Subject: Re: Thomas and Q
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:58:03 -0400
From: "Stevan Davies" <miser17@epix.net>
To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com, Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk

> LEONARD: Let me illustrate the point I am trying to make by an example not
> taken from the GTh. In Justin the Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, 81, 4, we
> find the statement (I translate from the Greek text supplied by Kurt Aland,
> Synopsis, 532): "Whence also our Lord said: They will neither marry nor be
> given in marriage, but they are equal-to-angels, being children of God of the
> resurrection."
>
> What I think is a natural evaluation of this evidence (pardon me, Stevan, for
> the use of the term "natural" here) is that Justin, writing in the second-
> century, was aware of and ultimately dependent on the Synoptic
> Gospels

STEVE
I've said much the same thing about Justin's sayings. I recall using
the word "obviously" rather than "natural" and annoying Stephen
Carlson in the process. Point is that far as I know everyone who
looks at the Justin sayings concludes they derive from the synoptics.
It would indeed be useful to know how you and I conclude this is
so natural and obvious.... but we do agree on the point.

Now, as I went on to argue before, a good many people, (and I'd
say not many of whom are morons) look at the Thomas sayings
and do not find it at all obvious or natural to say this about them.
Thus, an appeal to what is natural stands only in a community of
agreement, otherwise argumentation will be necessary. If everybody
agrees vis a vis Justin, there's no point in trying to demonstrate
the fact agreed upon.

Yet the fact that everybody, far as I know, can agree vis a vis
Justin (and so we know what sayings dependent on synoptics look like)
when we look at Thomas we can assert that Thomas sayings are not of that
sort but of some other sort.

> JACK: Please explain to me the "gnostic agenda" of GoT.
>
> LEONARD: I am speaking of the gnostic framework imposed on the material as a
> whole by its introductory statements -- gnostic, I admit, in a broad sense of
> the term. I think also the gnostic character of individual items in GTh is
> fairly evident, and needs no comment. As far as "gnosticed distortions of
> Synoptic materials", I am thinking of such passages as GTh 3, 22, 46, 69, 78,
> though it is true that the gnostic elements of the text are more prominent in
> parts with no close Synoptic parallel. If you find the term "distortion"
> offensive, you may substitute for it the more academically correct "versions".
> I will even go so far as to follow you in doing so. How's that!

I note that 22 is in 2 Clement. The missing proposition in your
enthymeme is "If X can be characterized as a gnostic element
X is from the second century or later." This is an opinion no longer
held by specialists in Gnosticism who will inform you that Gnostic
elements were alive and well in the first century, if not before,
even if (and it is an IF) the writing of gnostic cosmologies did not
begin until the second century. See, for example, Pheme Perkins'
Gnosticism and the New Testament,  Minneapolis : Fortress Press,
1993.

Bill Arnal and I have had several exchanges over Thomas' gnosticism
but, while he holds against me that "gnosticism" is the word to use,
while I'd advocate other words, we are in complete agreement that
whatever we call it it was part of the intellectual landscape of the
first century.

Steve