Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by davidmartin »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 6:38 am The mistake that Thomas made is that his text is way too cryptic, too hidden its meaning.
That it was taken into a narrative by John who was in turn taken over by Marcion is not something that he could have foreseen, not that such in turn would lead to Marcion being taken over by Christianity
Is it way too cryptic though?
That makes it sound like you can't win
If you make it too simple then it will be misinterpreted, and if you go into the deep end it will be misinterpreted
I think Thomas is aware of misinterpretation of what it is saying and trying to cut that off before it happens. What else can it do?

But it did happen and it is rather obvious that even in the gospels the Jesus of them is continually calling out the religious leadership as ignorant
This is a mistake that orthodoxy made - I think - that their Christ can so easily disagree with them, just as he did the religious leadership of his time
But the orthodox 'knew better' and dismiss most of what he was saying and still do till this day, they don't care what Jesus said only what the apostle Paul said but they really only care about what they say themselves. That is what Thomas was saying.... doesn't this seem, a little crazy?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Mon Dec 12, 2022 5:14 am
mlinssen wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 6:38 am The mistake that Thomas made is that his text is way too cryptic, too hidden its meaning.
That it was taken into a narrative by John who was in turn taken over by Marcion is not something that he could have foreseen, not that such in turn would lead to Marcion being taken over by Christianity
Is it way too cryptic though?
That makes it sound like you can't win
If you make it too simple then it will be misinterpreted, and if you go into the deep end it will be misinterpreted
I think Thomas is aware of misinterpretation of what it is saying and trying to cut that off before it happens. What else can it do?

But it did happen and it is rather obvious that even in the gospels the Jesus of them is continually calling out the religious leadership as ignorant
This is a mistake that orthodoxy made - I think - that their Christ can so easily disagree with them, just as he did the religious leadership of his time
But the orthodox 'knew better' and dismiss most of what he was saying and still do till this day, they don't care what Jesus said only what the apostle Paul said but they really only care about what they say themselves. That is what Thomas was saying.... doesn't this seem, a little crazy?
Perhaps I should have added "for the average reader".
I know and demonstrate what Thomas is all about, but it won't come as a surprise to you that such is completely different from what everyone else thinks - which is no surprise in itself or it would have been figured out ages ago.
Does that mean I have a tough job convincing everyone? No I don't, I have written 600 pages of Commentary already and everyone can read that in their own time - if they like

Surely the orthodox foobar Thomas and Marcion, that was their entire idea from the start: to undo the damage done - they just never expected that to be such a grand success, I think

Thomas came before all of Christianity and even before all of Chrestianity - so he couldn't say anything about either. Naturally, he would have, and it should baffle everyone that he doesn't react to the crucifixion of the NT IS, nor the dumb and fake prophecies that connect him to the much despised Judaism, not the fact that they put his IS on a religious pedestal - and so forth

I don't really have something to win, David - I am interested in laying out what Thomas is about and my latest attempt is on Mastodon where I am forced to remain within a limited character set. But yeah, I can't just explain Thomas on a page or two, that is simply impossible.
What complicates matters even more is that the hobbyists who try to solve the Christian puzzle are very narrow minded, and the entire field is filled with narrow minded people by default because no one else would bother with such a dumb and incredible story as the Jesus of the NT displays: only religiots do, although there are some rare exceptions.
Not even atheists have a stake in my game, they also are dogs with a bone that can't let go - and foolish as they are they also fall for the Paul trap, and as a result end up nowhere. Which was the entire goal of creating Paul, of course: rhetoric distraction, quicksand, a labyrinth of lies

But, David, in a sense this is a court of law - and all I have to do is raise reasonable doubt. Naturally, to a jury of my peers

And I will win - though likely at unimaginable cost
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by davidmartin »

It remains only to say - Good luck!
Interesting you mention Paul. This character has 'deceiver' written all over him, yet he gets free pass after free pass and practically worshipped in stock Christianity. My encounters with Christians generally follow the pattern - when they are following Jesus I warm to them but before too long and inevitably they start turning into Paul - start coming out with stuff that would have Jesus hopping mad but they don't care about that one bit
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Tue Dec 13, 2022 6:44 am It remains only to say - Good luck!
Interesting you mention Paul. This character has 'deceiver' written all over him, yet he gets free pass after free pass and practically worshipped in stock Christianity. My encounters with Christians generally follow the pattern - when they are following Jesus I warm to them but before too long and inevitably they start turning into Paul - start coming out with stuff that would have Jesus hopping mad but they don't care about that one bit
Thanks, we'll see where it ends

