I regret that I haven’t had time to make many posts recently, as I’ve come across plenty of information circulating in the blogosphere during the past month and a half that is quite relevant to this blog. Some of the major highlights include:

• The NT Blog. The ever-industrious Mark Goodacre has posted some great stuff on the Gospel of Thomas recently. He has shared some reflections about whether the existence of a sayings gospel, such as Thomas, provides a legitimate argument for the existence of the hypothetical synoptic sayings source Q (full post), called attention to the (often overlooked) beginning of the modern study of the Gospel of Thomas with the discovery of the Greek fragments at Oxyrhynchus around the end of the twentieth century (post 1; post 2; podcast), and discussed various details of and contradictions in accounts about the discovery of a full copy of the text at Nag Hammadi in 1945 (post 1; post 2; post 3; post 4; post 5; post 6). He has also shared a few comments (and dug up an intriguing youtube clip) about Morton Smith and the Secret Gospel of Mark (post).
  
• The Forbidden Gospels Blog. April DeConick has announced that an important new publication about the Gospel of Judas will be out by the end of the year (post). Edited by Dr. DeConick, the new, more than 600-page book, The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex Held at Rice University, Houston Texas, March 13-16, 2008 is now listed on Brill’s website. I look forward to seeing the table of contents, as this volume promises to be a fascinating and informative resource about the ongoing debate about the significance of the Gospel of Judas.
• Apocryphicity. At the start of November, Tony Burke resumed his useful blog with notes about some of his recent activities (post). Most notably, he announced that his long-awaited critical edition of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas will be published in 2010. I’m not exactly sure what to make of his remark that he spent the summer translating a “well-known text from the OT pseudepigrapha from Syriac into English for a top-secret publication that should appear in the Spring or Summer of 2010,” but I suppose I’ll find out next summer. Regardless, Dr. Burke has also called attention to a new blog on Secret Mark entitled Salainen evankelista by Timo S. Paananen (a doctoral student at the University of Helsinki), and he has also begun a weekly feature of different websites of interest (part 1, part 2)
• Peje Iesous. Christopher Skinner has launched his new blog well this fall, sharing not only his own thoughts about various gospel-related topics but also presenting interviews with different scholars studying the Gospel of Thomas: Nicholas Perrin (part 1, part 2) and Stevan Davies (part 1, part 2, part 3).
• BAR on Secret Mark. As noted on several blogs, the most recent issue of Biblical Archaeology Review is dedicated to The Secret Gospel of Mark. It contains four articles on the topic: “An Amazing Discovery” by Charles Hedrick, “Morton Smith – Forger” by Hershal Shanks, “Was Morton Smith a Great Thespian and I a Complete Fool” by Helmut Koester, and “Restoring a Dead Scholar’s Reputation” by Hershel Shanks. I must confess that I find it a little odd that the folks at BAR were able to solicit articles from Charles Hedrick and Helmut Koester, but none of the scholars who have questioned the authenticity of the text (editor Hersal Shanks ended up merely summarizing the arguments that the text is a forgery). I suppose there could be various explanations for this.

Most accounts of the rediscovery of the Gospel of Thomas tend to begin with the dramatic story of the unearthing of the Nag Hammadi Library in 1945: an essentially complete Coptic translation of the text was contained in one of the thirteen codices brought to light by this find (as I mentioned previously, a good account of this discovery is: John Dart’s, Unearthing the Lost Words of Jesus).

However, three Greek fragments of the Gospel of Thomas (containing about a third of the gospel) were discovered by Oxford scholars Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt about half a century earlier. These fragments caused a considerable scholarly and popular sensation at the time. An excellent first-hand account of the original discovery is Grenfell’s “The Oldest Record of Christ’s Life” (published in McClure’s Magazine in 1897). Images of the three Greek fragments as well as Grenfell and Hunt’s first critical editions of them are available in the Gospel of Thomas Resource Center.

• April DeConick’s response to the interview on her Forbidden Gospel blog. DeConick voices some of her objections to Skinner’s thesis and succinctly restates her position on the relationship between the Gospels of John and Thomas in the hope that “it doesn’t get too muddled in the internet and future publications”
• Christopher Skinner’s response to DeConick’s response on his Peje Iesous blog. Skinner responses to some of DeConick’s comments and clarifies some of the statement he made in the initial interview.

