Date: Sat, 20 Apr 96 16:51:12 CST From: "Maureen Smith" Subject: Mark or Thomas (#65-66) Bill's discussion of the cornerstone puzzle is certainly intriguing, and I can see why Steve likes it so much. I don't have any ideas on it at least for now. Let me comment on a couple of other things. >It is difficult to imagine the oral tradition >circulated two completely unrelated sayings together, just because it felt >like it: and we cannot claim that Thomas redacted the association away, >and then claim that #65 is independent of Mark because it's more >primitive! I didn't pick a good example when I said this before, but for me it is still difficult to imagine that the oral tradition circulated collections of sayings without stories. At least for me it is counterintuitive to think that the only thing the early followers of Jesus chose to remember were words out of context. > I really suggest that people take Davies' advice about tapping >into his homepage for the discussion of Gnostic vs. non-Gnostic Thomas. It >will prevent interested parties from rehashing old ground A good reminder. I'll try to do it next week. I have a Web connection at work and not at home. But is it OK if I still respond to what you've said below? Actually I'm not sure what stand you're taking, so I do need to read the debate. I could take it that you don't think Thomas is especially Gnostic, when you say this: >I suspect that in large measure it's the "hellenistic" feel that >Thomas has that makes it appear "Gnostic" to people. But then I get confused when you say this: >Should Thomas in fact turn out to be more easily >understaood using Gnostic categories (which in fact I think is the case) >this should not lead us to conclude, against all the other evidence, that >it's late, it should lead us to question our assumptions about the >provenance of gnosticism. I take that to mean you're saying, yes, it's Gnostic-like, but then gnosticism must go back further than we thought. Anyway.... For instance, the text cited by Maureen (Thomas #14) appears to >take the cornerstones of Jewish piety (fasting, almsgiving, prayer) and >reject them. But I completely fail to see what's Gnostic about this. It >might as well be Pauline, or again, cf. Mark 7:14-23, 1 Cor 10:27, Q 10:7. I admit I thought my other point was stronger, about the "secret knowledge" element of Thomas (which I take to be different than the secrecy motif in Mark, but that's another topic). What I was thinking of with Thomas #14 was that if the Gnostics rejected the material world, it might follow that they wouldn't be bothered with things like almsgiving. What difference does it make if the real world is the spiritual world anyway? As for saying it might as well be Pauline, I don't agree. Paul, for example, in an undisputed letter, said to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17) and said "Beloved, pray for us" (5:25). I wouldn't know how to look up something in Q, but the two passages you cite that I could look up are about the dietary laws, which seem to me to be a different issue. (I tried Luke for Q, because if I remember right that has worked before when I have been similarly puzzled, and the verse could be relevant in its advice about "eating and drinking whatever they provide." If that's it, we're looking at the dietary laws again.) The obvious fact that I'm not up to speed on all the scholarly stuff--I haven't read most of the books, I don't know all the conventions for citation--brings to mind all the books Tom Simms now wants me to read before I say another word. Look, I have all I can do to keep up with work, school, crosstalk, and--oh, yes--have a life. The net is wonderfully democratic, and up until now Ph.D.'s have not been required for participation. Actually I have been grateful that the teachers among us have been willing to be teachers in here without insulting those of us with less knowledge. I know enough, or else I delude myself into thinking I do, to enter into conversation. I often wonder how some of the lurkers must feel. ******************* Maureen Smith