-29-2003, 10:18 AM

Hi Peter, Hi Vinnie,
I worked again on my page on GThomas, and, at the very end of my section on the prologue, I just added a refutation on what seems to be a major argument (from Vinnie & Paterson) for a 1st cent. dating of GThomas. A few lines earlier, I also explained where the word "secret sayings" in the prologue would come from.
Best Regards
Bernard
My page on GThomas: http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/thomas.shtml

PS: It would be nice to have an indication of life from the other end!

Peter Kirby · 07-29-2003, 08:24 PM

We're here, Bernard. I know that Vinnie is working on an extensive article on the subject. In the meantime, could you indicate some of the places where you see Thomas to be dependent on the NT and why?

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller · 07-30-2003, 07:06 AM

Hi Peter,
Your quote: "In the meantime, could you indicate some of the places where you see Thomas to be dependent on the NT and why?"
But I already did that on my page, a few times, with argumentation & evidence. Just because Vinnie does not like them, because it is against his views, does not mean that's not there.
Best, Bernard

PS: Please read my page , at least once. You seem to be one-sided: you trust whatever Vinnie wrote, but you do not know what the other guy (that's me) has been writing on his page.

http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/thomas.shtml

07-13-2003, 12:27 PM	#1
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	The Alleged Late Dating of GThomas Here I critique the arguments put forth by Bernard Muller for a late dating of the Gospel of Thomas. I conclude that his treatment provided no evidence which necessitates a second century dating of Thomas and he has not shown how any Thomas Logions were dependent upon the synoptic texts in the positive arguing portion of his article. His article is linked at the top and my critique of various material from it is in blue as my intro states: Thomas is early and autonomous btw http://www.acfaith.com/thomcritique.html Critical feedback is welcomed! Vinnie

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

07-15-2003, 06:48 PM	#2
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Hi Vinnie, Thanks for sharing this article with us. I have notified Bernard Muller about it by e-mail and have invited him to join us here at IIDB. We will see how he may respond. 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. But you also take a stand on a controversial question, i.e., you maintain that "realized eschatology" (the kingdom is here now) was present in the first century. This needs to be developed more. Besides Thomas itself, the evidence adduced here are (1) the stratification of Q and (2) the concerns of the Thessalonian community. (1) This is just a can of worms within a can of worms! But even Kloppenborg says that you shouldn't infer tradition history from literary composition; the compilers of early Q could have been eschatologists who were compiling ethical advice, no more including apocalyptic here than one would in a grocery list. Yet the existence and especially the layering of Q is, to borrow a phrase from Josh McDowell, "hotly contested." (2) This was the better point, I think. But I am not convinced. The Thessalonian community assumes that the kingdom will come in the future and is worried because it isn't coming soon enough (some saints have fell asleep). Everyone in this context assumes a future eschatology. It could be maintained that a complete breakdown of future eschatology to be replaced with the redefinition of the kingdom as present now would have to wait until the second century. Of course, 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. Thanks again! best, Peter Kirby

07-17-2003, 10:55 AM	#3
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Im about 17 pages into an article on Thomas itself that should be put on my site within a few weeks to a month. In it I've re-dialoged with some of Muller's arguments and I'll also be hitting your question a little bit better. 1) the stratification of Q and (2) the concerns of the Thessalonian community. """"""""""""""(1) This is just a can of worms within a can of worms! But even Kloppenborg says that you shouldn't infer tradition history from literary composition; the compilers of early Q could have been eschatologists who were compiling ethical advice, no more including apocalyptic here than one would in a grocery list. Yet the existence and especially the layering of Q is, to borrow a phrase from Josh McDowell, "hotly contested.""""""""""""""" An article on Q will be forthcoming after an article on Thomas. I agree the issue is hotly contested. In fact, I concur that reasonable and very well informed scholars deny the existence of Q. My article is weak, like Muller's in that there are a few hotly disputed assumptions that deserve special and lengthy treatment. I agree with Kloppenborg as well but I would maintain that the Q1 / Thomas similarities (both included material and material they lack) cannot be coincidental. Further, though there is no indication itself that Q1 is older and more authentic by mere stratification alone, I believe Crossan has demonstrated that the material in Q is more widely attested in antiquity than the Q2 material, and thus is older. Other considerations on Q come to mind as well. My treatment of Thomas leads me to designate the THomas / Q1 overlaps as very ancient. """""""""(2) This was the better point, I think. But I am not convinced. The Thessalonian community assumes that the kingdom will come in the future and is worried because it isn't coming soon enough (some saints have fell asleep). Everyone in this context assumes a future eschatology. It could be maintained that a complete breakdown of future eschatology to be replaced with the redefinition of the kingdom as present now would have to wait until the second century. Of course, 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."""""""" Maybe we missed each other on this? I said the Thess community expected the coming of the Lord. They were surprised some died before he returned. Its the Corinthian community that I was talking about. Paul clearly is dealing with opponents there who seem to espouse a view similar to GThom. I refer to Koester's discussion of "Wisdom in Corinth" for the time being until I finish my Thomas article. With that being said, on what grounds could it be maintained that Paul's Corinthian opponets assumed a future eschatology? Is the opposite implied or is agnosticism the prudent course? A further argument I would put forth is the Gospel of Thomas itself. The torso appears to be 1st century to me and I also find it to be independent (or "autonomous" a la Patterson) of the canonical Gospels and I find the wording to be more original in many places (the critics of this notwithstanding). I am dialoging with all these issues right now in my article. And my article up there was written hastily, as was mentioned to me by someone. The one I am working on now is going slow and carefully so that I try my best to hit all the relevant points. Hopefully Bernard Muller will join us and thanks for emailing him! Vinnie