Yes, Paul. The lying, twisting, double-tongued and two-faced bastard of Christianity - the core to Christianity really.
I don't mind faith, people who want to do good as the benign IS of the NT (I have given up on using the word Jesus), but many use Christianity as compensation for their innate inferiority complex, with the entire goal to judge

It's so easy to recognise the redactional hand of Matthew in Luke, really

And so utterly dramatically ironic that all of it started with a vehemently anti-religious Thomas whose sole goal it was to liberate people from themselves; to leave all of the outside for what it is and to dig deep inside instead
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by davidmartin »

I am of the opinion that Paul is actually the Judas of the gospels
The etymology of Iscariot referring to 'the liar' which is one of the possibilities
If you dig into the epistles you see him make threats that his opponents will be destroyed and to take note of certain people
Well, then it flows logically that his reputation for persecuting was AFTER his conversion. Not before. It's as simple as that
He got arrested for murder as Acts hints was his charge. Even the epistle of James mentions this in its anti-Pauline rant
But who wants to upset the apple cart? I don't intend to, but the truth is whatever the truth is. Not my fault.

This jibes with the depiction of the destroying angel in the Shephard of Hermas but not in the later Acts narrative - which is a re-write history job
So the gospels are unable to freely call him out so allude to him under the figure of Judas
That to me is just the flow of pure logic given the inputs we have
Obviously this suggestion is anathema to Christians (although is it really that bad? It is not!) especially if one is prepared to admit the apostle got certain things right.. it's not like you are totally pulling the rug out from under Christian's feet. But they are never gonna see it
They are never going to be comfortable with the fact that a deceiver gets to write 3/4 of the new testament which they think is the literal word of God
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Initial proposition: Redaction criticism demonstrates that Thomas precedes the canonicals. The argument is that the splitting of logia by the gospel-writers, is a solid case for them copying Thomas and not the other way around.

Counter-Proposition: Redaction criticism demonstrates, that the canonicals precede Thomas. The counter argument is that the synthesis of extracts from the gospels into the logia of Thomas is a solid case for him copying the gospels and not the other way around.


The direction of dependence argument is at a stale-mate. You keep announcing a win for the initial proposition (Thomas priority). Good luck with that. It's assertions and counter assertions at ten paces.

Have you ever outlined a motive whereby the author(s) of the synoptics are hell-bent on pulling Thomas apart? If so I do not recall it.


mlinssen wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 10:22 pm There are tons of textual evidence that Thomas precedes the canonicals and I have spelled out dozens of them, but you choose to ignore them even after being directly challenged to pick one up that is especially made for you.
I provided the general argument above but if you want to go through the specifics here they are.

The splitting of logia by the gospel-writers, such as logion 79, is a solid case for them copying Thomas and not the other way around. Thomas joining Luke 11:27-28 with Mark 13:17 or Matthew 24:19? Good luck with arguing that case.
Yes that's the case I'd argue. That is what Thomas does. Thomas joins Luke 11:27-28 with Mark 13:17 or Matthew 24:19.
Thomas joining the two masters of Luke 16:13 or Matthew 6:24 to their 5:36-39 respectively 9:16-17, so that he can have his logion 47 complete?
Yes. That is what Thomas does. He joins the two masters of Luke 16:13 or Matthew 6:24 to their 5:36-39 respectively 9:16-17, in order to create his logion 47
The most brutal split occurs around logion 45 where the essential middle sentence is left out, that of the good man and his good storehouse, and the evil man and his evil storehouse. When and where it befits the gospel-writers they include it, and when and where it befits them they exclude it.
Whenever and wherever it befits Thomas he selects, rearranges and includes it .
Logion 39 has its doves and serpents moved to Matthew 10:16 whereas he has the other parts in chapter 23; he is the only one who has it so Thomas must have combined those two parts into one logion, because?
Thomas combines those two parts into one logion, because he is a pernicious heretic. He has the gospels before him. He is engaged in writing a list of sayings prefaced with "IS" says so that his "gospel" will rival and exceed the authority of the other gospels.
Logion 76 is used only by Matthew in a particularly poor version in 13:45-46 while ramming through three logia in a row, yet it is Luke and Matthew who use 76d in 12:33-34 respectively 6:19-21. What on earth would the motive be for Thomas to combine these, and isn't it perfectly intelligible why Matthew didn't want it to follow his copy?
Thomas is motivated to select bits and pieces and recombine them in different combinations and permutations. He is motivated to create something much better than that created by the gospel writers, and he uses the gospels as ingredients.

