An Examination of Arguments Favoring the Gospel of Thomas.- J. P. Holding
|
|
Foro de Exégesis y Teología bíblica del
Instituto del Verbo Encarnado
An Examination of Arguments Favoring the Gospel of Thomas.- J. P. Holding |
|
|
|
A recent tactic of radical NT scholarship today seeks to find documents to replace the so-called "stranglehold" upon discussion that is held by the canonical gospels. As well accounted in Philip Jenkins' work, Hidden Gospels, any other document that presents an "emasculated Jesus" is welcomed with open arms - and thus it is no surprise to observe the recent attempt to give the Gospel of Thomas equal footing with the Gospels of the canon, or at least see it as an "independent source of data" [Funk.5Q, 15] from which we may gather information about the historical Jesus. But here is a surprise for the "uninitiated": Modern proponents of this view, ranging from Helmut Koester and his students to the Jesus Seminar, are proposing nothing really new. Suggestions that the Gospel of Thomas may contain early material, or drew upon an independent tradition, are found as early as 1960. [Wils.SGThom, vi, 46, 116] At the same time, arguments refuting that view are found just as early. [GrFree.SSGThom; Gart.TGThom] This is therefore an argument that has been "had" before - and not surprisingly, the issues have changed little in the intervening 20-30 years.
This work is intended as a supplement to Glenn Miller's research on the Gospel of Thomas (hereafter, GThom). The reader should first consult Miller's work for coverage of these topics not addressed here:
1) The Nag Hammadi texts are dated to the late fourth century. 2) Literary allusions to GThom are found in third-century documents. 3) Greek fragments of GThom are datable to the second century. 4) The bulk of scholarship dates GThom to circa 140 AD. Our focus will be upon common arguments used to date GThom earlier than is usually assumed, pursuing arguments presented in a variety of relevant sources with a "pro-GThom" stance. Let it be understood, though, that the primary arguments are NOT for the ENTIRETY of GThom, especially GThom in its present form, being dated early - rather, it is usually argued that only PARTS of GThom may be traced back to an early date. There are a few hardy souls who opt for a "most/all of Thomas is early" view, and we will consider their point of view in turn. However, the main view we shall consider is that held by Helmut Koester and his students, among them, Ron Cameron (as expressed in Camer.FECy) and Stephen Patterson (Patt.JGThom). Insofar as it touches on the matter of an early date, we will also be addressing matters of dependency. (In general, with the "early date" assertion [whether in whole or in part] comes the assumption that GThom is independent of or autonomous of, rather than dependent on, the canonical Gospels.)
A survey of the literature provides us with two basic arguments for dating all or part of GThom earlier than the consensus date of 140 AD - both of them related to the notion that similarities in GThom to other materials can be used to advance an earlier date. These arguments are: 1) The genre-related argument; 2) Demonstrations of dependency, and counters to points showing dependency on the canonical Gospels; notably: 2a) Simple-to-complex arguments. 2b) Ideological arguments, based on presumed "evolution" in the teachings of the church. 2c) Arguments based on ordering of material. Argument #1 - Genre Jump Our first appeal concerns comparisons of the genre of GThom as a "sayings gospel." It is generally argued that Thomas is like Q, a sayings Gospel; the lack of a narrative framework, therefore "suggests an early date" [KoePat.GThom, 32], because (in the most radical form of this suggestion) sayings gospels were a product of the earliest church, which did not recognize Jesus as divine (ibid., 37) - just as a teacher whose teachings were worthy of preservation. However, when early/incipient Gnostics or "Thomas Christians" supposedly "took over" the sayings genre, the orthodox church found any other use of it unacceptable - and would not tolerate use of the sayings of Jesus in that genre. [see Patt.JGThom, 104] Hence, it was necessary to incorporate Q (the document of more "orthodox" Christians) in the gospel/narrative format in order to be able to continue to transmit the sayings properly. Q died out; the Gospels, in their format, survived. Geography is often included in this argument, with Q being seen as representing "Western" tradition, and GThom as representing "Eastern" tradition. By the same token, links are made to supposed strata within Q itself which did not contain any reference to Jesus' death or resurrection, nor any christological titles. Since GThom does not contain these elements either, it is asserted that it may reflect somehow an earlier stage in the Christian tradition, with the most radical argument being that much of the material in GThom, especially that paralleled in Q, was "probably written within ten or twenty years of Jesus' death." (ibid.) Other proponents of this basic idea have their own additions. Meyer [Meye.GThom, 9], noting the purported likeness to Q, says that "the Gospel of Thomas thus belongs to a rich heritage of sayings collections." The Jesus Seminar asserts that GThom "has demonstrated that a form of gospel literature consisting of sayings actually existed and was in use among some early Christian groups." Our response to these assertions are:
1) The significant Jewish element of the early church was greatly accustomed to the "sayings genre" from the Book of Proverbs, and other Jewish works - so unless we have some hard evidence that heretics were somehow so OVERWHELMINGLY using the sayings genre that it became hard to tell an orthodox document from a heretical one, or that it caused some other sort of psychological dyspepsia in the early church ("Ewwww! A sayings Gospel!"), then there is absolutely no reason why the "orthodox" Q-church should have become disgusted with or abandoned strictly-sayings gospels, had such indeed existed! Indeed, the psychology of the apostolic and post-apostolic church suggests rather that attempts would have been to reclaim the "genre" or that the church simply would have instead defended the authenticity of the material in the established sayings collections - WITHOUT worrying about their format! 2) Related to that, it is an insult to the intelligence of the early Christians and the apostle Paul to suggest that they and their leadership were so immature as to value style over substance! 3) It is evident from the rest of the Nag Hammadi library, and from elsewhere in history, that heretics also adopted other genres for their own use: Narrative Gospels, epistles, and so on. It must therefore be supposed that the orthodox church lost its nerve ONLY on the matter of the sayings genre, but grew a spine when it came to every other genre! The genre-argument is thus at its core a case of special pleading.
