gospels.net

Interview with Christopher Skinner about his new book, John and Thomas: Gospels in Conflict?

September 14th, 2009 by Andrew Bernhard under Gospel of Thomas. 7 Comments.

Christopher Skinner (Ph.D., The Catholic University of America) is currently Instructor of Biblical Studies at The Ecumenical Institute of Theology at St. Mary’s Seminary and University in Baltimore, Maryland. He is the author of numerous articles and book reviews, as well as the new book: John and Thomas—Gospels in Conflict?: Johannine Characterization and the Thomas Question. In addition, he maintains the new blog, Peje Iesous (the Coptic phrase often used in the Gospel of Thomas meaning, “Jesus said”).

The following interview with Christopher Skinner was conducted jointly by Mike Grondin, list owner of the Gospel of Thomas e-mail discussion group, and Andrew Bernhard, who created and maintains gospels.net. The publisher of John and Thomas—Gospels in Conflict? (Wipf and Stock) has generously offered to make the book available online for 40% off the retail price in conjunction with the publication of the interview (see the sidebar for details). Discussion about the book with Dr. Skinner is ongoing on the Gospel of Thomas e-list, and all are invited to participate.

- – - – -

Question (Andrew Bernhard/Mike Grondin): You point out in your book that questions about the Gospel of Thomas’s date of origin, relationship to the canonical gospels, and theology seem to have been inextricably linked in modern scholarship (either the text is treated as early, literarily independent, and non-gnostic OR late, literarily dependent, and gnostic). However, you clearly indicate your dissatisfaction with this situation by writing, “an awareness of this trend in previous scholarship points to the present need for careful examination of each question on its own terms.” Why do you feel it’s so important to treat each of these questions individually? And do you think that’s realistic?

Answer (Christopher Skinner): It’s funny that you would begin with this observation and related question. Out of everything I’ve written in the book, this has been the one thing I am most unsure about. The general trend in most early scholarship on the Gospel of Thomas (from around 1959 to about 1983) was to identify Thomas as a gnostic document. This conclusion was usually based upon its presence among a group of overtly gnostic texts. It should be noted, however, that the Nag Hammadi library contained Plato’s Republic and the Sentences of Sextus, neither of which are gnostic documents. However, because the type of gnosticism found in some of the Nag Hammadi literature reflects theological developments from the 2^nd century and later, the conclusion of a “gnostic Gospel of Thomas” seemed self-evident (note the fallacious guilt by association). This conclusion was used to establish Thomas as a document that was composed later than the canonical gospels. These two conclusions were then used to argue that the strong synoptic parallels indicated Thomas’s dependence on the synoptics, and possibly John. Such was the general trend among early researchers, although Helmut Koester was one notable exception to this trend in early Thomas scholarship. Koester consistently argued for Thomas’s antiquity vis-à-vis the canonical tradition from the earliest days of the discussion. Since 1983 (around the time of Stevan Davies’s The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom) the general consensus on these three positions has begun to erode. In fact, it is safe to say that there are currently very few “consensus” positions in Thomas scholarship. Nevertheless, a trend continues. When a given scholar answers one of these three questions (viz., date, theological outlook, relationship to the canonical gospels), the answer to that first question often dictates that scholar’s conclusions on the other two.

I am not at all convinced that these three questions can be answered independently of one another in a satisfactory way. However, scholarly attempts to answer them often seem disingenuous (occasionally driven more by theological commitments or scholarly presuppositions rather than a careful analysis of the little bit of evidence we do have). Other attempts to answer these questions seem to lack clarity. For instance, it is possible for Thomas to contain later traditions without us having to argue (or assume, as some do) that the entire document is late. We should keep in mind that (1) we have only one extant version of the final text, which is preserved in Coptic (though there are fragments in Greek among the Oxyrhynchus papyri), (2) there are lingering questions about compositional language (Greek, Coptic, Syriac, and Aramaic have all been proposed), and stages of textual transmission (see, for instance, DeConick’s discussion of a “rolling corpus”), and (3) there are many questions about oral transmission which remain unexplored. In light of these uncertainties, it seems overly optimistic and even needless to argue that the entire document is very late. On the other hand, it is possible that Thomas contains some very early material but, on that basis, we need not argue that the entire document predates Mark (as some do). In fact, I am personally persuaded that the final Coptic form of Thomas contains material that is both early and late (viz., contemporaneous with the composition of the synoptics and later than the composition of the Fourth Gospel). To sum up, I am not convinced that these questions can be answered in a satisfactory way if they are considered independently of one another. However, I do believe we should give it our best try and seek to avoid a situation where we are drawing conclusions on the basis of untested assumptions.

Let me briefly add that I do believe there are some treatments of these questions that are thorough, qualified, well-reasoned, and quite clear on the issues, though this is not, to my mind, the norm. For instance, even though I find myself disagreeing with some of her conclusions, I find April DeConick’s recent works very helpful and thought-provoking on many different issues in Thomas scholarship. I also find the earlier work by Stephen J. Patterson (The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus) an enlightening resource.

