Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:21 am Hope this is relevant. Here are some of my questions about the "gospel" title and genre--

1) What explains the use of the same word for two very different types of writing: bioi (narratives) on the one hand, and wisdom/parenetic discourses on the other (such as gThomas, gPhilip, gTruth)

(I personally dispute that any of the gospels are truly βίοι: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1724.) Once the term "gospel" had been applied to one or more core texts, I think it was very easy for that term to be applied to other texts which, despite belonging to different genres, served similar purposes in the Christian circles in and/or for which they were composed. Compare modern "gospels" as extreme examples of this possibility, such as The Gospel According to André.

2) Can a broad historical argument be made that all these texts were jockeying with each other to inherit and develop the original Pauline gospel, which itself is a riff on themes in both the prophets and in Roman imperial ideology?

I personally think that Paul's influence has been somewhat overblown, and suspect that at least some gospel texts would/could have been written even if Paul had never existed. In some circles, yes, Paul is paramount. In others, not so much.

ETA: I think that Paul made a big splash in the small pond that was Christianity at the time, but the pond was there both before and after Paul.

3) Is there any significance in the textual critical evidence about differences in how the term gospel was deployed in the 2nd c? For example, "euangellion kata __" is the NT formula, whereas the coptic gThomas apparently just has "the gospel of Thomas" written at the end of the scroll.

This is not actually the case. The Coptic manuscript of Thomas has "gospel according to Thomas" (corresponding to εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Θωμᾶ in Greek) just like the others: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1869:


The translations do not always make this clear. But all of the gospels, canonical or otherwise, tended to follow the same formula: κατὰ Θωμᾶ, κατὰ Πέτρον, κατὰ Ἑβραίους, κατὰ Αἰγυπτίους, and so on.

gmx wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:40 am
The following is only going to be tangentially relevant to the OP, but the OP got my mind thinking in this direction. ...

Papias refers to two writings, one by Mark, and one by Matthew, but does not call them gospels. Does not use that word "gospel" as far as I know. Papias is writing anywhere from 95-130 AD, depending on your worldview. He doesn't mention any writings of Thomas.

Some random thoughts:

• Papias apparently wrote Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord in 5 Volumes
• Papias imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable [..] as what came from the living and abiding voice
• Papias says that when anyone who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say

The things that strike me about the statements of Papias here are that:

• he was interested in the living voice but talks apologetically about the writings of Mark and Matthew
• he has presumably learnt the Sayings of the Lord from the living voice, but seems to have asked minutely after the sayings of the disciples, rather than the sayings of the lord himself
• he talks about the bowels of Judas and relates stories about the daughters of Philip, resurrection of the dead in his own time, miraculous survival from poisoning, events which do not appear to be immediately relevant to the Sayings of the Lord

And with that, please continue with the on-topic discussion.

I think this is timely and pertinent to considering the early texts and early goings-on.

I think in the early days (of whatever was going on ie. under whatever structure, if at all) that gospel just meant 'good news': euagelion, εὐαγγέλιον, ου, τό.

ie. there developed a 'meme' to announce good news ie. εὐαγγελίζω, euaggelizó -


(appeals to etymology can be a fallacy but i think the etymology is relevant in this case.)

Perhaps 'exposition of the sayings of the Lord' was a forerunner or an early parallel, concurrent terminology?

.

gmx wrote:

Papias refers to two writings, one by Mark, and one by Matthew, but does not call them gospels. Does not use that word "gospel" as far as I know. Papias is writing anywhere from 95-130 AD, depending on your worldview. He doesn't mention any writings of Thomas.

Ah, good point. I'm a big Papias fan of late, so I place his omission of Thomas with his omission of Luke and John, i.e., that he predates it.

Edit: And I'm with Ben regarding the idea that Papias' reference to Matthew's "logia" could (and probably does) mean a narrative gospel.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 9:34 am I personally think that Paul's influence has been somewhat overblown, and suspect that at least some gospel texts would/could have been written even if Paul had never existed. In some circles, yes, Paul is paramount. In others, not so much.