The unique form of the Gospel of Thomas seems to indicate that its background differed considerably from that which lay behind the collecting of sayings of Jesus which are thought to have existed in the beginning of the gospel tradition. Against this idea, Robinson [Hedr.NagH, 165] has registered this objection: Other gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi indicate that gnostics would not need to eliminate the narrative framework as thoroughly as one would have to assume to have been the case in the Gospel of Thomas. However, Robinson misses the point. It is not that the authors of GThom NEEDED to eliminate the framework, but that they DID eliminate it is far more plausible in light of where GThom was found (with other, far stronger Gnostic documents, and what van Unnik termed "a motley collection of bizarre titles" - VanUn.NDGW, 18), when its mss. can be dated, evidence of copying from the Synoptics, internal evidence, etc. - which we discuss in more detail below. We are not arguing "needs" at all, but preferences and plausibility. And, finally:
Argument #2 - Dependency Directions A second strand of arguments relates to the dependency (or lack thereof) of GThom on the canonical Gospels. Direct dependence of GThom on the gospels of the NT is dismissed as a possibility. Koester says the Gospel of Thomas [Koes.Traj, 119], along with other similar writings, "must be considered as historically of equal value with the canonical writings; they cannot be depreciated by reason of their noncanonical nature." Let's break down the arguments used to declare pieces of GThom to be earlier than the canonical Gospels. Argument #2a - Literary License A strand of this argument seeks to prove that, in general, simpler forms of sayings found in GThom, by virtue of their simplicity, must pre-date the parallels found in the canonical Gospels. Meyer [Meye.GThom, 13] asserts in this vein that GThom "preserves sayings that at times appear to be more original than the New Testament parallels." He chooses GThom 9 (par. Mt. 13:3-9, Mk. 4:2-9, Lk. 8:4-8), the parable of the sower, as an example. (We will look at specifics at the end of this section.) And Cameron [Hedr.NagH, 149] says: Texts whose literary forms are relatively spare can generally be dated to a period earlier than those which exhibit a more elaborate, developed stage of the tradition. The appeal in these arguments is simply this: Thomas (or pieces of it) LOOKS like what the early/oral tradition has been presumed to be, that is, primitive; therefore, it must have primitive roots! In response we may note:
1) This supposition does not even bear out according to present assumptions concerning literary dependence among the Gospels (in fact, the synoptic tendency would suggest that material was shortened more often than it was lengthened - which would also strike out parts of GThom that some wish to date earlier); 2) GThom shows a tendency to "make hidden" and less univocal the sayings of Jesus - in line with a Gnostic bent to make things "secret" and obtuse to the uninitiated. (Note particularly the observations of Meier, quoted by Miller, in this regard.) Argument #2b - Churchly Creations The simple/complex dichotomy is often based on the presupposition that the church created a context for the sayings of Jesus, and that GThom preserves the more original form of a saying without the interpretation added by the church [KoePat.GThom, 32]. Let us look at some examples. GThom 9. This is the parable of the sower - without the interpretation by Jesus given in the canonical Gospels. Critics like Meyer [Meye.GThom, 14] argue that the interpretation was added by the church after the fact, as a way of applying what was originally "a parable about farming in rural Palestine to features of church life during the latter half of the first century." [See also Funk.5Q, 478]. Similar logic is used by Quispel [Quisp.TGThom, 105-6], who considers the GThom version superior based both on its simplicity and on its better Aramaic structure (which, as Miller notes, is probably irrelevant, since GThom was likely composed originally in an Aramaic-speaking milieu in Syria). Naturally, such logic as used by Meyer is simply assuming what ought to be proved: That the interpretation was, indeed, added later, rather than coming from Jesus originally. It does not occur to the critics (as we have suggested) that GThom omits the interpretations because the authors of GThom disagreed with it! And indeed, the Gnostic milieu of GThom offers us an explanation very much like this, for both this saying and others which lack an interpretation. Grant and Freedman observe [GrFree.SSGThom, 64] that the Gnostic idea of salvation was that it was achieved by knowing the secret interpretation of the words given (as is explicitly expressed in the very first saying in GThom) - and obviously, if the interpretation was offered right there in the text, where was the big secret??? Montefiore [MonTur.ThEv, 64] observes that: ...(P)robably the reason why no allegorical details are included in Thomas's text, and no allegorical explanations are appended to Thomas's parables, is to be found in the desire to keep the 'true' spiritual interpretation of the sayings hidden from all except gnostic initiates. This typical Gnostic practice, he adds, "leaves some of (the) parables in a comparatively primitive state..." The net of which is: Since Gnostics generally considered explanations of the words of Jesus to be anathema, it is quite natural that they should EXCLUDE explanations - and there is absolutely no warrant for assuming that this "primitiveness" found in some sayings is attributable to reliance on an earlier tradition. Blomberg [Blom.Gosp5, 184-6] adds that GThom's reference to the planter filling his hand with seed may reflect the "key gnostic concept" of fullness, and the reference to "ears" going forth and reaching heaven finds a parallel in Naassene ritual initiations in which converts contemplate "a green ear of corn reaped in silence," and then lift the ear to heaven and wave it in the air as a symbol of life after death. (A similar motif is found in other documents.) Therefore, again, the typical Gnostic praxis, and corollary evidence, offers us a far more plausible explanation for the lack of interpretation, both here and in other parts of GThom where it is not included. It is more probable that an interpretation was omitted by GThom than that its exclusion represents a harking back to an earlier form. Montefiore [MonTur.ThEv, 48] thickens the plot further by offering two notations that indicate precisely the opposite relationship suggested by the Seminar for this saying. The "triplet" pattern of structure used by Matthew and Mark's version, was more common in Jewish writing than the form used in GThom; at another point, the use of "120 fold" in GThom suggests the use of 12, the Gnostic number of completion and perfection. [see also Blom.Gosp5, 186] (Of course, in spite of all of the above, critics could still argue, WITHOUT using GThom, that the interpretation itself was added later by the church! The use of GThom merely reflects an attempt to justify one questionable view with another!) GThom 89. This reads: "Why do you wash the outside of the cup? Don't you understand that the one who made the inside is also the one who made the outside?" The Synoptic versions of this verse are a polemic against the Pharisees. Since this polemic and mention of the Pharisees are lacking, it is suggested that GThom 89 represents an earlier tradition. This explanation rests in parts upon dubious assumptions concerning interchange with the Pharisees. However, closer to our topic, another explanation is posited by Tuckett [Tuck.QTEv, 353]: It is just as likely that the saying lost its polemical thrust secondarily as the tradition left an earlier context of Jewish-Christian hostile debate and became part of intra-Christian instruction. Quite simply, there were no Pharisees in the second century, when GThom was written; hence, what need was there for them, or for polemic against them? Unlike the references to Pharisees in other parts of GThom (39, 102), this reference to them could be removed easily without affecting the context and meaning of the saying [contra Patt.JGThom, 69]. Thus the reference was simply deleted. This sort of argument is applied regularly to assign pieces of GThom to earlier tradition. But again, as we have seen, there is a far better explanation, one in line with the tangible evidence that we have available, and in line with the Gnostic/esoteric background of GThom. Another argument recently posited for GThom's earliness comes from