In general

This same modus operandi (data mining the NT canonical material then recombining and then adding stuff) is blatantly obvious in many of the other 100+ NT apocryphal texts. And in addition the texts themselves are explicitly named after characters who appear in the NT canonical texts.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:12 pm Initial proposition: Redaction criticism demonstrates that Thomas precedes the canonicals. The argument is that the splitting of logia by the gospel-writers, is a solid case for them copying Thomas and not the other way around.

Counter-Proposition: Redaction criticism demonstrates, that the canonicals precede Thomas. The counter argument is that the synthesis of extracts from the gospels into the logia of Thomas is a solid case for him copying the gospels and not the other way around.


The direction of dependence argument is at a stale-mate. You keep announcing a win for the initial proposition (Thomas priority). Good luck with that. It's assertions and counter assertions at ten paces.

Have you ever outlined a motive whereby the author(s) of the synoptics are hell-bent on pulling Thomas apart? If so I do not recall it.


mlinssen wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 10:22 pm There are tons of textual evidence that Thomas precedes the canonicals and I have spelled out dozens of them, but you choose to ignore them even after being directly challenged to pick one up that is especially made for you.
I provided the general argument above but if you want to go through the specifics here they are.

The splitting of logia by the gospel-writers, such as logion 79, is a solid case for them copying Thomas and not the other way around. Thomas joining Luke 11:27-28 with Mark 13:17 or Matthew 24:19? Good luck with arguing that case.
Yes that's the case I'd argue. That is what Thomas does. Thomas joins Luke 11:27-28 with Mark 13:17 or Matthew 24:19.
Thomas joining the two masters of Luke 16:13 or Matthew 6:24 to their 5:36-39 respectively 9:16-17, so that he can have his logion 47 complete?
Yes. That is what Thomas does. He joins the two masters of Luke 16:13 or Matthew 6:24 to their 5:36-39 respectively 9:16-17, in order to create his logion 47
The most brutal split occurs around logion 45 where the essential middle sentence is left out, that of the good man and his good storehouse, and the evil man and his evil storehouse. When and where it befits the gospel-writers they include it, and when and where it befits them they exclude it.
Whenever and wherever it befits Thomas he selects, rearranges and includes it .
Logion 39 has its doves and serpents moved to Matthew 10:16 whereas he has the other parts in chapter 23; he is the only one who has it so Thomas must have combined those two parts into one logion, because?
Thomas combines those two parts into one logion, because he is a pernicious heretic. He has the gospels before him. He is engaged in writing a list of sayings prefaced with "IS" says so that his "gospel" will rival and exceed the authority of the other gospels.
Logion 76 is used only by Matthew in a particularly poor version in 13:45-46 while ramming through three logia in a row, yet it is Luke and Matthew who use 76d in 12:33-34 respectively 6:19-21. What on earth would the motive be for Thomas to combine these, and isn't it perfectly intelligible why Matthew didn't want it to follow his copy?
Thomas is motivated to select bits and pieces and recombine them in different combinations and permutations. He is motivated to create something much better than that created by the gospel writers, and he uses the gospels as ingredients.

In general

This same modus operandi (data mining the NT canonical material then recombining and then adding stuff) is blatantly obvious in many of the other 100+ NT apocryphal texts. And in addition the texts themselves are explicitly named after characters who appear in the NT canonical texts.
Crossan made a famous remark in a similar case: "It might be simpler to suggest that Thomas was mentally unstable" (Crossan Four 19)."

