From: "Stevan Davies" To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 15:21:30 +0000 Subject: Re: the Gospel of Thomas Maureen Smith wrote: > The only thought I would have about Thomas is that it was found > with Gnostic material and so, even if it (or some of it) is early, > it may well have some Gnostic redaction. Does that make sense? Yes, that does, focusing on the "may well have" formulation. >From there one must go on to show that it does have some Gnostic redaction (and not Platonic or Neoplatonic or Philonic or whatever). I've seen well known scholars who should know better go straight from "may well have" to "does have" without pause for argument at all. A few months ago Bill Arnal and I and a few others had a very nice debate on this subject on the Ioudaios-L discussion list. I've posted the debate on my Thomas Homepage at the top under "A 1995 Discussion of Thomas" if anyone would care to read it (perhaps avoiding the necessity of going over the same ground with him again -- but leaving open the possibility of discussing the matter with any other interested parties and Kopececks on crosstalk). > All I've heard so far about Thomas has been assertion on both > sides. How about a little evidence? I'll start with just a brief comment. The form of Thomas, a list of sayings nearly devoid of narrative indicates a first century date. The fact that quite a few sayings in Thomas are less redacted than are their parallels in the NT also indicates a first century date. And, finally, an argument from silence, Thomas lacks virtually all later Christian and Gnostic motifs from Son of God, Son of Man, Christ, to Yaldabaoth and fall-of-Sophia and so forth. It seems simplest to think that Thomas is what it seems to be, a first century sayings list. Steve 8888888888888888888888888888888888888 From: William Arnal Subject: dating Thomas Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:29:30 +0000 Just an echo to Stevan Davies' comments on Thomas: 1. The fact that Thomas was found with a "library" of Gnostic writings only means that Gnostics were interested in it, or felt it could be edifying in a Gnostic-y kind of way. That by no means indicates it was Gnostic itself. As I understand it, fragments of Plato's Republic were also found at Nag Hammadi, but this hardly indicates Plato was a Gnostic. One might object that other Gnostic-friendly texts like the Gospel of John or some Pauline letters were not found at the site. But I understand the texts to have been hidden, in part because of their not-very-orthodox character, so the NT texts possessed by whoever hid the cache just wouldn't have been put in the jar. 2. Thomas shows "alternating primitivity" with parallel NT pericopes: sometimes the pericope takes a secondary form, and the NT text is more original, and sometimes not. Also, usually when Thomas material in prallel sayings can be isolated as secondary, it is not present in the synoptic version. And so on. 3. Whoops, domestic crisis here ... gotta go. But the best argument for the independence of Thomas is Patteron's _Gospel of Thomas and Jesus_. Bill 888888888888888888888888888888888 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:01:44 -0700 From: Bob Schacht Subject: Re: the Gospel of Thomas Stevan Davies wrote: >Maureen Smith wrote: > >> The only thought I would have about Thomas is that it was found >> with Gnostic material and so, even if it (or some of it) is early, >> it may well have some Gnostic redaction. Does that make sense? > >Yes, that does, focusing on the "may well have" formulation. >From there one must go on to show that it does have some >Gnostic redaction (and not Platonic or Neoplatonic or Philonic >or whatever). I've seen well known scholars who should know >better go straight from "may well have" to "does have" >without pause for argument at all. > Thanks, Maureen, for making this point, and thanks to Steve for responding to it. To me, it reads more gnostic than main-line Christian; or is that just the nature of the translations I've been reading? ... >> All I've heard so far about Thomas has been assertion on both >> sides. How about a little evidence? > >I'll start with just a brief comment. The form of Thomas, >a list of sayings nearly devoid of narrative indicates a first >century date. This is obviously "comment," not evidence. It does not indicate any such thing to me. But then maybe I'm just uninformed. >The fact that quite a few sayings in Thomas >are less redacted than are their parallels in the NT also >indicates a first century date. Can you give us some examples, Steve? I'm feeling skeptical right now. >And, finally, an argument from >silence, Thomas lacks virtually all later Christian and Gnostic >motifs from Son of God, Son of Man, Christ, to Yaldabaoth >and fall-of-Sophia and so forth. Arguments from silence are notoriously weak. It seems simplest to think >that Thomas is what it seems to be, a first century sayings >list. > >Steve > So, when it comes to Thomas, you put on your "quasi-inerrantist" hat, but when it comes to the Jesus traditions of the Tannaitic Mishnah, you're a skeptic who doesn't want to accept what it seems to be? Is this not inconsistent? Grace and peace, Bob Robert Schacht THE LORD IS RISEN!