Patterson [Patt.5G, 41-2], who says that an early date is "suggested by the way various authority figures appear in Thomas. In Thom. 12, James is appealed to as an authority. In Thom. 13, another authority is lifted up: Thomas." How this suggests an early date is not explained. James was also appealed to as an authority by the Ebionites in the middle of the second century, where we think GThom was at its earliest. The appeal to Thomas himself proves nothing at all. (See also our point below on GThom 71; Patterson uses the same argument here as well. Patterson also sees John 20:24-9 as a slam against "Thomas Christianity" but does not explain how; rather he only offers a footnote to another source. One sees rather too much of a mirror-reading effort here.) Patterson also posits an early date based on the lack of traditional titles for Jesus in the GThom text [ibid., 43] such as "Son of Man", "Christ," etc. One is hard-pressed, again, to see why this is the case, and it is not explained. Christological titles are applied to Jesus by Paul in the mind-50s, using creeds that clearly date back much earlier. Patterson would need to explain how in just a very few years a wide variety of such titles came to be ascribed to Jesus. It is far more likely that these titles were simply deleted during the composition of GThom in favor of terms more suitable to GThom's Gnostic preferences. Argument #2c - Order, Order! In response to charges that GThom shows dependency on the canonical Gospels, it is often asserted that GThom demonstrates no consistent pattern of reliance on them. Koester and Patterson [KoePat.GThom, 32], specifically regarding dependence on Matthew, state that, "...if the order of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas were the same as the order into which the author of the Gospel of Matthew had deliberately composed them," then, they say, demonstration of dependency on Matthew could be accepted. However, the fact that GThom does not follow Matthew's order "at least raises the possibility" of a "quite early" date, since it could indicate that GThom's author used an independent source where the order of events was different. This argument was also used by Wilson in 1960 [Wils.SGThom, 5]. In reply we may note: <UL · In using this argument, one must observe: If what Koester and Patterson propose is true, then clearly, SOMEONE at SOME POINT scrambled this material out of an originally established order - either Matthew or the GThom author, or someone before or in between! In that case, I daresay benefit of the doubt should go to the better-attested document - and needless to say, in this case, that is decidedly NOT GThom! · By the same token, it is the school of Koester and Co. that often professes to believe that a) the early church "overlaid" a basic Q-document at least twice, interspersing and scrambling material together to make a "new" document; b) the evangelists, at the most 50 years from the events in question, themselves freely altered material in light of theological interests. What reason, other than bias, can they possibly give for saying that the orthodox writers did so much of this on one hand, and the GThom writers/editors on the other hand had almost no theological agenda and kept their material relatively pure for a period of 200-300 years???? · It is not clear, moreover, what lies behind this objection that GThom shows no "consistent" pattern of dependence on the Synoptics. Arguments such as these simply "pooh-pooh" the evidence of dependency (see below) and ignore the sociological context of the community that GThom is attributed to, all in the name of saving a few elements as being traceable to an early tradition. But, it is most commonly asserted, this argument "cannot be validly pressed in view of the miscellaneous character of the Gospel of Thomas." [MonTur.ThEv, 33] And: "...the arrangement of the material remains a problem on any showing." [ibid.] There is no obvious consistency no matter how we slice GThom; the sayings have no narrative context, and therefore no chronology. Chilton [Chilt.Gosp5, 161] finds coverage of seven basic topics, and a basic concern for matters of the kingdom (even more pronounced than in Matthew, the most "kingdom-oriented" of the four Gospels!) - but that is all. No matter how we look at it, GThom is generally (but not totally, as we shall see) a scrambled, eclectic document, so this objection really carries no force whatsoever. And what of this scrambled nature? Let us keep in mind that GThom was found in what was overall a Gnostic library; the Gnostics were a sect of mystical bent, and GThom reflects what even the Jesus Seminar concedes is an "incipient Gnosticism." (We would argue that it is more than just that - although we agree with Blomberg that it was not written from a "uniformly Gnostic viewpoint," [Blom.Gosp5, 179], for reasons we shall discuss below.) We may therefore further observe that: · It is quite possible that some part of GThom represents a compiliation of quotes made by memory, with some Gnostic and other redactions. (This should not be confused with the "secondary orality" thesis, which holds that the memory quoted from is one preserved from the time of Jesus - what I am suggesting here is that GThom was composed by memory from someone remembering snatches of the written gospels!) A traditional parallel is found in the works of Justin Martyr, who himself quotes from memory, often mixing together words from different books, combining 2-3 passages in one quotation [Wils.SGThom, 9n]. Against this idea, Montefiore [MonTur.ThEv, 42] objects that a compiler working from memory would not have used as many "doublets" (closely similar sayings) as the author of GThom. This objection I find most peculiar: One would suspect that the OPPOSITE would be true - that someone working by memory would engage in "word association" in order to call up the memory of more sayings, and thus end up with many that were similar in text and in nature! The objection here therefore fails. (See also our note on "catchwords" below.) · There is reason, further, to believe that GThom is reflects a "mixed up" order ON PURPOSE. It has been suggested that GThom was put together as a sort of conversion tract aimed at traditional believers; as Wilson describes it, GThom is "an instrument of Gnostic propaganda designed to lure the unsuspecting away from orthodoxy" and into heresy. Thus, it does not use some of the wilder Gnostic speculations, but opts instead for gentle indoctrination that a true Christian, at first glance, might not notice - an "icebreaker," as Turner puts it. [Wils.SGThom, 13, 40; MonTur.ThEv, 97; see also Tuck.NHGT, 5] (It may even represent a more gnosticized version of a previously more orthodox document - it has been noted that versions of GThom sayings on the Oxy papyri sound more orthodox than their GThom counterparts - GrFree.SSGThom, 68.) Now here is a question. If you are attempting to lure people into conversion like this, would you not want to make sure that your material was not in a pattern that might be recognized as a copied from other materials? To be sure, it would be a crude attempt to fool someone, but neither heretics nor esotericists (especially Gnostics) were notable for their subtleties or for being consistent in their views! (Indeed, it is observed by Wilson that the author or final redactor of GThom "was not a man of great intellectual powers." [ibid., 17] Perhaps he was so dense as to believe that he COULD fool people into thinking he was in possession of a genuine work of Thomas!) Even today, we may note the examples of cults that mangle and scramble texts for their own purposes (such as the Hale-Bopp cult and British-Israelism, or even the Aquarian Gospel!) - and through that manage to fool a LOT of people! In light of the common techniques of esoterics and cultists that we find even today, the thesis that GThom was a mild form conversion tract strikes me as a sound one - Davies' description of it as "astounding" [Davi.GThomCW, 27] aside, especially as he offers no elaboration for his description! (In later correspondence to this author he merely described the thesis rather as "idiotic" - to which I can only say that, for someone in his position, Davies has a remarkably poor grasp of the methodologies of religions in general and cults in particular! Ad hominem just isn't going to do the job here!) · Robinson [Hedr.NagH, 165] counters the notion of eclectic scrambling of material by noting that: If one has had to give up the assumption that since the Gospel of John is a 'spiritual' Gospel, it could use the Synoptic Gospels in a way that mere