As usual, you throw opinions around you without any substantiation whatsoever. Have you noticed that Thomas

1. Doesn't explain any logion or parable
2. Doesn't claim any authority
3. Has no narrative whatsoever
4. Doesn't even contain the word Christ
5. Isn't a "pernicious heretic" at all, as he is selling nothing nor contesting anything

Thomas joins Luke 11:27-28 with Mark 13:17 or Matthew 24:19 - that is the definite win, Pete. You will do everything to uphold your preposterous conspiracy theory - and life is so easy, isn't it? Simply claim something and it becomes True, and even a very compelling argument, is it not?

You are a complete fucking idiot, Pete - and that is my final attempt to wake you up from the dead, via extremely unfriendly and unprofessional language, because that perhaps is the way that I can finally reach you. Lawd knows that I have tried numerous times now
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 1:19 am
Crossan made a famous remark in a similar case: "It might be simpler to suggest that Thomas was mentally unstable" (Crossan Four 19)."
Crossan also said:
Jesus' death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixition, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus.
As usual, you throw opinions around you without any substantiation whatsoever. Have you noticed that Thomas

1. Doesn't explain any logion or parable
Why should he? Thomas is composing the philosophers' version of the Sermon on the Mount. The "IS" figure was becoming an important figurehead to many people in the Roman empire so Thomas thought he'd put something philosophically sensible into his mouth for posterity. The gospel authors were so dull and unimaginative. Thomas was out to improve the "IS" figure.
2. Doesn't claim any authority
You're joking aren't you? Nearly every single saying is prefaced with "Bilbo said".
3. Has no narrative whatsoever
Philosophical sermons and discourses have no narrative whatsoever.

4. Doesn't even contain the word Christ
The yoke of "IHS" (not "IS") was Chrestos. Funny that.

5. Isn't a "pernicious heretic" at all, as he is selling nothing nor contesting anything
You're kidding again Martijn aren't you? The church informs us that they wanted Thomas "to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever."

The church was pushing the canonical wheel barrow.
Thomas was an heretical gospel.

List of Apocrypha c.491 CE

(NB: List may include material from Damasus c.381 CE)

Chapter 5 - Decretum Gelasianum
LIKEWISE A LIST OF APOCRYPHAL BOOKS


firstly we confess that the Synod of Sirmium called together by Constantius Caesar the son of Constantine through the Prefect Taurus is damned then and now and for ever.
the Itinerary in the name of Peter the apostle, which is called the nine books of the holy Clement apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Andrew apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Thomas apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Peter apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Philip apocryphal
the Gospel in the name of Mathias apocryphal
the Gospel in the name of Barnabas apocryphum
the Gospel in the name of James the younger apocryphum
the Gospel in the name of the apostle Peter apocryphum
the Gospel in the name of Thomas which the Manichaeans use apocryphum
the Gospels in the name of Bartholomew apocrypha
the Gospels in the name of Andrew apocrypha
the Gospels which Lucianus forged apocrypha
the Gospels which Hesychius forged apocrypha
the book on the infancy of the saviour apocryphus
the book of the nativity of the saviour and of Mary or the midwife apocryphus
the book which is called by the name of the Shepherd apocryphus
all the books which Leucius the disciple of the devil made apocryphi
the book which is called the Foundation apocryphus
the book which is called the Treasure apocryphus
the book of the daughters of Adam Leptogeneseos apocryphus
the cento on Christ put together in Virgilian verses apocryphum
the book which is called the Acts of Thecla and Paul apocryphus
the book which is called Nepos's apocryphus
the books of Proverbs written by heretics and prefixed with the name of holy Sixtus apocryphus
the Revelation which is called Paul's apocrypha
the Revelation which is called Thomas's apocrypha
the Revelation which is called Stephen's apocrypha
the book which is called the Assumption of holy Mary apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of Adam apocryphus
the book about Og the giant of whom the heretics assert that after the deluge he fought with the dragon apocryphus
the book which is called the Testament of Job apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of Origen apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of holy Cyprian apocryphus
the book which is called the Repentance of Jamne and Mambre apocryphus
the book which is called the Lots of the apostles apocryphus
the book which is called the grave-plate (?) of the apostles apocryphus
the book which is called the canons of the apostles apocryphus
the book Physiologus written by heretics and prefixed with the name of blessed Ambrose apocryphus
the History of Eusebius Pamphilii apocrypha
the works of Tertullian apocrypha
the works of Lactantius also known as Firmianus apocrypha
the works of Africanus apocrypha
the works of Postumianus and Gallus apocrypha
the works of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla apocrypha
the works of Faustus the Manichaean apocrypha
the works of Commodian apocrypha
the works of the other Clement, of Alexandria apocrypha
the works of Thascius Cyprianus apocrypha
the works of Arnobius apocrypha
the works of Tichonius apocrypha
the works of Cassian the Gallic priest apocrypha
the works of Victorinus of Pettau apocrypha
the works of Faustus of Riez in Gaul apocrypha
the works of Frumentius Caecus apocrypha
the cento on Christ stitched together from verses of Virgil apocryphum
the Letter from Jesus to Abgar apocrypha
the Letter of Abgar to Jesus apocrypha
the Passion of Cyricus and Julitta apocrypha
the Passion of Georgius apocrypha
the writing which is called the Interdiction of Solomon apocrypha
all amulets which are compiled not in the name of the angels as they pretend but are written in the names of great demons apocrypha