- – - – -

Q: Your book directly addresses the relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of John. More precisely, it is framed as a response to those who postulate that the two gospels were written in the midst of a theological conflict between the Thomasine and Johannine communities. Why did you feel compelled to challenge the “community-conflict hypothesis” about the origins of these two gospels?

A: In the summer of 2005, I began putting together the research proposal for my dissertation at Catholic University. During that period I was reading widely on the Gospel of Thomas and the Fourth Gospel, searching for a topic that I really wanted to investigate. For pleasure (and unrelated to my research) I picked up Elaine Pagels’s bestseller, Beyond Belief, and was surprised to find that it dealt with this topic. I later found Gregory Riley’s revised dissertation, Resurrection Reconsidered. I knew right away that this was a topic I wanted to investigate further. I was in substantial disagreement with the assumptions that were driving the views advocated by Pagels and Riley but I had not found anything that comprehensively dealt with their views. During that time I also came upon several articles by a scholar named Ismo Dunderberg. He was addressing this particular strand of scholarship by dealing with sayings in both gospels and by examining the idea of a “beloved disciple” in both traditions. As I read his work I found myself agreeing with his conclusions. His work largely served as the impetus for my own. (Interestingly, about three months into my writing Dunderberg published his articles and some new material in book form under the title, The Beloved Disciple in Conflict? I was instantly concerned that his work would render mine redundant and superfluous, but after reading his book I realized that while there was some overlap, we were approaching the topic from different perspectives.) More research followed and I became familiar with April DeConick’s more extensive work on this question—work that had significant overlap with the writings of Riley and Pagels.

One of the first things I found problematic in the approach (which I, for purposes of brevity, have designated the “community-conflict hypothesis”) was that these scholars were all making a great deal about an entirely speculative “conflict” while doing very little exegesis in the Fourth Gospel. In addition, while all of them agreed that there was evidence of a John-Thomas conflict in the Fourth Gospel, there was no consensus on the nature of the disagreement. In fact, they were even contradicting each other about the nature of the supposed “evidence.” For instance, Riley (whose research on this issue was published first) argues that the conflict is rooted in different views of the resurrection. Pagels writes that the conflict begins over different understandings of the Genesis creation narratives. DeConick argues that the conflict arose over competing views of salvation. It seemed very much to me (and it still does) that they were envisioning a conflict for which there is very little evidence, and then making the details fit their theory. In my book’s conclusion I write:

In their publications on the John-Thomas relationship, Riley, DeConick, and Pagels are concerned with the history of early Christianity and what they regard as its multiform development. All three scholars rely heavily upon source-, form-, and redaction-critical criteria to explain the conflict they envision. Elements of historical inquiry also factor into their discussions. Then, after developing a picture of the John-Thomas conflict using a complex set of different historical critical elements, each scholar introduces one narrative critical insight to validate their view—the characterization of Thomas. This leads to a truncated reading of the Johannine narrative that drastically overemphasizes the significance of one minor character. The hermeneutic that emerges is an amalgam of loosely connected methodological assumptions forced together to paint a picture that is unsupported by the available information. Through this approach they reveal that their greater concern is to mine the text for insights that will assist their revaluation of early Christianity and gospel origins. Or, to say it more succinctly, in the character of Thomas they simply find what they are looking for. Because of this they generate incomplete, superficial readings of the Fourth Gospel that subjugate the interests of careful reading to those of historical speculation and reconstruction.

This block quote sums up some of my problems with this particular interpretive approach. You’ll have to buy the book to see what else I say.  : – )

- – - – -

Q: In your book, you challenge the theory that the Gospel of John “contains a theological response to the Gospel of Thomas or the traditions contained therein” using a methodology described as “narrative study” by Darrell Bock and “narrative-critical study” by R. Alan Culpepper. Can you describe the essential nature of this methodology?

A: In my “narrative” approach in this book I deal with the final form of the Fourth Gospel while focusing specifically on how Johannine characters are presented. If the claims made by Riley, DeConick, and Pagels about how Thomas is characterized are to be taken seriously, they must be tested against the treatment of other Johannine characters. Therefore, I ask, “Is Thomas the only Johannine character consistently portrayed in a negative light, or are there others?” This question guides my study and allows me to evaluate similarly uncomprehending characters that appear throughout the Johannine account of Jesus’ ministry. If other characters are cast in a similarly negative light (and in fact, they are), then we are forced to re-evaluate the basic premise of the community-conflict hypothesis (viz., that there is a John-Thomas conflict in the Fourth Gospel and it can be seen in John’s anti-Thomas polemic). If we would agree with the community-conflict hypothesis, we should consider that the Fourth Gospel has an anti-Petrine bias (which many argue for), as well as anti-Philip, anti-Martha, anti-Nicodemus, etc. polemics. It solves more problems and raises fewer concerns to suggest that these are not polemics at all, but rather a part of how the evangelist has crafted characters in the Fourth Gospel. In essence, my approach considers the vast internal evidence found in the Fourth Gospel instead of relying on the minimal “evidence” and speculative theories that lie primarily outside of the Fourth Gospel.