mortals cannot make sense of, one needs also to give up the assumption that gnostics were so unreasonable that they too acted in ways that one need not seek to comprehend rationally. There is a big problem with this assertion: There is a huge, HUGE difference between the Gospel of John and the gnostic heresies! (See Yama.PCG, 34) There is no exclusionist sense in John of needing to have secret knowledge to understand what is going on - "mere mortals" could understand it and accept the Gospel quite easily! On the other hand, the Gnostic texts, with their allusions "comprehensible" only to the initiate, and their weird interpretations (i.e., Jesus being age 30 = 30 aeons in the universe), are mind-numbing in their outrageousness. Robinson is comparing apples with grapefruits! Even beyond the above, however, the structure of GThom shows some organization that explains the re-ordering of material, and in a way that matches the techniques of other second-century documents - especially Gnostic documents. This organization is manifested in several ways. First, Miller correctly points out that Gnostic writers of the 2nd-century customarily arranged material around themes/catchwords. This practice is observed in GThom by other authors [Wils.SGThom, 17; MonTur.ThEv, 23; Gart.TGThom, 28]. This being the case, why should there be any concern over maintaining the order of material found in the Synoptics? The idea would be to maintain thematic rather than chronological/literary unity. (The catchword technique is even noted by Patterson [Patt.JGThom, 100-2], who presents an impressive - albeit theoretical - listing of possible catchwords from a Greek organization of GThom. However, he overlooks the use of this procedure by Gnostics of the 2nd century, and instead interprets it as a memorization device on the part of the original GThom author! To this we would some extent agree: This sort of recall device could very well have been employed for GThom's original composition - and would provide sufficient explanation for the lack of conjunction with the ordering of the canonical material upon which GThom was based!) Second, scrambling the order of material was also a typical technique, of both the orthodox and the heretical - though for entirely different reasons! Here we shall build upon Miller's own observations and quotations in the matter: Grant (Gnosticism and Early Christianity, 185) notes that one of the striking features of the Gospel of Thomas is its tendency to combine sayings found separately in the Synoptic Gospels and to change the order of the sayings: "Such combinations and alterations were common among Christian writers of the second century, but they were especially characteristic of Gnostics." [cited in MJ1.161n.116] And, note well that there is evidence of scrambling order of material, even WITHIN the GThom textual tradition: For example, we know of one place where the Coptic redactor CHANGED the order from the "older" Greek version (POxy.1) for usage in his Coptic version, so as to organize it around catch-words. The saying on "spitting the wood" which in POxy1 is at the end of saying 30, becomes part of the 2nd half of saying 77 in the Coptic version. This creates a link-word between 77a+b; both halves of the spliced verse contain the Coptic verb meaning "attain" or "split" [Tucker, cited in MJ:1.161n.117] The fluidity above between the time of POxy1 and the Coptic GThom - which, we may add, finds no such radical parallel within the textual tradition of the canonical materials - further suggests that for the GThom tradition, ordering of material was not a primary concern where other factors might be at work. (The idea of "three versions" of Mark, in the writings of Luke and Matthew, hold no play here, for they rely on an unproven thesis, and the idea of Jude and 2 Peter as providing a parallel does not take into account the common practice on letter-writing of the period to re-use entire portions of letters in different places. Cicero, for example, kept a notebook of prefaces that he drew from when writing his letters; likewise it is possible that Paul kept a notebook of testimonia and doxologies he drew from.) It is also reflective of a known Gnostic practice: This sort of variability is also found, for example, in the Gnostic Apocryphon of John. Several editions of this work compared "leaves room for the conjecture that different versions of the same fundamental document may have been current within Gnosticism." [MonTur.ThEv, 15] Grant and Freedman [GrFree.SSGThom, 63] go even further, noting that: ...Only a Gnostic could understand the Gnostic meaning of Jesus's revelation, and this revelation had been given to a few of his disciples, after the resurrection; they had handed it down secretly to those who were worthy of receiving it. For this reason we find among the Nag Hammadi books no fewer than three versions of the Apocryphon (secret book) of John, three Apocalypses of James, and Apocalypse of Paul, and an Apocalypse of Peter. (Tuckett [Tuck.NHGT, 25], contra the above, notes FOUR versions of the Apocryphon of John; Yamauchi [Yama.PCG, 103] agrees in there being only three.) We also find, as these authors note, secret teachings from OT figures like Adam and Seth, as well as revelations from the Roman god Hermes and from Zoroaster! Obviously, it did not bother the Gnostics that they offered three versions of the same book, or several versions of the Apocalypse, or documents that were obviously not from the stated authors, authors who would decidedly have no interest in promoting a Christian worldview! No doubt they would say to anyone who objected, "You just don't get it because you're not an initiate into our secret wisdom!" And such was the way of these peculiar people: As van Unnik remarks [VanUn.NDGW, 22], in Gnostic circles, "the sheer number of speculations and the bizarre patterns which (Gnostic documents) usually assume are enough to make anyone feel dizzy!" Why should it bother such people to scramble material out of its usual order for their own (to us, at least) indiscernible purposes? Third, GThom demonstrates a tendency to engage in "inverted quoting" of materials - which was, likewise, typical of Gnostic documents [MonTur.ThEv, 34-5]. Saying #46, for example, is paralleled to Matthew 11:12 and 11:11, IN THAT ORDER! Saying #47 is a parallel (in order) to Luke 6:39, 37, and 36. This tendency, which Patterson [Patt.JGThom, 98] dismisses as part of "the somewhat capricious process of oral transmission," not only is exactly the OPPOSITE of what we would expect from oral tradition (see here -- it is far from "capricious"!), but is also in line with the manifest tendency to scramble material intentionally in heretical circles elsewhere as well: Turner notes the charge of Ireneaus against the Valentians of breaking up material and rearranging it in a different pattern. Grant and Freedman [GrFree.SSGThom, 92] offer a sample of how one heretical group combined these verses, in this order, to make a new text: John 6:53-6, Matt. 5:20, 18:3; Mark 10:38; John 8:21, 13:33. Gartner [Gart.TGThom, 39] notes a selection from the Gnostic Gospel of Mary that quotes, in order: Luke 24:36/John 20:19; John 14:27; Matt. 24:4; Matt. 24:23; Luke 17:2, and Matt. 7:7! Thus, it seems that scrambling the order of other materials to make "new" materials was a modus operandi for the heretic community! (Let us hasten to add, though, that it was also a tactic of the Church itself, when attempting to effect harmonizations. The methods were basically the same - but based on the results, the motives were self-evidently quite different!) On the other hand, the author of GThom was not always careful to separate his material enough. Miller continues: Some sayings in Thomas seem to follow each other for no reason other than that is their sequence in the Synoptic Gospels. For example, Saying 65 gives a version of the parable of the wicked tenants (cf. Mark 12.1-8 pars.), which Saying 66 follows up with a version of Jesus' teaching about the 'cornerstone' (cf. Mark 12.10-11). But without anything corresponding to Mark 12.9 to connect the two sayings, no one would guess they were related. It is more probable, therefore, that Thomas knew the Synoptics but omitted the connection (as this work does throughout in listing sayings in isolation from each other) than that Mark or someone else created a connected narrative out of two originally independent thoughts.[JUF:24] There is thus ample reason to see GThom as highly dependent in some way on the Synoptics. All arguments against the idea fail to take into account the social and literary context of the GThom author.