These and those similar ones, which

Simon Magus,
Nicolaus,
Cerinthus,
Marcion,
Basilides,
Ebion,
Paul of Samosata,
Photinus and Bonosus, who suffered from similar error, also
Montanus with his obscene followers,
Apollinaris,
Valentinus the Manichaean,
Faustus the African,
Sabellius,
Arius,
Macedonius,
Eunomius,
Novatus,
Sabbatius,
Calistus,
Donatus,
Eustasius,
Jovianus,
Pelagius,
Julian of Eclanum,
Caelestius,
Maximian,
Priscillian from Spain,
Nestorius of Constantinople,
Maximus the Cynic,
Lampetius,
Dioscorus,
Eutyches,
Peter and the other Peter, of whom one disgraced Alexandria and the other Antioch,
Acacius of Constantinople with his associates, and what also
all disciples of heresy and of the heretics and schismatics,
whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with their authors and the followers of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever.

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Decre ... sianum.htm


Thomas joins Luke 11:27-28 with Mark 13:17 or Matthew 24:19 - that is the definite win, Pete. You will do everything to uphold your preposterous conspiracy theory - and life is so easy, isn't it? Simply claim something and it becomes True, and even a very compelling argument, is it not?
You claim a definite win Martijn but in my book its a stalemate. Thomas created some sort of "cento" from the synoptics. Of course Crossan is going to refer to anyone trying to meddle with the one true account of the historical Jesus "mentally unstable". What was Thomas thinking?
You are a complete fucking idiot, Pete - and that is my final attempt to wake you up from the dead, via extremely unfriendly and unprofessional language, because that perhaps is the way that I can finally reach you. Lawd knows that I have tried numerous times now
Unprofessional sticks and stones and vegemite sandwiches to you too Martijn.

Have an auspicious Saturnalia when it arrives.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 1:19 am Thomas joins Luke 11:27-28 with Mark 13:17 or Matthew 24:19 - that is the definite win, Pete.
My problem with respect to your advocacy for Thomasine priority has been your expressions of certitude concerning "the definitive win". While I subscribe to the opposite conclusion I have maintained that IDK, that with the current evidence nobody knows, that there is no consensus either way and that the assertions at ten paces is a stale-mate. That's not a win but its also not a loss. I have not maintained that your position is refuted and neither would I. All I have maintained - from the beginning - is that "certainty brings insanity".

You can either understand this position or reject it.

