Subject: Re: Thomas and Q and 2 Clem Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:27:26 -0400 From: "Stevan Davies" To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com, Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk LEONARD: I'm really glad to hear this. And would you say the same of the Gospel citations found in the Apostolic Fathers (I Clement, Didache, Polycarp, Ignatius, Shepherd, Barnabas?). Or would you have to treat each separately? Oh goodness, of course one would have to treat each separately. I thought to treat 2 Clement separately just now and the more I look at it the less it seems to be drawn directly from the synoptics. 3:20-24 For the Lord saith, "Ye shall be as lambs in the midst of wolves." But Peter answered and said unto Him, "What then, if the wolves should tear the lambs?" Jesus said unto Peter, "Let not the lambs fear the wolves after they are dead; and ye also, fear ye not them that kill you and are not able to do anything to you; but fear Him that after ye are dead hath power over soul and body, to cast them into the gehenna of fire." I don't know where this dialogue is supposed to have come from, but it doesn't seem to come from the canonical texts. There are synoptic parallels to bits of it, but it seems more an independent reworking of material found largely in Q. But I don't know... what do you think? Why would one prefer "it is a variant on the synoptics" to "it is an independent effort to utilize Jesus material?" 6:1 But the Lord saith, {No servant can serve two masters. 6:2 If we desire to serve both God and mammon, it is unprofitable for us: 6:3For what advantage is it, if a man gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? Two traditional sayings put together differently (and rather nicely) than in the synoptics. 8:7 For the Lord saith in the Gospel, {If ye kept not that which is little, who shall give unto you that which is great? 8:8 For I say unto you that he which is faithful in the least, is faithful also in much. This is not in the Gospel as we know it. Matthew seems to have used it in 25:23, but he didn't therefore invent it... he uses a traditional saying also in 25:29. LEONARD: I will go on to say that I don't really see the essential difference between my citation from Justin and most of what we find in GTh. Even from the point of view of "form", its relationship to Synoptic material seems quite analogous to that of similar material in Thomas, the main difference being but a greater degree of creativity on the part of Thomas in the use of earlier materials. At least that's where I am at the moment on the subject. STEVE Well, there seems to be a difference in historical imagination at work here. Some people imagine that, in the first century of Christianity, people took their information from written works almost exclusively. Other people imagine that, in the first century of Christianity, people took their information mainly from oral traditions. And, of course, it could be that some did both. Given the general conclusion of scholars of the period that the number of literate people was very small, and the number of copies of Christian texts was very small, it stand to reason that in the absence of indicators of textual utilization, oral tradition is the more likely option. When I find material in 2 Clement that is certainly not being copied out of a synoptic text, although it reminds one of material in the synoptic texts, I do not assume that it was taken from one of those texts as the, as it were, natural or obvious source. That would, it seems to me, be implanting in the first century and idea of general literacy that is foreign to the period. Therefore, I will contend, the assumption of literate work with manuscripts is the less natural assumption than work with orally transmitted materials. Further, the assumption that the orally transmitted materials derived from manuscripts is the less natural assumption than that they derived from unmediated oral tradition. LEONARD: I see that the saying of Jesus is accompanied in 2 Clement by a much needed and quite plausible exegesis. Do you have a theory of dependency here? STEVE Any sane exegesis is just as plausible as any other far as I know, and that goes for all sayings. No theory of dependency here. Jesus probably said it and if the synoptic writers knew of it they didn't like it and didn't use it. LEONARD Was this saying also in the Gospel of the Egyptians? My editions of 2 Clement all refer here to Gospel of the Egyptians(and not to GTh), but I have not found the quote there. Or is it from the writings of Clement of Alexandria that we know (or do we know?) that the statement is in a non-extant portion of the Gospel of the Egyptians? STEVE Yeah. From C of A or some other patristic citer. There are also other instances of the saying; Charles Hedric wrote a whole article about them. But I don't have a copy on hand. LEONARD Also, are there other examples of parallels to specifically GTh material in the Apostolic Fathers? STEVE Not very many. There is hardly any in Gnostic writings either. Or in Manichean writings. You alluded to the fact that Thomas never got established in the orthodox churches... it never got established in the gnostic churches either. Gnostic writers are quite happy to quote the canon but almost never... if ever... quote Thomas. ============== STEVE: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. LEONARD: OK, I accept this too. At least it is difficult not to admit some marginally gnostic elements in the Gospel of John, and it certainly seems unlikely that they are being invented in via by the author of that Gospel. STEVE You can find lots of Gnostic elements in Paul too, and Colossians. What's fun is having people explain that Paul's opposition to the flesh and the powers of this world is not gnostic while arguing an hour later that opposition to the flesh and the powers of this world is gnostic by definition. LEONARD: But isn't there a difference even between the gnostic elements in GTh (referred to thus for convenience) and those found in e.g., the Gospel of John? I realize that even if the answer here is "yes" nothing relevant to our recent discussion has been proved. My point is that it still seems to me, just instinctively, that GTh reflects second century developments in some way (I don't know of anything certainly written in the first century that quite compares). However, I admit that our recent interchanges on the list have considerably shaken my confidence in this position. STEVE Pleased to hear it. I don't know of anything certainly written after the first century that quite compares either. I've read the Nag Hammadi Library, much of it more than once, some of it carefully enough to have written and published essays on it and the frequent assertion by NT folks that this or that theme is "gnostic" makes me wonder whether they have actually read any of it... or whether the NT folks are just quoting other NT folks ad absurdum. As I've said quite a few times, "what sounds odd to us is not therefore gnostic." But anyhow, what do you make of the 2 Clement material? I'd be happy to go over that with you, and with others. Maybe we can come up with some principles of intertextuality, or the lack of same. Anyone interested can find a translation of 2 Clement at http://wesley.nnc.edu/noncanon/fathers/ante-nic/clement/2clement.htm Steve