Almost thirty years ago, in a preliminary survey of material found at Nag Hammadi, van Unnik [VanUn.NDGW, 57] anticipated the assignment of GThom as a "fifth gospel" - and warned that such a designation would go "far beyond and is even contrary to the available evidence." His words have been hauntingly prophetic, as the Jesus Seminar, perhaps not even aware of van Unnik's admonition, has included GThom in their evaluations - presenting that material in a book titled The Five Gospels! Since theirs is the most popular work on the subject, we pay special attention to their work. But there is a caveat: While the Seminar does take an absurd position in regards to Thomas, there are two things in particular that are noteworthy about their treatment of that document. First, while they are more generous in awarding red and pink status (meaning more likely to be genuine) to material in Thomas than to material in any of the other Gospels, NONE of their selections is at odds with what would be accepted by orthodox Christianity - which is to say, in terms of inclusion of material (as opposed to exclusion of it), they hardly provide any cause to accept some radical new (or valid!) trajectory of Christianity from the GThom that would have found its origins in Jesus. [See Stant.GT?, 92] On the other hand, theirs is a far more radical stance than previous Thomas-proponents, especially when combined with their other conclusions. Montefiore, for example, refers to only two GThom sayings in particular (94, 98) as possibly reflecting earlier tradition than the Synoptics, and on rather shaky and insignificant terminological grounds at that [MonTur.ThEv, 50]. Chilton [Chilt.Gosp5, 170] thinks that three sayings on the kingdom (54, 82, 99) may contain authentic material. Summers [Summ.SSLJ, 72-5] found five of the logia to have been probably original from Jesus - in order from least likely to most likely, 102, 47, 97, 43, and 82. But these are rather insignificant assertions compared to what is offered by the Seminar. Second, it is interesting that the Seminar rather downplays the gnostic influence in GThom. They freely acknowledge the Gnostic influence in many sayings, and reject sayings on the grounds of Gnostic influence and redaction. However, they go on to suggest that the same sort of influence can be found in the works of John and Paul [RF.5G, 501] - another case of one questionable argument being used to support other questionable arguments! Not surprisingly, their final analysis is that GThom reflects an "incipient gnosticism." A closer look at the material by earlier scholars, however - whose work they either ignore or seem unaware of - demonstrates a more Gnostic outlook than they suggest. It also tells us why they downplay the Gnostic side of GThom: It would force them to reject many of the sayings they grade as being close to their vision of Jesus. (Let us add here that the thinking that Gnosticism = evidence of a late date should be discarded - as we know from the NT, there were forms of "incipient Gnosticism" even in NT times. Any Gnostic belief reflected in GThom can NOT be taken, by itself, as evidence of a late date - but CAN lead to the suggestion that the material in question was subject to alteration and cannot be trusted as going back to Jesus, and coupled with the other indicators we have discussed, make a "Gnostic influence" solution far more plausible!) We have already seen some examples above of how the Seminar regards parts of GThom. Let's take a look at some other treatments, and see some of the arguments listed above "in action." Red-status items. Any saying listed in red, as we recall, is considered prime choice material that very likely went back to Jesus. Curiously enough, the Seminar only ascribes red-status to three items in GThom: 20, 54, and part of 100. #20 is GThom's version of the mustard seed parable. The Seminar gives the Synoptic versions a pink rating. The GThom version is favored in line with argument #2b above: It contains no apocalyptic theme! The Seminar regards this parable as "a good example of how the original Jesus tradition...is revised to accommodate living and powerful mythical images drawn from the Hebrew scriptures." [Funk.5Q, 484] As we have shown, of course, this is simply presumption. Furthermore, the GThom version shows signs of internal Gnostic redaction. Only in the GThom version is the earth referred to as "tilled" - indicating that "only the soil of the true Gnostic is ready to receive the mustard seed." [GrFree.SSGThom, 133; Summ.SSLJ, 26, 43] (Jesus' rural, agraian audience would not need to be reminded that the mustard plant required tilled earth; the reference is therefore quite obviously superfluous in an original context!) #20 also emphasizes that the plant described is "large" - which elsewhere (GThom 8, 96, 107) reflects the Gnostic sense of being part of an elite [Stant.GT?, 90]. # 54 is the "blessed are the poor" beatitude. Here, the GThom saying got 94% approval; the Lukan version, 93%. Thus, there is no issue of concern here. #100 is the "render unto Caesar" saying. Here the Synoptic versions also got a red rating. However, Gartner [Gart.TGThom, 33] notes that the GThom version is missing the reference to the image and inscription on the coin - matters "upon which Jesus' answer depended." This is a sign, then, that the Synoptic versions should be given more credence. We now move to the pink ratings given to pieces of GThom, with two categories: Unparalleled sayings, and paralleled sayings. GThom 97, 98. Like Meyer [Meye.GThom, 14-5], the Seminar treats these two unique, unparalleled sayings as probably original to Jesus. They are known as the parable of the empty jar and the parable of the assassin. We will reproduce both here [Funk.5Q, 523]: The [Father's] imperial rule is like a woman who was carrying a [jar] full of meal. While she was walking along [a] distant road, the handle of the jar broke and the meal spilled behind her [along] the road. She didn't know it; she hadn't noticed a problem. When she reached her house, she put the jar down and discovered that it was empty. The Father's imperial rule is like a person who wanted to kill someone powerful. While still at home he drew his sword and thrust it into the wall to find out whether his hand would go in. Then he killed the powerful one. It is interesting to note that the Seminar voted on #97 three times - the first two times giving this saying a gray vote. It was finally declared "more authentic" on the basis of being startling, surprising, and provocative, and based on parallel ideas in the Synoptics. #98 was likewise pink-approved only after twice being voted gray, based on the startling nature of the image. These sayings really contain little that is outrageous. #97 may reflect the imperceptibility of the coming of the kingdom until its arrival. #98 sounds like a "count the cost" or "be prepared" theme, although it seems unlikely that Jesus would use a parable that glorifies murder. (Against this, Patterson [Patt.JGThom, 90] observes that images of violence are used in the Gospels. But his examples are Mark 12:1-12, which does NOT glorify murder, but rather pictures it in a criminal light; and Luke 14:31-2 - where a king sues for peace in order to AVOID violence!) #98 (and possibly #97; as noted above, the reconstruction is questionable) also uses the phrase "kingdom of the Father," which is found only in GThom and not in any of the canonical Gospels [Summ.SSLJ, 70-1] - a good indication of lateness versus the better-attested canonical Gospels. I personally doubt that these two sayings go back to Jesus; they are not completely incompatible with things that Jesus said, but they have the literary quality of someone trying to sound like Jesus, rather than Jesus Himself. Pink-status items. Let us go down the list one at a time; we shall see that for all the bluster, the Seminar ascribes nothing to Jesus that is terribly revolutionary [Funk.5Q]. We will also see the sort of fallacious reasoning we have explored above used to claim that parts of GThom may represent early and reliable tradition. #2:1 - "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find." This is the same saying that is also