07-20-2003, 12:01 PM	#5
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	That is the only thing my study is lacking. I'm searching for pro-material now. Books are getting expensive! Its either going to have to be Schrage, Tuckett, Grant and Freedmon or one of the other studies done. Have you read any of these? Which in your mind is the best pro-dependence work out there? Tucketts? Meier cites several of the arguments in his work and Patterson dialogued with them regularly in his work so I feel I have a good understanding of what said scholars argue. It would be better to read them for myself though. I am responding to Meier's entire discussion throughout the text as he summarizes a lot of authors then I plan on just discussing like 15 sayings or so. Its not feasible to discuss every logion in the Gospel of Thomas as my article is already 27 pages and I didn't even discuss instances of earlier wording and various logions for dependence yet nor did I argue for an early dating of Thoms! I actually dicsussed Muller again and I will probably axe the other article from my site when this one is up. The final product will probably be around about 40-50 pages. I'd love to take a stab at Tuckett's work. I do not know of anyway to possess such articles? Can they be ordered from anywhere? Just through libraries or what? And if possible I would gladly accept a copy through snail mail. I'd be more than happy to reimburse you for any costs. If this is possible let me know. Vinnie

07-20-2003, 03:44 PM	#6
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Vinnie, send me a PM or e-mail with your mailing address. I got the article by using a photocopy machine at UC Irvine. If there isn't a big library nearby, the best way to obtain such items is through interlibrary loan. Some journals sell back issues and some don't. best, Peter Kirby

07-27-2003, 08:22 PM	#7
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Hi Peter, Hi Vinnie This is my first go at it, so excuse any mistake. I came back from a trip, a few days ago: that explains my silence so far. I join this forum according to Peter's request but have little time to be an active participant. I read all about the thread concerning the dating of GThomas and, of course, I would have lot of things to reply to; but again I have little time now. Regardless, because of the critiques of Vinnie, I made clarifications & additions on my page on GThomas, including a postcriptum at the end of my section on the prologue. I understand that Winnie is preparing an article on the dating of GThomas, so maybe it would be better for me to wait for it. Now, the situation is rather messy. Please note that, in my main website: http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/ I have a page to explain my position on the parables and another one on Q I am happy that on another thread, my page on Daniel has been recommended for reading. Best regards Bernard

07-29-2003, 10:18 AM	#8
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Hi Peter, Hi Vinnie, I worked again on my page on GThomas, and, at the very end of my section on the prologue, I just added a refutation on what seems to be a major argument (from Vinnie & Paterson) for a 1st cent. dating of GThomas. A few lines earlier, I also explained where the word "secret sayings" in the prologue would come from. Best Regards Bernard My page on GThomas: http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/thomas.shtml PS: It would be nice to have an indication of life from the other end!

07-29-2003, 08:24 PM	#9
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	We're here, Bernard. I know that Vinnie is working on an extensive article on the subject. In the meantime, could you indicate some of the places where you see Thomas to be dependent on the NT and why? best, Peter Kirby

07-30-2003, 07:06 AM	#10
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Hi Peter, Your quote: "In the meantime, could you indicate some of the places where you see Thomas to be dependent on the NT and why?" But I already did that on my page, a few times, with argumentation & evidence. Just because Vinnie does not like them, because it is against his views, does not mean that's not there. Best, Bernard PS: Please read my page , at least once. You seem to be one-sided: you trust whatever Vinnie wrote, but you do not know what the other guy (that's me) has been writing on his page. http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/thomas.shtml

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.