From: "Stevan Davies" To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 22:39:32 +0000 Subject: Re: the Gospel of Thomas Bob Schacht wrote: > 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? My guess it that it is just the nature of your presuppositions. Can you show places where it is clearly gnostic and not just odd, or platonic, or ancient-worldly? Most translations written since 1970 or so are basically the same, unless they are skewed now toward modern New Age. > >> 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. I don't know what you call evidence. How about this: the earliest fragments of Thomas, in Greek, were copied at the end of the second century and I think they are the earliest known "NT" writings except the famous fragment of John's gospel (leaving aside recent 'discoveries' of Qumran and Magdalene fragments that get much publicity but little respect among experts). If, as is almost universally believed (not by me), Thomas was written near Edessa Syria, then the text was written there, then transmitted to Egypt, then accepted in Egypt, then copied and recopied, then buried around the end of the second century. That would inferentially place it in the first century. Is that the sort of evidence argument you are looking for? I'm virtually positive that there are no similar pieces of Matthew or Luke or Mark that are that early. > >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. I think the most well known example is the parable of the great supper. A major scholar, Joachim Jeremias I think, did an analysis of that parable from the synoptic sources well before the full Thomas was discovered and through form/redaction critical appraisals gave what he thought was the original version. Voila! The Thomas version turned out to be very similar to his version. And there are other cases, quite a few, where evangelists add stuff and that stuff ain't in Thomas. For example Mark's long business about the parable of the sower is lacking in Thomas. And there are other such examples. > >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. Weak, but not nothing. If all you have is an argument from silence you don't have much. But when you have lots of other angles then an argument from silence supports. > > It seems simplest to think that Thomas is what it seems to be, > a first century sayings list. > 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? Odd question. Read the quotation from my letter that preceded your last comment and then re-read your comment. Besides, unlike Noam Hendren I'm a Neusner guy through and through. Although, in that case, only a Neusner guy and not someone who can made an independent assessment of the situation. You have to go argue with Neusner about the inerrancy of baraita attributions, all I can do is refer you to him. Incidentally, if my letters come thorugh with odd line breaks, I'm sorry. I'm trying to learn how to fix that. Steve The Gospel of Thomas Homepage http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html