Subject: Re: Thomas and Q
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 17:44:11 -0400
From: "Stevan Davies" <miser17@epix.net>
To: Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk, crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com

> LEONARD: So an independent Thomas is what needs to be proved -- not asserted,
> proved. And how does one go about that? It seems to me, one must begin by
> positively excluding the idea that a second century gnostic writer could have
> arrived at what we find in Thomas through a process of developing and/or
> distorting material ultimately traceable to the four first-century canonical
> gospels

STEVE
This is certainly the most strained and almost childish notion of
"proof" that I've yet seen in internet discussions. You assert a
thesis without argument. Then you assert that the thesis is valid
unless somebody proves the contrary. When Yuri, as I recall, informed
you that the contrary has indeed been argued you make ad hominem
statements against those who did this, state your refusal to read what
they wrote, and reiterate your position here as though reiteration of
a view constitutes evidence for it.

> Until this possibility has been positively excluded

No. It does not work like that in actual scholarly discussion. It
does not happen that one makes a statement without argument and
demands that somebody else positively exclude it without which it is
to be understood that the statement is probative. I think this is
what is known as the "fallacy of argument from ignorance."

> (which would then
> allow for the idea that the sayings in GTh go back to a first-century
> Vorlage), the more natural supposition must remain in place,

I like that criterion: "the more natural supposition" as though
nature itself was somehow your witness. You've said you know nothing
of Thomas, I infer from your comments you know nothing of Gnosticism,
and yet the thesis you prefer is "the more natural." What you mean
by "the more natural supposition" is identical, I think, to "my own
first impression" for you have rather proudly maintained previously
that you base your statements on a first impression.

> namely, that GTh
> is a second-hand, not to say second-rate, second-century re-writing of largely
> traditional sayings of Jesus, going back ultimately to the first-century
> gospels, with a gnostic agenda.

Second-rate. I like that one too. Would Thomas being "second-rate" be
a "natural" supposition too? Do you have any criteria for your
thoughts at all? None have been given.

> Moreover, if we adopt the opposite hypothesis,
> it is difficult to explain historically how the church came to view GTh, along
> with other gnostic writings, with such disdain in the second century, after it
> had been treated with such reverence by almost all known Christian writers of
> the first.

"The Church" is an anachronism.

"other gnostic writings" begs the question.

viewed "with such disdain" in the second century is based on nothing.
whatsoever

"treated with such reverence by almost all known Christian writers of
 the first" is just sophomoric nonsense.

> Should there not have been at least some registered resistance to
> the ecclesial attitude of second-century writers from within orthodox circles
> regarding this change of policy?

What rot. As though we have records of the canonical deliberations of
the ecclesial councils of orthodox circles from the second century.
As though there were ecclesial councils.

You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

Steve