The Skinner interview has also been noted by a number of others in the blogosphere: for example, Brandon Wason, Judy Redman, and Loren Rosson. I also followed up the interview with a post about other important pertinent literature. If you’re out there in the blogosphere commenting on the interview, give me a shout out to let me know. If you don’t have a blog but want to participate in this discussion, join the Gospel of Thomas e-list.

By April D. DeConick:

• “‘Blessed Are Those Who Have Not Seen’ (Jn 20:29): Johannine Dramatization of an Early Christian Discourse.” In The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration, edited by John D. Turner and Anne McGuire, 381–98. NHMS 44. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
• “John Rivals Thomas: From Community Conflict to Gospel Narrative.” In Jesus in the Johannine Tradition, edited by Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher, 303–12. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.
• Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospel of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature. Sheffield, Sheffield, 2001.
• Seek to See Him: Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas. VCSup 33. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

By Ismo Dunderberg:

• The Beloved Disciple in Conflict? Revisiting the Gospels of John and Thomas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
• “Beloved Disciple in John: Ideal Figure in an Early Christian Controversy?” In Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity, Essays in Honour of Heikki Räisänen, by Ismo Dunderberg, Christopher Tuckett, and Kari Syreeni, 243–69. NovTSup 103. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
• “John and Thomas in Conflict?” In The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration, edited by John D. Turner and Anne McGuire, 361–80. NHMS 44. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
• “Thomas and the Beloved Disciple.” In Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas, edited by Risto Uro, 65–88. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998.
• “Thomas’ I-Sayings and the Gospel of John.” In Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas, edited Risto Uro, 33–63. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998.

By Elaine Pagels:

• Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2003.
• “Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John.” JBL 118 (1999) 477–96.
• The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Random House, 1979.

By Gregory J. Riley:

• Resurrection Reconsidered: John and Thomas in Controversy. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

With that said, I need to add that I think I – and I alone – made a mistake yesterday in the way I presented the interview Mike Grondin and I conducted with Christopher Skinner about his recent book, John and Thomas – Gospels in Conflict? The role I have assigned myself here on this blog is that of a “neutral” reporter, and I fear that I may have inadvertently implied that I was endorsing the contents of Dr. Skinner’s book. So I want to make it absolutely clear that I will neither endorse nor condemn the contents of this (or any) book on this blog.

I fully intend to continue reporting on significant publications that further scholarly discourse. I just plan to make it more clear that I am merely reporting on them. The responses given by authors in interviews are their own, and I do not necessary agree or disagree with them. I do believe firmly that Dr. Skinner’s book is a significant contribution to Gospel of Thomas scholarship (which is why Mike and I decided to report on it in the first place). However, I failed to indicate adequately that it is part of an ongoing discussion about the relationship between the Gospels of John and Thomas. Other scholars have studied the relationship between these two gospels and come to radically different conclusions than Dr. Skinner, and I should have made that more explicitly clear.

My failure to do so is especially regrettable for two reasons: 1. Mike Grondin, the list owner of the Gospel of Thomas e-list, is currently involved in discussions on the list about the merits of the book; and 2. Christoper Skinner himself had already prepared a bibliography of other important works discussing the relationship between the Gospels of John and Thomas that I was supposed to post with the interview. Thus, Mike obviously did not intend to give the book his unequivocal endorsement, and Dr. Skinner intended to provide readers with information about supplementary resources they should consult before formulating their own conclusions.

What can I say? Mea culpa. The blame is all mine here.

I will not make the same mistakes in presenting future interviews.

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.

Labor day is now behind us, and we all know what that means: a new academic year is getting underway.

To kick things off, I am pleased to announce that gospels.net, in conjunction with the Gospel of Thomas email discussion list, will be hosting a forum with Christopher Skinner, author of the recent book:

John and Thomas: Gospels in Conflict?: Johannine Characterization and the Thomas Question. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2009.

Mike Grondin, list-owner of the gthomas e-list, and I have recently interviewed Dr. Skinner about his book. We will be posting the interview next Monday, and Dr. Skinner has agreed to join us for a follow-up discussion of his book on the e-list after that.

This should provide an exciting opportunity to dialogue with a scholar who is actively involved in the most current research on the Gospel of Thomas. In addition, the publisher has generously agreed to provide a 40% discount on the book (more details about that later).