My main problem is your borderline subscription to the Carrier Certitude syndrome quite adequately summarised by Carrier via dbz
dbz wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 4:44 am
I am currently the world’s leading expert on the specific, hyper-narrow question of the arguments for and against the historicity of Jesus. No one has published as much or studied as much or knows as much on that singular topic. Because they just haven’t studied it as much (and their ignorance on so many facts pertaining to it evinces that point: again, just look at all the things Bart Ehrman gets wrong, from simply not bothering to check facts or seriously study the matter). No one has even published any peer reviewed study on it in a hundred years. That’s an objective fact. Not an opinion. It signals a serious defect in the field. But that defect could be redressed. By someone doing the work. That I’m the only one so far who has, is not a mark against me. It’s a mark against them.
—Richard Carrier (14 October 2017). "Jonathan Tweet and the Jesus Debate".
Having said this I will make one further contribution because it may be that Thomasine priority is the pathway forward. But like I said IDK.

The Gospel of Thomas and Plato
A Study of the Impact of Platonism
on the “Fifth Gospel”

By
Ivan Miroshnikov

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctv2gjwwcr

p.30ff



Perhaps, the most remarkable example of a saying that can claim independence from the Synoptics is Gos. Thom. 65, the Thomasine version of the Parable of the Tenants. As John S. Kloppenborg has demonstrated, and indeed in remarkable detail,123 unlike its Synoptic counterparts, Gos. Thom. 65 lacks any secondary allusions to Isa 5:1–7 LXX. Moreover, while the Synoptic versions of the parable are unrealistic and allegorized, Gos. Thom. 65 “reflects accurately the patterns of vineyard ownership in the first century CE, the economic and agrarian practices associated with viticulture, and the legal situation of the owner in instances of conflict with tenants.”124 According to Kloppenborg, since narrative realism does not seem to be one of the strong suits of the Gospel of Thomas, it is hard to imagine how the realistic Thomasine version could derive from an unrealistic Synoptic

Finally, it is not enough to say that the Synoptic-resembling Thomasine sayings sometimes appear to be independent from their Synoptic counterparts; occasionally, a case can be made for Thomasine priority. As early as 1938, before the Nag Hammadi codices were discovered and the text of P.Oxy. 4.655 identified as the Gospel of Thomas,125 T.C. Skeat made a compelling argument that the reading attested in what we now know as Gos. Thom. 36:2 (P.Oxy. 4.655 col. i, ll. 9–10) antedates the parallel reading in Q, the hypothetical Synoptic Sayings Source. While, according to the Greek Gospel of Thomas, the lilies “[ο]ὐ ξα[ί]νει οὐδὲ ν[ήθ]ει,”“neither card nor spin,” Q 12:27 reads, “Consider the lilies, how they grow (αὐξάνει): they neither toil nor spin (οὐ κοπιᾷ οὐδὲ νήθει).” As Skeat demonstrated, the reading of Q 12:27 must be later, since αὐξάνει is most certainly a corruption of οὐ ξαίνει. The most likely explanation for the emergence of this later reading is that, first, due to scribal errorοὐ ξαίνει οὐδὲ νήθει became *αὐξάνει οὐδὲ νήθει, which made the Greek text ungrammatical; and second,οὐ κοπιᾷ was inserted in order for οὐδέ to be preceded by a negative verb. In the words of Paul Maas, Skeat’s proposal is “as surprising as it is convincing”;126 recently, Skeat’s argument has been supported and elaborated upon by Christoph Heil and James M. Robinson.127

Thus, there are Thomasine sayings that, in all likelihood, depend on the Synoptics; there are Synoptic-resembling sayings that are arguably independent from the Synoptic tradition; and there are sayings that may attest to pre-Synoptic tradition. To explain this hodgepodge of “conflicting evidence,” then, and to offer a plausible date for the Gospel of Thomas is a daunting task. To complicate already complicated matters, we must also take into account Thomasine material that is without parallels to other sources. The most striking example comes from Gos. Thom. 12:

12:1 ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲛ̄ⲓⲥ︦ ϫⲉ ⲧⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ϫⲉ ⲕⲛⲁⲃⲱⲕ ⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲟⲧⲛ̄ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲣ̄
ⲛⲟϭ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲉϫⲱⲛ 12:2 ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲓⲥ︦ ⲛⲁⲩ ϫⲉ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛⲧⲁⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲉⲓ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲩ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁⲃⲱⲕ
ϣⲁ ⲓ̈ⲁⲕⲱⲃⲟⲥ ⲡⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲉⲓ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁ ⲧⲡⲉ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲡⲕⲁϩ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲃⲏⲧϥ̄