awarded pink status in the Synoptics, so there is no argument here. #5:2 - "For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed." This saying is paralleled in Luke, where it is rated pink also, and Mark, where it is gray. However, it is said that the Thomas version is "probably the earliest" because it is the simplest - which as we have seen above is fallacious reasoning. #6:5 is the same saying as #5b, also pink. #9 is discussed above. #10 - "I have cast fire upon the world, and look, I'm guarding it until it blazes." Here, a Lukan parallel (12:49) is voted gray because it is clustered with other sayings said to represent Christian mythologization, and is itself stated in Christianized language. Also noted is the eschatological hints of the Lukan version: the fire is seen as blazing in the future; whereas in Thomas, the fire is seen as blazing right now. This, of course, is the same sort of flawed reasoning used to early-date #9 above: The very thing to be proved is simply assumed. In terms of ideology, also, the Gnostics would be more likely to omit or change eschatological phrases. There is thus no reason to see this as an earlier version of Luke's item. #14:4-5 (except italics) - "When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among you. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it's what comes out of your mouth that will defile you." Synoptic parallels were also designated pink, so we have no issue there; but here is an interesting aside as a case study: The phrase about healing the sick is designated black! Here is a splendid example of how the Seminar is willing to play "Veg-o-matic" with the texts in order to suit their own ideology! #26 - The sliver-in-your-eye parable. All versions were designated pink, although the Thomas version drew the highest vote, based (again) on its "simplicity." #31:1 - "No prophet is welcome on his home turf..." All versions, even the one in John, received a pink designation, although again, the fallacious simpler = earlier dichotomy is appealed to in order to regard Thomas' version as earlier. #32 - "A city built on a high hill and fortified cannot fall, nor can it be hidden." Parallel in Matt. 5:14, also pink. #33:2 - The lamp and the lampstand. Parallels in Matt and Luke also pink. #35 - "One can't enter a strong person's house and take it by force without tying his hands. Then one can loot his house." Pink also in parallels. #36:1-2 - Do not fret and spinning lilies. Ditto. #41 - "Whoever has something in hand will be given more, and whoever has nothing will be deprived of even the little they have." Versions in Mark and Luke were "pinked," versions in Matt and a second version in Luke were "grayed." It is indicated that the votes were close in all cases. It is claimed, also, that the Thomas version represents an independent tradition, though no clear reason for this assertion is offered. #45:1a - "Grapes are not harvested from thorn trees, nor are figs gathered from thistles..." All parallels in pink. #47:2-4 - A slave cannot serve two masters, and the "old/new wine" sayings, excluding the patch/garment section. All versions pink, though again, a Thomas version of the wine sayings got a higher vote due to perceived "Christianization." #62:2 - "Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing." Pink also in Matthean parallel. #63:1-3 - The storehouses parable. The parallel in Luke was also pink, but the Thomas version is regarded as earlier because it is simpler and unelaborated. Again, both aspects of this reasoning are fallacious, and ignore the Gnostic context of GThom which makes elaborations anathema - and therefore likely to be omitted. [Summ.SSLJ, 47], in fact, points out that the use of the standard "He who has ears to hear" phrase - used in many places in GThom - in place of the elaboration is an indication of Gnosticizing redaction: The reader is to find the meaning "hidden" in the parable, and has to "hear" it properly to do so!) #64:1-11 - The dinner party where the invited guests refused to come, and so people off the street were invited. The Matthean version is gray; the Lukan version is pink. Matthew's version is regarded as having been Christianized and therefore "has virtually lost touch with Jesus." (!) The Thomas version, on the other hand, "fell just short" of being made red. Here we see again a splendid example of how the Seminar assumes the very thing that has yet to be proved! Grant and Freedman [161], however, see evidence of knowledge of the Synoptics. The GThom author has actually combined the Lukan version with details from the similar story in Matthew. Gartner [Gart.TGThom, 47] adds that the reference to the poor in the streets has been removed, which was important to the context of the parable. Summers [Summ.SSLJ, 47-8] completes the picture by noting that whereas the excuses given by the guests in the canonical gospels are outrageous, to the point of being humorous, the GThom excuses are rather prosaic - and owing to the criteria set out by the Seminar that Jesus' original sayings tend to be outrageous, one wonders whether the GThom version's pink rating is consistent with their stated criteria! Finally, Summers also notes the Gnosticizing overtones of the condemnation of tradesmen and merchants at the end of the GThom version. #65:1-7 - The vineyard owner who sent his son. All synoptic versions were rated gray, again because of the alleged "allegorical transformation" that this parable underwent. (See also Wils.SGThom, 55.) Grant and Freedman [GrFree.SSGThom, 162], however, see in the deletion of an allusion to Isaiah 5:1-2 (the bit about setting a wall, digging a ditch, and building a tower) as indications of GThom's lateness, for the Gnostics would be inclined (as throughout GThom) to exclude OT allusions. (See in this regard Gart.TGThom, 69.) #69:2 - The "blessed are the hungry" beatitude. Matthean version pink; Lukan version, red. #76:1-2 - The pearl parable. Matthean version also pink. #78:1-2 - "Why have you come out into the countryside? To see a reed shaken by the wind? And to see a person dressed in soft clothes, [like your] rulers and your powerful ones?" Versions in Matt and Luke also pink. #86 - The "foxes have dens" saying. Versions in Matt and Luke also pink. Gartner [Gart.TGThom, 60-1] sees a slight Gnosticizing tendency in the addition of the phrase "and rest" at the end of this saying - as "rest" was used by the Gnostics to indicate "the state of blessedness." However, Doran [Dora.FECy, 217] counters that the verb used is the same as that found elsewhere (GThom 61) where it does NOT have an esoteric meaning, whereas there is another verb that is used (GThom 50, 51, 60, 90) for heavenly repose, which 86 does not use. Hence, he sees "rest" as simply an amplification of the sad tone of the saying. (However, he does find in the cluster of sayings from 83-87 a reflection of the Gnostic concept of "levels of existence" - either way, this selection has undergone some Gnostic retouches!) #89 - Washing the outside of the cup. Versions in Matt and Luke designated gray because Matt and Luke were said to have added a context and a moralizing conclusion - i.e., another simple-to-complex dichotomy. This item is discussed above. #92:1 - "Seek and you will find." Matt and Luke also pink. #94 - Another version of #92. #95 - "If you have money, don't lend it at interest. Rather, give [it] to someone from whom you won't get it back." Matthean version also pink, though the Thomas version is suggested to be earlier "since it is absolute" - another version of fallacious simple-to-complex reasoning, if not an example of pure arbitrariness. #96:1-2 - The leaven parable. Synoptic versions in red. #97, #98 - Discussed above. #99:2 - "Those here who do what my Father wants are my brothers and my mother." Matthean version also pink; Lukan and Markan versions gray, but just barely, due to contextual issues. #109 - Treasure in the field parable. Matthean version also pink. #113:2-3 - Regarding the coming of the kingdom. Lukan version also pink. And so, despite all the "hub-bub," the Seminar really offers little in the way of radical conclusions beyond their acceptance of Thomas as a document with early roots.