The interview will be available here for anyone to view online, but those who wish to participate in the discussion will need to join the e-list. To do so, please click here.

Evans, Craig A, and H. Daniel Zacharias, eds. Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon. London: T & T Clark, 2009.

The publisher’s website offers the following summary:

Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon constitutes a collection of studies that reflect and contribute to the growing scholarly interest in manuscripts as artifacts and witnesses to early stages in Jewish and Christian understanding of sacred scripture.

Scholars and textual critics have in recent years rightly recognized the contribution that ancient manuscripts make to our understanding of the development of canon in its broadest and most inclusive sense. The studies included in this volume shed significant light on the most important questions touching the emergence of canon consciousness and written communication in the early centuries of the Christian church. The concern here is not in recovering a theoretical “original text” or early “recognized canon,” but in analysis of and appreciation for texts as they actually circulated and were preserved through time. Some of the essays in this collection explore the interface between canon as theological concept, on the one hand, and canon as reflected in the physical/artifactual evidence, on the other. Other essays explore what the artifacts tell us about life and belief in early communities of faith. Still other studies investigate the visual dimension and artistic expressions of faith, including theology and biblical interpretation communicated through the medium of art and icon in manuscripts. The volume also includes scientific studies concerned with the physical properties of particular manuscripts. These studies will stimulate new discussion in this important area of research and will point students and scholars in new directions for future work.

The table of contents is listed as:

The whole volume looks fascinating and there are a number of different essays that I am eager to read. However, the one that initially caught my attention (perhaps, because it is directly relevant to this blog) was:

Shellberg, Pamela. “A Johannine Reading of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 840.” In Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon. Edited by Craig A Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias. London: T & T Clark, 2009.

A Johannine Reading of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 840? That is a new one, to me at least. The manuscript fragment (which is actually parchment) preserves a part of an early Christian gospel that describes a dispute about purity between Jesus and a Pharisee. Jesus asserts that purity is not to be obtained through external rituals or cleansings but through internal purification of the heart. Jesus’s statement to the Pharisee in P.Oxy. 840,

Woe, blind people who do not see! You have bathed in the very same gushing waters dogs lie night and day. And you have washed and cleansed the outer layer of skin – this is the layer that prostitutes and flute-girls anoint, bathe, cleanse and adorn to arouse the lust of men, even though they are filled with scorpions and every kind of wickedness on the inside

has often been seen as similiar to his statement in  Matthew 23:25-26

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean” (cf. Luke 11:39-40).

I’m not exactly sure what a “Johannine reading” of P.Oxy. 840 would be . . . but I’m eager to find out!

Hedrick, Charles W. “The Secret Gospel of Mark: Stalemate in the Academy.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 11 (2003): 133-45.

Hedrick provides a summary of the discovery and contents of the Clement letter describing Secret Mark. He then addresses the very sensitive issue of why Smith’s publications about the letter might have caused such a “firestorm of criticism,” namely because Smith suggested in a single sentence in his scholarly book, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, that Jesus might have instituted a homosexual baptismal rite [page 251: "In this baptism the disciple was united with Jesus. The union may have been physical (see above, commentary on III.13 and pp. 185f - there is no telling how far symbolism went in Jesus' rite), but the essential thing was that the disciple was possessed by Jesus' spirit"].  Hedrick comments,

I have been asked in public gatherings, after presenting papers on Secret Mark, whether the negative reaction in the academy was due to homophobia. I cannot answer that question-I seriously doubt that anyone can. But the question is natural enough, in light of the strong response to Smith’s one line about homosexuality in both his books. On the other hand, homophobia may well have contributed to the disappearance of Clement’s letter. A homophobe who was also deeply religious would, not surprisingly, be greatly upset at the disrespect Smith’s suggestion accords Jesus. In addition, the “endorsement” of homosexuality by Jesus, which Smith’s suggestion implies, creates a practical problem for religious institutions rejecting homosexuality as a sin, but promoting communal monasteries and convents. It is understandable that some people might feel it would be better had the document never been discovered.”

He goes on to lament the situation surrounding the Secret Gospel of Mark:

In the case of Clement’s letter and Secret Mark, however, now thirty years after the publication of the editio principes, Smith’s discovery and its significance for reconstructing Christian origins, has never generally been taken up as a part of the raw data of New Testament scholarship. We have spent more time debating a hypothetical text (Q) than we have assessing the significance and implications of an extant text (Secret Mark).