- – - – -

Q: Thomas is mentioned by name in John 11:16, 14:5, 21:2 and he appears in the famous “doubting Thomas” story (John 20:24-29). How would you summarize the role of Thomas in the Gospel of John, and how does it compare to that of the other disciples and characters in the gospel?

A: Thomas is only one of a handful of disciples who are named in the Fourth Gospel. I agree that he is an uncomprehending character who, on three occasions in the narrative, fails to understand what is clear to the reader. However, this is the case with Peter, Philip, Andrew, Judas (not Iscariot), the disciples as a group, Martha, Mary, Nicodemus, and the Samaritan woman. In fact, Thomas comes off better than any of these other uncomprehending characters because he is given the opportunity to ascribe to Jesus the most exalted confession in the Fourth Gospel. I see his confession as the redemption of his character. (Most of the major uncomprehending characters are redeemed to a certain degree by the end of the story). The words, “my Lord and my God” allow Thomas to (1) say what the reader already knows; and (2) have his reputation restored as one who finally comprehends the truth of Jesus’ mission and message. In the end, Thomas ascribes to Jesus the most lofty and exalted of titles. I would argue that he comes off looking very good, rather than looking like the object of a Johannine polemic. Since all the disciples (apart from the Beloved Disciple) function as uncomprehending literary foils, any Johannine disciple would have been able to function in the final context of “doubt” in John 20. Had it been Philip, Andrew, or Nathanael, I’m not sure we would be making such a big deal about a supposed community conflict. (Someone might well object by saying, “But it wasn’t Philip, Andrew, or Nathanael. It WAS Thomas.” This is true and that is why I spend so much time drawing out the systematic presentation of uncomprehending Johannine characters.)

- – - – -

Q: What is the significance of the “doubting Thomas” scene – does it indicate that the author of the Gospel of John was aware of contemporary followers of Jesus who doubted his resurrection “in the flesh”?

A: On the significance of the scene, see my answer to the previous question. As for the second part of the question, I’m not entirely convinced that it is always responsible to approach the gospels as if they are merely vehicles for polemic and/or apologetic. Having said that, I do think it is probable and likely that the author(s) responsible for the final form of the Fourth Gospel were well aware of views they considered theologically aberrant. The Johannine epistles clearly attest to an intra-church conflict where one group has “seceded” from the community of faith over the issue of Jesus “coming in the flesh.” The latter part of John 20 may be intended as a means of addressing that particular theological disagreement, but I’m not sure we should make the leap from this evidence to the supposition that Thomas Christians are in view and that “Thomas Christianity” is a later group that sprung from the nascent “heretics” who departed from the Johannine community.

- – - – -

Q: Do you think the author of the Gospel of John knew anything about Thomas himself that might have influenced how the disciple is presented in the text?

A: I think this is an extraordinarily difficult question to answer. Any attempt to provide an answer must take into account a number of other questions for which there are no readily available answers. These include, but are not limited to: (1) Who was responsible for the final form of the Fourth Gospel? (2) Was the Fourth Gospel written during a period and within in a region that would have allowed for a familiarity with a “Thomas” tradition (however we define that)? (3) When and where was the Gospel of Thomas composed, or when and where did its sayings develop? (4) Assuming there was a historical individual named “Thomas,” how would the author(s) of the Fourth Gospel have had access to any reliable information about him? I like to tell my students that sometimes reserving judgment is an intellectually honest alternative when there is not enough information to say, “yes” or “no.” When these questions, and others, come to mind, they raise a lot of uncertainty. In light of that uncertainty I choose to follow my own advice and reserve judgment, although I would personally lean toward answering the question with a qualified, “no.”

- – - – -

Q: How closely do you think the attitudes expressed by the character Thomas in the Gospel of John resemble beliefs evident in The Gospel of Thomas? Do you see any reason to believe that the author of one gospel knew the work of the other, or vice versa?

A: The christological landscape of the first few centuries C.E. is quite complex. I think it is possible that some of what is expressed by Thomas in the Fourth Gospel is similar to what appears in the Gospel of Thomas, and in a number of other ancient documents—some of which are pseudonymous but ascribed to those known as “apostles” in the canonical literature. Any resemblance in the Fourth Gospel to things in the Gospel of Thomas is far from constituting an “anti-Thomas” polemic in the Fourth Gospel.

- – - – -

Q: If we may ask, where do you see your Gospel of Thomas research going from here? Should we expect any other publications about the subject from you in the near future?

A: I am currently under contract with Paulist Press to write What Are They Saying About the Gospel of Thomas? I am not quite halfway through the writing process but the substantial chapters of the book focus on scholarly opinion on what I am calling “the three important questions.” Those three questions are the ones I introduced at the beginning of John and Thomas: Gospels in Conflict? (viz., date, theological outlook, and relationship to the canonical gospels). The book will close with a discussion of Thomas’s importance in the so-called “third quest” for the historical Jesus. I also have a few articles that deal with scholarly research on the Gospel of Thomas. In addition, my primary scholarly interests lie in canonical and extracanonical gospels and the historical Jesus. Thus, I plan to be involved in discussing and writing on the Gospel of Thomas well into the future.