Historical Background of the Gospel of Thomas >>
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.
Limitations of This Study
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:
- The story of the discovery of GThom;
- An overview of its contents;
- The dating of the available mss. of GThom. For
reference, however, note that:
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.)
The Early Gospel Catches the Worm
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:
- Obviously - as we have pointed out elsewhere, Q is not an extant document, and there is no agreement that it was merely a "sayings" Gospel. This is yet another case of one questionable assertion being used to support another, and it is only the vague presumption of literary "evolution" behind the idea that a "list" document preceded the narrative documents of the Gospels.
- Even if Q was indeed a sayings Gospel, however, it is hardly warranted to describe TWO DOCUMENTS (Q and Thomas) as representing a "rich heritage" or proving anything about the use of sayings listings in Christian groups - especially when the "Christian" group to whom GThom is generally ascribed was less than orthodox in outlook! (To be sure, some linkage is made to Jewish sayings works such as Proverbs, but from a purely Christian [and/or pseudo-Christian] standpoint, we have no grounds whatsoever for extrapolating ANY kind of heritage - much less a "rich" one!)
- By the same token, the "sayings" format also appears in documents that no one dares to date early, such as the Gospel of Philip [Jenk.HG, 69-70]. This work is "an anthology of seemingly unconnected sayings and statements, without any narrative or biographical structure," many of these "quite as brief and cryptic" as those in GThom.
- The idea that the orthodox church rejected the
"sayings genre" because heretics took it over is unsupported by
historical evidence, is totally speculative - and, may I add, is hardly
reflective of a church that was not in the habit of giving up on
ANYTHING to outsiders and submitted to martyrdom and persecution when
things got tough! That no such controversy over the so-called "sayings
genre" is alluded to ANYWHERE in the NT or in early church literature
at ANY time is a fairly large black eye for the pro-GThom position
here! ("Brothers, know ye not that liars make lists of sayings?
Therefore do not read them." - Paul.) Some, particularly Patterson,
have attempted to read into Paul's arguments versus "wisdom" in 1
Corinthians a polemic against "sayings" gospels, but this is rather a
stretch - Paul says NOTHING about any sort of "genre" for the wisdom
presented! Furthermore:
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.
- Indications are that the format of GThom was typical
of Gnosticism. Gartner [Gart.TGThom, 24-6] observes that the simple
"question and answer" format and the beatitude - both found in good
quantity in GThom - were favorite forms of Gnostic teaching. There is
thus good reason to see the "sayings" format as reflective of GThom's
Gnostic tendencies. (See more below.) Thus Gartner (ibid., 32), citing
the vagueness of the contents and format of Q, concludes:
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:
- If I may be politically incorrect for a moment, and
speak from a strictly literary standpoint - I really doubt, contra
Robinson, that it could ever be appropriate to speak of a "genre" of
sayings listings at all! Today we would hardly classify Bartlett's
Quotations or The Wit and Wisdom of Louis L'Amour as being
part of an established "genre"! The simple fact is that it does not
take a lot of brains to think, "Gee, I'll make a list of sayings!" and
one need not consult any hard and fast set of rules for writing down
such things. When we speak of a genre, we usually have an elaborate set
of rules in mind for structure, form, and so on, but there is no such
set of rules for works like Proverbs and GThom. The "sayings genre" is
really rather simple: We collect the sayings somehow, and write them
down using whatever method we please - themes, chronology, or (as
likely happened in ancient times) plain old memory. Therefore, I think
it highly unlikely that "genre" issues ever entered into the debate
over GThom at all. The whole genre argument is a waste of time and
naught but a case of overextended argumentation trying to find
parallels and solutions where none even exist.
Published by http://www.tektonics.org/qt/thomasgospel.html