Hedrick’s summary of the situation in 2003 is as follows:

1. “The letter of Clement definitely exists (or existed at one time).”
2. “The current whereabouts of the manuscript are unknown.”
3. “Morton Smith did not forge the manuscript. If it is a forgery, it is an ancient forgery, earlier than the eighteenth century.” (Certainly, some would disagree with Hedrick on this particular point.)
4. “The manuscript leaves containing Clement’s letter were definitely the two bound in the final leaves of the Voss volume.”
5. “Clementine scholars have, in the main, accepted the authenticity of Clement’s letter (it is included among the standard texts of Clement’s writings in a 1980 German publication). If it is a forgery, it at least does not appear to be a modern forgery perpetrated by Morton Smith.” (On the question of whether Morton Smith forged the letter, see my comment on point 3; as for whether “Clementine scholars” have generally accepted its authenticity, I must confess that I am not sure. I usually see the topic addressed by New Testament rather than Clementine scholars.)

Hedrick’s final section in the article deals with the question, “Does Secret Mark have a future?” His answer is that, although an authenticated letter might provide us with valuable information about Secret Mark,

The early reactions to the letter of Clement and Secret Mark, published shortly after Smith’s books, in effect, have discredited Smith in the eyes of many of his colleagues, and stopped the discussion. Some think that the manuscript does not even exist, while others think Smith invented Secret Mark, and personally forged Clement’s letter. Others think the text reflects a genuine second-century tradition. Unless the academy can reach a closer agreement on Secret Mark’s past, the secret gospel has no real future.

Stroumsa, Guy G. “Comments on Charles Hedrick’s Article: A Testimony.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 11, no. 2 (2003): 147-53.

For those who remained suspicious that a physical manuscript containing a copy of a letter attributed to Clement of Alexandria had ever been housed at the Greek Orthodox monastery at Mar Saba, it turned out that there was another corroborating witness. As Guy Stroumsa reported in his article, he himself had viewed the manuscript at Mar Saba during a visit to the monastery in 1976. With the assistance of Archimandrite Melito, Stroumsa and the late David Flusser and Shlomo Pines (professors from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem) had obtained access to the manuscript.

After examining the Voss edition of Ignatius’ letters with the Clement letter scrawled in the back, Stroumsa recalled:

It was obvious to all of us that the precious book should not be left in place, but rather be deposited in the library of the Patriarchate. So we took the book back to Jerusalem, and Father Meliton brought it to the library. We hoped to analyze the manuscript seriously and contemplated an ink analysis. At the National and University Library, however, we were told that only at the police headquarters were people equipped with the necessary knowledge and tools for such an analysis. Father Meliton made it clear that he had no intention of putting the Vossius book in the hands of Israeli police. We gave up, I went back to Harvard, and when I came back to Jerusalem to teach, more than two years later, I had other commitments.

Thus, the book was transferred from Mar Saba to Jerusalem.

“It was only recently,” Stroumsa continued, “more than a quarter-century later, in talking to American colleagues, that I realized that I am the ‘last living Western scholar’ to have seen the Clement manuscript, and that I had a duty to testify in front of a skeptical scholarly world.”

- – - – -

One of the America scholars with whom Stroumsa evidently discussed the manuscript was Bart Ehrman, who recounts the following epsiode in his book Lost Christianities,

I was at my colleague Elizabeth Clark’s house for a social event. Also there was a scholar named Guy Stroumsa, a professor of comparative religions at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and a respected expert in early Christianity. Stroumsa happened to be in town to visit his daughter, who was just starting her Ph.D. program in classics at Duke University. The event was organized around Stroumsa’s visit. He gave a brief talk – about Clement of Alexandria, as it turned out – and then we had a light dinner and social, academic conversation. He and I had never met before, but we knew each other’s work. I told him I was writing a book on lost Christianities, and told him I had just completed a draft of my chapter on the Secret Gospel of Mark. To my astonishment – and everyone else’s – Stroumsa told me that years ago he had tracked down the book and seen it with his own eyes. He could confirm that the letter was in the final pages (which, of course, no one doubted). But he suspects that no one will ever see the letter again. I immediately stopped drinking and started listening . . .