ETA: I think that Paul made a big splash in the small pond that was Christianity at the time, but the pond was there both before and after Paul.

Thanks for your observations, especially about the textual evidence. I disagree with you about Paul and the term "gospel," but the issue is large and worth exploring, so I started a new thread.

It may be worth noting, that in gnostic circles, the title Gospel appears to have been applied to a very broad range of material e.g. the Gospel of Truth.

Andrew Criddle

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:03 pm If the canonical (or even just the synoptic gospels) were finalised late, in conjunction with 'Marcion's Gospel' as proposed by Jason BeDuhn, Markus Vinzent, and Matthias Klinghardt (and perhaps other scholars w.r.t. Luke), might that mean extra-canonical texts such as the Gospel of Thomas could have preceded their final extant versions? Might that mean the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas could have come from a historical Jesus?

That might even mean that they merely came from a text, with its main character named IS.

Do you see parallels between that text and the canonicals?

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:47 pm You know Goodacre has argued extensively that Judas Thomas (my emphasis viz. the full name) shows signs of being written after the canonical gospels, right?

A lot of others argue the exact opposite as well
I never heard a convincing argument for the late dating, it's usually dependent of some very vague similarities to the gospels
But the early side's got in it's favour: the earlier forms of most sayings, the reference to James, lack of 2nd cent. theology, etc

What convinced me was the saying in Matthew about cutting off your hand, taking out your eye or go to hell, looks like a corruption of GoT saying 12 which is also preserved elsewhere. So its evidence Matthew wrote his saying, how he thought saying 12 meant and should sound like, fitting in with his theology. This one connection proves Thomas earlier

davidmartin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:40 pmWhat convinced me was the saying in Matthew about cutting off your hand, taking out your eye or go to hell, looks like a corruption of GoT saying 12 which is also preserved elsewhere. So its evidence Matthew wrote his saying, how he thought saying 12 meant and should sound like, fitting in with his theology. This one connection proves Thomas earlier

Do you mean saying 22?

And can you explain what the argument for Matthew depending upon Thomas is here? The part in Thomas about two becoming one and the female becoming like the male is widespread. But the part about hand and foot and eye is not usually included alongside that saying. And where does Mark come in?

Do you mean saying 22?

And can you explain what the argument for Matthew depending upon Thomas is here? The part in Thomas about two becoming one and the female becoming like the male is widespread. But the part about hand and foot and eye is not usually included alongside that saying. And where does Mark come in?

OK, so in Matthew it has:
if thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body be cast into hell. and if thy right hand causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell

I see this as a reinterpretation of
When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom].

So Matthew saw eyes and hands being somehow changed and made it physical (with a bonus hell reference for free!)
There could be other connections of this Thomas saying to the Matthew one or it's context (eg Jesus is talking about marriage/adultery in Matthew, and male and female becoming one is associated with marriage)

Sure, that saying was independent as it's also in other places as you noted, so there's no direct proof it connects to Thomas itself
What i meant was based on this Thomas preserves the original form like it does other sayings

And what about the same thing in Mark
"And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched"

davidmartin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:18 pmOK, so in Matthew it has:
if thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body be cast into hell. and if thy right hand causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell

I see this as a reinterpretation of
When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom].

So Matthew saw eyes and hands being somehow changed and made it physical (with a bonus hell reference for free!)

What, in your view, is the meaning of the saying (and I am referring only to the saying about hands, feet, and eyes here) in Thomas? Also, why are plural eyes replacing a single eye, but a singular hand and a singular foot replacing singular examples of each?

Same question about Matthew and Mark. What, in your view, is the meaning of the saying in those two books?

(I am trying to understand what it is you are seeing in these texts that makes you think the direction was Thomas to Matthew/Mark rather than the other way around; your reasons are not clear to me yet. You quote the passage from Matthew, and you quote the passage from Thomas, and you give your opinion that Matthew reinterpreted Thomas here, but you have not yet said why that is your opinion.)