Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 17:53:26 From: Bob Schacht Subject: Re: Christology of Thomas? In-reply-to: At 05:05 PM 12/1/97 +0100, james covey wrote: >bob writes... > >>While I agree that GThomas looks like a branch of Christianity, I think >>you're both missing the point. I did a little numbers thing on the use of >>"Christ" in the NT: >> >>Thomas: 0 >>Mark: 6 >>Matthew: 13 >>Luke: 12 >>John: 18 >>------------- >>Total: 49 >> [snip] >>Now, my point: Our EARLIEST source is Paul, and Paul is the most >>Christological of the lot!!! ... > >>It has been proposed (primarily by secular scholars, I think) that high >>Christology in particular, and perhaps Christology in general, should be >>considered LATE, and a product of the early church, and represents an >>unhistorical view of Jesus which can therefore be dismissed from >>consideration... > >bob, > >first of all, your little search for christ missed a gospel. >(forgive me mark goodacre, i know not what i do.) > >Q: 0 > James, An interesting point; let's consider it. As the non-Markan material from Luke and Matthew, since both Luke & Matthew are moderately Christological, one might expect Q to contain Christological stuff. But Q is primarily a SAYINGS list. And the Christological material in the Gospels does not occur in the sayings material, i.e., Jesus did not run around, saying "I am the Christ! Why don't you guys get it?!?" or the like. Therefore I would not expect to find Christological material in Q. But if this is so, we should apply the same logic to GThomas, which is also primarily a sayings list. So what my commentary lacked was some research on the relationship between the Christological material in the Gospels and the sayings material in the same texts. Now, I'm not prepared to do a thorough job of this, but let me take a stab at it: Let's look at Peter's confession (Matthew 16:13-23; Luke 9:18-22). Good Christological material in Matthew + Luke, but its not considered part of Q because it's also in Mark (8:27-30): 27And Jesus went on with his disciples, to the villages of Caesare'a Philip'pi; and on the way he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that I am?" 28And they told him, "John the Baptist; and others say, Eli'jah; and others one of the prophets." 29And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered him, "You are the Christ." 30And he charged them to tell no one about him. There is a roughly parallel passage in John, too (6:66-69), where Peter calls Jesus the "Holy One of Israel," which is pretty much the same thing. And actually, there's a similar passage in Thomas that has been discussed here on CrossTalk. I think the passage was logion 13: 13 Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like." Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger." Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher." Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like.".... But this is a request for info on what Jesus is "like". On the other hand, we have: GTh. 91 They said to him, "Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you." He said to them, "You examine the face of heaven and earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence, and you do not know how to examine the present moment. How's that for a ringing Christological statement? I like this one, too: GTh. 43 His disciples said to him, "Who are you to say these things to us?" "You don't understand who I am from what I say to you." Well, so much for looking for Christology in a sayings list! I also find: GTh. 61 ...Salome said [to Jesus], "Who are you mister? You have climbed onto my couch and eaten from my table as if you are from someone." Jesus said to her, "I am the one who comes from what is whole. I was granted from the things of my Father." >From this brief survey, and from what we know of the relation between Christological material and sayings material in the canonical Gospels, there is fodder here for Christologizing. But Thomas seems to like to be coy about it. So maybe I've been too hard on poor ol' Thomas. I'll have to think about this some more. >it seems that you're either missing, or not acknowledging, >the mackian (who's the mack? burton mack.) perspective on >these matters. > >on mack's account, high christology is a matter of >geographical displacement in the first instance >and chronological displacement only secondarily. > >the mackian account of xtian origins (here i reconstruct >from memory my reading of _a myth of innocence_ and >_who wrote the nt?_ last may) has paul & early christians, >far from the scene of the crime, appropriating jesus in >purely mythological terms. in mack's parlance, these >were "christ cults." meanwhile, the Q community, which >perhaps included actual past acquaintances of jesus, never >developed a christology. the gospel of mark, in mack's >view, is the most significant/brilliant document in the >history of xtianity precisely for bridging that ideological >gap successfully (between "christ cults" and jesus movements). > >put alongside Q, thomas appears as a document of an >alternative early "jesus movement." parallel to a thomasine >sophiology you could perhaps construct a Q son-of-man-ology. > Thanks for the summary of Mack. I am not persuaded because Jesus the Healer logic suggests that Paul need not have resorted to mythmaking. I also think that Mack is exaggerating the importance of the geographical displacement thing. >... >again, this don't square with mack or those who agree to whatever >extent with his reconstruction. on his view christology is >not a "nuisance," it's essential to the historical-reconstruction >enterprise.... > A good point; Thanks for pointing it out. I'll agree with him about that. Bob ******************************* Robert M. Schacht Northern Arizona University Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est. (Where charity and love are [found], God is there) 9th century latin hymn