Reflections on Teaching Gnosticism IV: The Gospel of Thomas
This week's Gnosticism lecture focused on the so-called School of Thomas. Our discussion looked at evidence for dating the text (whether early or late) and the implications this has for its study. As a way to present some of this discussion, I thought I would include here a condensation of my own thoughts on the Gospel of Thomas that I prepared for another forum. The Wedgewood Baptish Church in Charlotte, North Carolina contacted me several months ago asking if I would respond to questions about the Christian Apocrypha put forward by members of their congregation. I just obtained these questions (thirteen in total), and one of them deals specifically with the Gospel of Thomas. Here is the question and my response:
Do you agree with Crossan that the Gospel of Thomas comes from the first century and is possibly contemporaneous with “Q”? If not, why?
I am open to the possibility that apocryphal gospels could be early texts, or at least could contain early traditions. I do not dismiss the possibility a priori as some scholars do. But we need to look at the evidence:
1. What do we mean by the “Gospel of Thomas”? The only complete version of the text we have is a fourth-century Coptic manuscript. Our other evidence comes in three Greek fragments of the late second and third century. The Greek evidence is quite different from the Coptic; obviously it has gone through some development in the intervening years (and even the Greek fragments may not represent adequately the original text). It is methodologically dangerous to use a fourth-century source (and in another language to boot) to discuss a first or second century text.
2. Therefore, if one sees evidence of “lateness” in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (e.g., Trinitarian formulae, Gnostic affinities), it is quite possible that these are additions to the text. But we may only want them to be additions so that we can establish a case for GT being early. We have to be careful not to let our desires dictate how we evaluate the evidence.
3. Another issue with GT is its parallels with now-canonical texts. It has parallels with Q (Matt/Luke), M (Matt only material), L (Luke only material), Mark, John, and some would say letters of Paul and Revelation. If GT is early, the author had one hell of a library before him. But, again, some of these parallels may be later additions to the text.
4. Two pieces of evidence do lead me to think that GT, at some point in its development, was an early text: its lack of narrative context (it is only a collection of sayings, and form critics for centuries have thought that Jesus’ sayings first circulated independently of narrative), and signs in at least some of the sayings that GT’s versions of synoptic sayings are in an earlier form than we find them in the synoptics. The esteem granted to James, the brother of Jesus in log. 12, is also convincing evidence of an early stratum in the gospel.
5. I find arguments for GT being a late second-century text unconvincing. First, the material evidence is quite early (one fragment is dated ca. 150-200); we don’t get much earlier than that for even the canonical gospels. Associating the text with Gnosticism could place the text late, but only if Gnosticism is a late development in Christianity (and I’m not convinced that it is) and only if GT is Gnostic (and I’m not convinced that it is). And efforts to show that GT shows signs of Matthean or Lukan redaction (i.e., it appears to have taken material from these gospels rather than the reverse or both have used a common source) or to show that GT obtained its material from Tatian’s Diatessaron (a harmony of the canonical gospels created ca. 150 CE) are also not convincing.
Getting back to the question: is GT possibly contemporaneous with Q? Perhaps at an early stage in its development, yes. I think Crossan (and others) are on the right track to isolate GT/Q overlaps and consider these good evidence for early Jesus traditions.
Have you come over to the dark (Baptist) side? Phil
Oh, forgot to say that this is an excellent succinct answer to the question. Phil
Prof. Harland, I am honoured that you have read my blog post and added your comments. I am not worthy.
But seriously…
Don’t you have your own blog?
But seriously…
Thanks.
you tell him prof Burke. but seriously…..I also have to say that when I first read GT I also noticed a lack of narrative context. I would also imagine that if it was a later text, it wold have had some editorial reshaping (like all the other books in the bible), which would allow it to flow much more smoothly. Also, the fact that scholars had for a long time believed that Jesus’ says where without narrative form is a very important indicator that that GT was possible and early text
I know you stated that we may only want certain things such as Trinitarian formulae to be additions so that we can establish a case for GT being an early text. But my question is, if we have a pretty strong idea that such things were in fact late additions, how dangerous would it be to consider them additions, therefore allowing us to remove them, in order to get closer to the original text?
Bahram, the only reaons we call them “late additions” is because we begin with the assumption that it is early. Therefore, anything “late” is considered an anachronism. If we begin thinking it late then the Trinitarian formulae (and other things) will prove that it is late. If we begin without assumptions, we see evidence of late and early and then try to puzzle out why these are there.
I’m just hoping some of smart stuff from your blog will rub off on mine.
Phil
I have an example of Thomas taking Lukan redaction over Matthew.
Matthew 23:25-26 – “you wash the outside of cups and plates but inside they are full of corruption; blind Pharisee, first wash the inside of the cup and then the outside will be clean too”. Good parallelism there.
Luke 11:39-40 – “you wash the outside of cups and plates but inside YOU are full of corruption; you fool, did not the one who made the outside also make the inside?”. Parallelism is broken. Q skeptics commonly say that Luke has adapted Matthew as well as Luke, and this is an example.
Thomas 89 – “why 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?” – this is in question form, like Luke; and it has the same jarring transition from washing, to the one who made the cup in the first place.
David, Thanks for this. I do take issue with your example, however. What GT is evidencing here is a version of the double-tradition (or “Q”) saying that agrees better with Luke than Matthew. We have no way of knowing whether Matt or Luke is closer to the original version of the saying (unless you’re an Oxford Hypothesis supporter, in which case Luke has changed Matt and, therefore, GT is copying Luke). Luke could very well preserve the original better, and that is the version that GT is using. If you have a triple tradition saying (i.e., something in Mark, Matt, and Luke) and Luke (or Matt) changes it, and those changes are reflected in GT, then I think you have a good case for GT being secondary. Craig Evans tried to make a case for Lukan redaction in POxy 654.5 and Luke 8:17 in his book “Fabricating Jesus.” I challenged his position in a previous post (select Fabricating Jesus from the menu to your left). I have yet to see a satisfying case for canonical redaction in GT.
Howdy all,
What I find most interesting is how Gospel of Thomas is repeatedly used as a jumping board for the promotion of individual spirituality. The film “Stigmata” made consistent references to the opening passages that tell the reader that the kingdom of God is within them and that God is everywhere. Pagels’ “The Gnostic Gospels” also seems to place a lot of Gnostic works in this light.
What I am curious about is whether this idea is just a Western idealized version of these works or whether they are naturally inherent in the text?
Cheers,
Joshua
well done, bro
I’ll have to back down from the argument that Luke relied on Matthew as well as on Mark. It’s a distraction and I’ll propose that hypothesis, or not, in some other venue.
What I meant to illustrate here is that Matthew is easier to remember than Luke = Thomas. Matthew’s version would have been closest to the oral tradition of the three. It’s certainly the most poetical. I did attempt to describe that much, although if I couldn’t convince you of it then yeah, I wasn’t convincing :^)
But of the three we are, at least, agreed that it’s Thomas whose overall structure is, elsewhere, closest the oral tradition. Luke as you know sets out to be a historian writing a prose account, which is what we see here.
So – if one accepts that Matthew’s is closest to the original tradition – then it’s more likely Luke who first wrote this non-poetic version of the saying than Thomas. If Thomas had been more familiar with the oral version then he’d have written it. (Whether Luke got it from a Matthew codex or jotted down a paraphrase from memory isn’t important here.)