12:1 The disciples said to Jesus: “We know that you will depart from us.
Who (then) will rule over us?” 12:2 Jesus said to them: “Where you came
from [read ‘Wherever you come from’],128 you should go to James the Just
for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”

The fascinating feature of saying 12 is that it seems to send “mixed signals” to the audience of the Gospel of Thomas. Taken out of its Thomasine context, saying 12 would appear to contain a praise of James. Johannes Munck even went as far as to call Gos. Thom. 12 “the strongest description of the place of James in the Salvation story.”129 Yet when we read saying 12 in its proper context, we realize that what Jesus says about James is in fact “both ironic and negative.”130

.... continued below


Just a comment here. If indeed "what Jesus (Thomas) says about James is in fact “both ironic and negative.” then this seems to me to imply that Thomas is reacting to the synoptics. One cannot be ironic or negative about something you have not read.



////

p.33

Having sketched out the “conflicting evidence” and “mixed signals” in the Gospel of Thomas, I now turn to the hypotheses that might explain these phenomena. Two possible scenarios explain the compositional history of the Gospel of Thomas: either the text of the Gospel of Thomas was produced within a limited period of time, or the text was produced over a long period of time.

The latter option was first suggested by R.McL. Wilson, who proposed that the text of the Gospel of Thomas grew “with the passing of time.”139 Wilson was following in the footsteps of Henry Chadwick, who wrote on the Sentences of Sextus: “collections of this kind come to possess the qualities of a snowball.”140

Similar ideas have recently been expressed by Hurtado who noted that “it may be inappropriate to think of a single act of composition,” since the Gospel of Thomas “may be the product of multiple redactions, or perhaps even a process of agglutination like a rolling snowball.”141 From the standpoint of this “growing collection” hypothesis, saying 12 together with the Synoptic-resembling sayings that seem to be independent from the Synoptic tradition would probably belong to the earlier stages of the compositional history of the Gospel of Thomas, while the sayings that depend on the Synoptic gospels would be considered later additions.

The alternative to the “growing collection” hypothesis might be dubbed the “single-step composition” hypothesis. This hypothesis regards the Gospel of Thomas as the result of a single act of composition by a single author. Since, as we have seen, the bulk of Thomasine material has parallels in other early Christian texts and thus in most cases did not seem to originate with the Gospel of Thomas, the author of the Gospel of Thomas must have had access to multiple sources. From the standpoint of this “single-step composition” hypothesis, saying 12 would probably be seen as a borrowing from an unknown JewishChristian source and the Synoptic-resembling sayings as borrowings from the Synoptic gospels or the sources dependent upon them, as well as from the sources that were independent of the Synoptics.

It should be added that one can easily imagine a scenario that would combine certain elements of the two hypotheses: it is possible, for instance, that the Gospel of Thomas was, in fact, a product of a single act of composition, but that one of the sources utilized by its author was a growing collection like the Sentences of Sextus. The problem with all these hypothetical scenarios is that there seems to be no methodologically sound procedure that would allow us to make definitive conclusions with regard to the compositional history of the Gospel of Thomas. Whereas one of these hypotheses must be true, it seems impossible to determine which that one is.

davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by davidmartin »

The interesting suggestion of Thomas priority is that the IS figure in Thomas is the true figure of the Jesus of the gospels
In order words the gospels portray in their own way the person found in Thomas - that is, a mystical teacher

If you look at the gospels the Jesus in them is pretty much a mystical teacher, so Thomas is in harmony with that undercurrent
The Jesus of the gospels speaks in parables, isn't well understood, has to explain his teachings
The appeal of Thomas is that it perfectly fits, the argument against it amounts to 'it is too perfect so it must be false'

What it looks like is that orthodox Christianity appropriated this teacher at some early date and gave a partially true representation of him, which when you know where to look is preserved quite clearly in the gospels. But this view I'm expressing is deeply unpopular. Most of the non-apologists are trying to make this person a fiction so balk at the idea Thomas is authentic back to an actual person who lived - and on the other hand apologists are opposed to any hand that helps them unless it perfectly supports their rigid, dogmatic interpretations. The truth, then, has a fair old chance of being ignored and sidelined...
Post Reply