Stephen Patterson is one of the leaders in the GThom Independence debate. Here are a few notes on his work. First, Patterson is often reliant on the questionable principles of form criticism as used by Bultmann and others - views which, as we have noted, often use convoluted explanations and view the composition of literature as a sort of mechanical process that can be dissected scientifically. To the degree that these questionable methods are employed, we may rightly question Patterson's conclusions. Second, Patterson's book spends a great deal of time "whining" about the lack of attention given to GThom. Indeed, one of the subtitles given in the text is, "Taking Thomas Seriously"! In The Fifth Gospel, Patterson is still whining, and tells us that the lack of respect for GThom is because "[n]ot everyone is comfortable with allowing a text considered by many to be heretical" into the "exclusive club" of the canon! He goes on to speak of "historical honesty and integrity," "lingering prejudice," and "scholarly fairness" -- but when all is said and done, however, Patterson offers very little in the way of hard evidence to encourage us to take GThom more "seriously" than has been done in the past, and certainly offers no more basis for his "Thomas community" than Burton Mack does for his "Q community"! As an excellent lesson in "saving the theory," let us look at a few examples of how Patterson responds to instances where GThom reflects dependence on material peculiar to Matthew, Luke, and John - which would be the strongest exemplars of indication of dependence on the completed canonical Gospels. Most of Patterson's arguments revolve around four basic premises: 1) GThom is not dependent on the Gospel in question, but both could be dependent upon a common source. Here the reliance on "mystery" sources alerts us to the presence of fish. Patterson often observes in response that the GThom writer, if he were copying from the relevant Gospel, should not have (in his opinion) left out certain features. However, given both the esoteric/indiscernible motives of the GThom author (which Patterson must presume to be cognizant of!), the distance of the mss. evidence, the high improbability of the preservation of oral tradition into the required time period (in particular, outside of the constraints of the rabbinic-disciple circle established by Jesus) and Patterson's reliance on the questionable methodology of form and redaction criticism, this sort of objection hardly carries any force. 2) The "lack of elaboration/interpretation" argument - discussed above. We will not provide examples of this below. 3) The "common lore" argument - it is said that GThom and the Gospels are actually dependent upon common lore, which was attributed to Jesus. This, like #1 above, sets off the fish-odor alarms, especially in the face of a lack of hard proof to be found in most cases - which would consist in samples of such lore from a time PRIOR TO the composition of the Gospels. And, finally: 4) The "late influence" argument. When all else fails, in swims the biggest fish to save the day: Patterson concedes the possibility of late influence by canonical Gospel material on later editions of GThom! Needless to say, this one sets off fish-odor alarms all over the continent and smacks hard enough of convenience to knock the toughest, roughest text-critical hombre out of the saddle. Patterson uses a form of this argument for his interpretation of GThom #9 and #20 (see above). [Patt.JGThom, 23, 92; Patt.5G, 66-7] And now to a few selected comparisons. We will use the canonical parallels reported by Miller: Matt 5.10--GTh 69a - The "blessed ate those who have been persecuted" beatitude. Here Patterson calls upon argument #1 above, citing a pre-Q source as the original and saying that "unless Thomas' author/editor deliberately broke up this collection, scattering its parts, using some while omitting others, dependence here upon the synoptics or their sources is unlikely" [Patt.JGThom, 51] - and of course, deliberate breakage, scattering, and omitting, as we have noted, is EXACTLY what the Gnostic and /or late redactor would be inclined to do, ESPECIALLY if he was working strictly from memory or if he wanted his readers to think that he was giving us genuine words of Jesus! (Elsewhere, Patterson several times make this sort of appeal, asking why the GThom author should have broken up, scattered, and ignored specific words or sayings, as a means of insisting that GThom must record an independent tradition, and begs for a "reasonable explanation" [ibid., 39] for such a possible phenomenon. May I suggest that he familiarize himself a bit more with the tactics of esotericists - both ancient AND modern!) Matt 5.14--GTh 32 (=POxy1.7) - The "city upon a hill cannot be hidden" phrase. Here Patterson admits grudgingly admits difficulties and resorts to argument #4. Matt 6.3--GTh 62 - "Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing." Patterson here says that "It seems best to regard these as two mutually independent uses of a popular topos" [Patt.JGThom, 47] - and it does seem best, when we are trying to keep our theory afloat! But Patterson offers no example of this phrase used elsewhere, which would be necessary to prove his point and advance it beyond mere theory-saving speculation. Matt 7.6--GTh 93 - "Pearls before swine." Patterson insists that it is "quite clear" that GThom is "preserving an independent tradition" [ibid., 66], but the reasoning given is hardly a clear-cut case: We are only told that an original saying underwent two different tradition-histories, which merely assumes the very thing to be proved. Matt 10.16--GTh 39 - Appeal is made to a combination of late influence (#4) and common lore (#3), although again, no example is given from another source. [ibid., 36] Matt 13.44--GTh 109 - The treasure in the field. Here Patterson calls upon common lore [ibid., 81], this time offering a single late rabbinic parallel which he claims indicates that "the figure was probably quite common in Jewish lore." We are not offered a copy of this rabbinic parallel for comparison, but even assuming that it is exact, the fact that it is from rabbinic sources at least raises the question of whether it was itself influenced by the Gospels. The proof offered is better than usual here, but still rather insufficient. Matt 13.47-50--GTh 8 - The wise fisherman. Here again Patterson calls upon "common lore," insisting upon "the widespread attestation of the fisher as a parabolic topos" without offering any specific proof of a saying with precisely the same structure - although allusion is made to Herodotus and Aesop's fables! He also says nothing about the indication of Gnostic thought in the special attention given to the "large" fish being the one chosen over all. [ibid., 72] Matt 15.13--GTh 40 - A plant rooted up. Recourse is again made to a common source, saying that "there is no reason why Thomas could not have come across a similar saying independently." [ibid., 76] And of course, there is no reason other than theory-saving to assume that he did, either! Mark 12:1-11--GTh 65 (the wicked tenants) - In The Fifth Gospel [72-3] Patterson cites this parallel as a supposed example of the genius of form criticism. The GThom version lacks "allegorical features" that link the parable to Jesus; i.e., it makes it no longer an allegory of Jesus' rejection. This argument might have some weight were it not for the fact that the GThom version also lacks a number of other incidental features -- and that removing the allegorical feaures linking the parable to Jesus is exactly what we would expect GThom to do, since the idea in Gnostic sayings is, again, for the reader to "figure it out" (hence the added appeal at the end for he who has ears to hear)! Luke 12.49--GTh 10 - Fire on the earth. Again, "common source" is appealed to, with snide reference again to "imagining Thomas carefully removing everything of redactional significance from the Lukan passage with all the skill of a modern redaction critic." [ibid., 23] All of this assumes, of course, that a) redaction criticism is viable as a practice in the way Patterson suggests, which is far from proven; and, b) the GThom author was not either working from memory or making deliberate changes - again, quite within the Gnostic praxis! John 1.9--GTh 24 (= POxy655.24) - Patterson acknowledges no parallel here. John 1.14--GTh 28 (= POxy1.28) - Nor here; in fact, Patterson does not even deal with this logia in his extensive analysis of the relationship of the logia to the Gospels! John 7.32-36--GTh 38 (= POxy655.38) - Patterson does not consider this to be a parallel. In addition to these, it is worthwhile to note a few of Patterson's other convoluted arguments for dating this or that logia of GThom earlier than its Synoptic counterpart. GThom #71, "I will destroy (this) house and no one will be able to build it," is regarded as picked up independently by GThom. In the Gospels, this saying refers to the Temple; in GThom, there is no reference - so how does Patterson explain independence? He suggests that the saying originally referred to the house of Herod (!) and was re-directed against the Temple by redactors after Agrippa's downfall in 44 AD - and observes that, "such a saying would have been redirected towards another political institution aligned with Roman occupation (and the) Temple would be a logical target." [ibid., 53] Needless to say, aside from the questionable link with Herod (if Jesus DID say such a thing against Herod, why on earth would it have been eliminated when OTHER, definitive anti-Herod quotes were preserved???), one may ask how much of a "political institution aligned with Roman occupation" the Temple could possibly be! Yes, the priestly cohorts often worked hand in hand with Rome, but the distaste was hardly directed towards the Temple itself! It is far more plausible that the author of GThom purposely edited this because it was in the canonical context a reference to Jesus' death and resurrection - which he would HAVE to do, since GThom purports to be the sayings of the "living (resurrected) Jesus" anyway! Also among Patterson's arguments for early-dating GThom is the conception that it "must come from a period in which particular communities were still appealing to the authoritative position of particular apostles as a way of guaranteeing the reliability of its traditions." [ibid., 116] At this point I must ask: When was this NOT being done? This was done not only in the time that Patterson supposes (around the time of Paul, and around 70-80 AD), but also much, much later, when all sorts of false gospels and documents were being attributed to apostles - even at the time when GThom is normally dated (140 AD).
