Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 08:36:28 -0800 From: Peter Kirby To: xtianity@infidels.org Cc: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com, oblio@magi.com, Ragu1997@aol.com Subject: Thomas an "offshoot" of Q? Earl Doherty claims that the Gospel of Thomas is an "offshoot" of an early stage of Q. He says further that Thomas originally had no historical Jesus, and that a redactor simply went through and added "Jesus said" to the sayings. I am not aware of any arguments offered for these beliefs. Indeed, I know of no other scholar who holds this position, so it is a bit difficult for me to refute. What follows are only my musings concerning Earl's hypothesis on Thomas. Any good hypothesis must be falsifiable. There must be a way to either confirm or disconfirm a scientific suggestion. In order to test it, we need some predictions based on the hypothesis. What follows are some of the things that I came up with (in chemistry class), which may confirm Earl's theory if they turn out to be true. 1. Every Q//Thomas parallel is in Q1. 2. Every Q1 verse is in Q//Thomas. 3. There is a relationship between the order of sayings in Thomas and Q1. 4. The later Thomasine redactions have a consistent theme. 5. The later Thomasine redacters insert second century Gnosticism. 6. There is no sign of oral tradition behind the Thomasine redactions. 7. The Q//Thomas sayings have no reference to the speaker (Jesus). 8. Generally, the sayings in Thomas have no reference to the speaker. 9. There are sayings that don't make sense in the mouth of Jesus. 10. There is no narrative material in Thomas. That should be enough for now. If Doherty is going to criticize these predictions, he should be able to offer a few of his own. The Q//Thomas parallels can be found at http://www.miseri.edu/davies/thomas/thq.htm The following ten Q//Thomas parallels are found in Kloppenborg's Q2: 2QLk 12:51-53 // 16, 2QLK 12:39 // 21b, 2QLk 11:33 // 33b, 2QLk 11:52 // 39a, 2QLk 19:26 // 41, 2QLk 7:28 // 46a, 2QLk 14:15-24 // 64a, 2QLk 7:24-25 // 78, 2QLk 11:39-40 // 89, and 2QLk 12:56 // 91. Concerning Q1 verses are not found among Q//Thomas parallels, I don't have a list of Q1 verses at hand. As seen from the list of Q//Thomas parallels, there is no discernable order between the sayings. If one simply subtracts the Q//Thomas material, one is left with a 'hodgepodge' of material with no consistent themes. There is none of the extravagant cosmogony characteristic of later systematic Gnosticism to be found in Thomas. As seen from the catchword discussions, there is evidence of oral traditions behind sayings not found in Q//Thomas (e.g., 49&50). The following Q//Thomas sayings refer to the speaker (Jesus): 16, 55a, and 91. Other sayings in Thomas that refer to the speaker or the disciples include: 6, 10, 12, 13, 17, 22, 28, 37, 38, 43, 52, 60, 72, 77, 79, 82, 90, 99, 100, and 108. There are no sayings in Thomas that would make more sense if they weren't attributed to Jesus. The following parts of Thomas have some narrative material: Incipit, 13, 22, 60, 72, 79, 100, and 111. The narrative may be explained as minimal to facilitate memorization in the oral tradition. I conclude that the facts do not bear out Doherty's theory. It seems as arbitrary to me as, for example, saying that some scribe went through the Republic and added 'Socrates said'. I have already noted arguments against any kind of extensive stratification of Thomas, such as the correspondence between the Coptic GTh and the POxy fragments and the amount of keyword repetition between sayings. Earl Doherty accuses the pro-Thomas scholars of shaping their conclusions based on unhistorical motives. Now, while I guess this may be true of some, the same ad hominem could be leveled at Mr. Doherty. He "desperately need[s]" Thomas to be dependent on Q and to be originally without an HJ "based on preconceptions about Jesus and Christian origins." No arguments are made based on actual criticism of the text of Thomas, but rather his theory is made up "with references to 'facts and data' which have largely been taken simply for granted" such as that none of Paul's contemporaries had an inkling of an HJ. Personally, however, I consider these arguments directed at the man instead of the theory to be irrelevant to a historical discussion. Peter Kirby XTIANITY list owner, alt.atheism atheist #16 Visit my home page: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/