One of the few critics who try to date the entirety of GThom to an early date is Stevan Davies. Unfortunately, as Blomberg notes, Davies uses questionable methodologies to establish an early date - often ignoring, retranslating, or attributing to glosses anything that indicates a late Gnostic view [Blom.Gosp5, 179], and ignoring the possibility of a Gnostic wisdom/Sophia mythology. Again, we may not truly take Gnostic influence BY ITSELF as proof of a late date for GThom, since Gnostic-like thought is obviously being countered already in the NT! It is therefore rather ironic that Davies orients his thesis towards the idea that GThom is "in no meaningful sense" a Gnostic document! [Davi.GThomCW, 3] His own thesis assumes that GThom is independent of the canonical Gospels, and reckons that GThom may be "as old as, or even older than Q" [ibid., 17] and was used as a handbook for newly baptized converts - much as we have suggested elsewhere that Q, if it did exist, may have been an apostolic handbook. In that respect, then, Davies' argument is rather more orthodox than that of other GThom proponents. Nevertheless, his arguments against GThom's Gnostic overtones are rather thin; for example, regarding the meaning of the "tilled earth" in GThom #20 referring to the true Gnostic, he agrees that this is a possible interpretation - but then says, "then again it may hint at any of a thousand other things." (!) [ibid., 26] What any one of these "thousand things" might be we are not told, but Davies' appeals are consistently of this measure, where it is said that any interpretation of the material is possible - which is sort of the point! The Gnostics were the sorts who WOULD leave the words of Jesus vague, because only the Gnostic initiate should be able to figure out the "true" meaning! Bottom line: Davies offers nothing - not even very many specifics! - to counter the assertion that GThom is a Gnostic-leaning document, and certainly no reason to suppose that it should be dated as early as he claims. His charges of bias and circular reasoning by GThom scholarship are simply not enough.
Let us recap briefly arguments offered by Miller in regards to reasons why GThom is overall a late document, and why its contents cannot be given the value ascribed to it by its proponents - then offer some observations of our own: 1.Usage of passages (traditions) UNIQUE to an individual gospel. In this regard, Miller offers an extensive listing of items unique to Matthew, Luke and John. These cites strongly suggest that the GThom author was familiar with the final form of these Gospels. 2.The use of the gospel authors' redactional elements by the GTh. [data: SHJ.499ff; MJ:1.135f] These are indications that the GThom author absorbed "idiosyncrasies of the individual authors in how that 'modified' the sources they used." Evidence indicates familiarity with Matthew and Luke, as well as John, as noted above. Tuckett [Tuck.QTEv, 354] adds: ...the number of times that the Gospel of Thomas appears to reflect the redactional activity of the Synoptic evangelists seems too great to be ascribed very easily to later scribal assimilation on every occasion. 3.The WIDE and VARIED usage of all the sources. The GThom author shows familiarity with the above-referenced material, along with elements of what is regarded as Q and a few triple-tradition elements (items attested in all three Synoptics). It is worthwhile to reprint the summary statement offered by Meier [Meie.MarJ, 137; see also Gart.TGThom, 67]: We arrive, then, at an intriguing picture: the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas that resemble sayings found in the canonical Gospels are not simply parallels to the Q material. Besides many Q sayings, there is a good deal of special M material, a fair representation of special L material, indications of Matthean and Lucan redactional traits, some pericopes from the triple tradition (though not necessarily in the specific Marcan form), some possible redactional traits from Mk, and a few parallels to statements in John's Gospel. This broad "spread" of Jesus' sayings over so many different streams of canonical Gospel tradition (and redaction!) forces us to face a fundamental question: Is it likely that the very early source of Jesus' sayings that the Gospel of Thomas supposedly drew upon contained within itself material belonging to such diverse branches of 1st-century Christian tradition as Q, special M, special L, Matthean and Lucan redaction, the triple tradition, and possibly the Johannine tradition? What were the source, locus, and composition of this incredibly broad yet very early tradition? Who were its bearers? Is it really conceivable that there was some early Christian source that embraced within itself all these different strands of what became the canonical Gospels? Or is it more likely that the Gospel of Thomas has conflated material from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, with possible use of Mark and John as well? Of the two hypotheses I find the second much more probable, especially given all we have seen of such conflating tendencies in other 2d-century Christian documents. Indeed, it may even be that the Gospel of Thomas is directly dependent not on the four canonical Gospels, but on some conflation of them that had already been composed in Greek. (For an extensive listing of Synoptic parallels overall, see GrFree.SSGThom, 103-4.) 4. ..(I)t should be pointed out that the Coptic version of GTh SEEMS to reflect the 2nd-century milieu in many ways (arguing that it was a post-canon phenomenon). We have explored this above. Now, let us add a few other minor conclusions: 5. GThom's relationships to other documents make an early date highly problematic. In particular: 5a. GThom is not the only "Thomas" document. Relative to the Thomas Gospel, Witherington writes of the sort of theory put forth by Robinson [With.JQ, 50]: It assumes that because Thomas is a collection of almost solely sayings material, we can then hypothesize that such documents came from communities where a "sayings Gospel" was the only or main form of Gospel in use. In view of the other Thomas documents mentioned above, this is a doubtful conclusion. The "other documents" referenced are The Book of Thomas and The Acts of Thomas - both of which originated in Syria, where the Thomas Gospel also likely came from, as evidenced by their similarity in calling that disciple "Judas Thomas." It has also been suggested that GThom is dependent on the Acts of Thomas. [Gart.TGThom, 272n] In other words, it is likely that these documents were issued as a set - sets hard against any speculation relative to GThom being primitive. 5b. GThom was found in a collection of mostly Gnostic documents that otherwise show clear and complete dependence on the Synoptic or other previous traditions. Tuckett [Tuck.NHGT |
