Intertextuality between John and Thomas

[DharmaChrsitian]

Is anybody interested in the theory that John's Gospel was written in part to challenge early Christians who were using the Gospel of Thomas? (Note: This hypothesis would not necessarily mean that John's Gospel is inaccurate, or that Thomas' is accurate).

The evidence breaks down into two points as far as I can tell. On the one hand, John's gospel consistently shows Thomas as a figure who misunderstands Jesus' teaching (most famously in the 'doubting Thomas' incident, but in a couple of other related scenes as well - Lazarus). He's consistently misunderstanding the meaning of the resurrection and the Christian life. (In John 11:16 he misunderstands Lazarus' death. In John 14:5 He doesn't know the way. In John 20:24-29, he doesn't believe in the resurrection - contrasted especially in John's gospel with the 'beloved disciple' who believes immediately, even before Peter.)

The second point is that John shares a lot of themes with Thomas. Their both much more concerned with the spiritual significance of Christ's ministry. They both speak of 'the light' as the essence of Christ's ministry. However, in John the light is Christ alone, while in Thomas the light is something within us all. (Massive oversimplification obviously, but this isn't my dissertation). This could might be a kind of concession on John's part, to acknowledge that the Thomasian school was onto something with their idea of the light, but that they'd missed the point by thinking themselves equal to Jesus.

The significance of this hypothesis is that it could tell us something about the dating of either text. John has traditionally been considered to be the last gospel, because it's the most theologically developed, it's the longest, and it names specific names that early gospel writers (Mark for example) might have chosen not to, as a way of protecting the identity of the living - (And for other reasons which I'm not as familiar with). If the hypothesis turns out to be true, then it could mean that Thomas was complied before John.

The idea has been explored by
Christopher Skinner
George J. Riley
April Deconick
Elaine Pagels
and probably others I'm not familiar with.

https://www.amazon.com/John-Thomas-Conflict-Johannine-Characterization/dp/1606086146
https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Reconsidered-Thomas-John-Controversy/dp/0800628462
https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Belief-Secret-Gospel-Thomas/dp/0375703160
https://www.amazon.com/Voices-Mystics-Christian-Discourse-Literature/dp/184127190X

 

[συνείδησις]

Interesting theory. Various church fathers wrote that the Gospel of Thomas was a forgery of the Manicaean gnostics. I'm not sure when they came on the scene.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the gospel of Thomas just a collection of logia, sayings attributed to Christ? As there is no narrative structure, sayings can be added or taken away at will, without it being clear this has occurred. So to decide its date is difficult, as some logia might be very early, some very late.

That John reflects an anti-Gnostic tradition is possible, as Gnosticism was definitely already present at that time (some theorise it predates Christianity, and therefore merely became syncretic with it). How much this specifically relates to the Gospel of Thomas is anyone's guess.

 

[DharmaChrsitian]

Yes, Thomas is a collection of logia. But I’m not sure exactly why that it makes it less set in stone than a narrative. Could you elaborate on why you think that?

John would have to be a denial of more than simply Gnosticism - it would be a form of Gnosticism specifically associated with Thomas. Without the Thomasian element there isn’t much evidence for the theory.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Yes, Thomas is a collection of logia. But I’m not sure exactly why that it makes it less set in stone than a narrative. Could you elaborate on why you think that?

John would have to be a denial of more than simply Gnosticism - it would be a form of Gnosticism specifically associated with Thomas. Without the Thomasian element there isn’t much evidence for the theory.

It's quite simple. Stories have internal structure, a narrative. Disparate sayings do not. So the latter can be added to, removed, swopped around, etc. without being able to clearly tell.
With a story, when things are added or such, there are tell-tale signs, incongruencies, especially in Hellenistic writings that in general follow a specific writing style, with repetition and literary tropos.

Think of the story of Little Red Riding Hood, but while on her way to Grandma's house, she first stops for a picnic and meets a gnome that cryptically foretells that she should beware appearances. It is easy to spot the added material, even if you didn't know the original story, as human storytelling tends to follow the same patterns (hence ideas like the Monomyth). Stories have an exposition, a body, a crisis point, and then a resolution. Exposition suddenly appearing in the body of the narrative and such, are tell-tale signs of added material.
In the Biblical narrative, this is seen in things like the Documentary hypothesis, where presumed disparate strains of narrative can be teased apart from the Pentateuch, based on structure and style.
So when looking at the Gospels, they are clearly once-off written units (barring one or two verses that might be additional material and the long ending of Mark), though perhaps drawing material from one another or other sources. So something placing the text unequivocally in the first century, like getting Pilate's title right, sets the entirety (barring those caveats) at that time.

With a set of sayings, you can't do this. Some may appear to be of kind with ideas prevalent in a certain time, but they might just be archaic or early instances, instead of additions. You really can't tell. With a Gnostic text, the Gnostics being great syncreticists and so forth, this is problematic. So portions, or the entirety of the thing, might be early or late, but it is difficult to determine on textual criticism. So if portions of John seem to be written contra certain logia, it does not really help date the work in entirety; maybe just one or two extent Gnostic ideas, which might even be framed or understood differently; or an early adoption of Thomas by a Gnostic sect.

 

[DharmaChrsitian]

It's quite simple. Stories have internal structure, a narrative. Disparate sayings do not. So the latter can be added to, removed, swopped around, etc. without being able to clearly tell.
With a story, when things are added or such, there are tell-tale signs, incongruencies, especially in Hellenistic writings that in general follow a specific writing style, with repetition and literary tropos.

Think of the story of Little Red Riding Hood, but while on her way to Grandma's house, she first stops for a picnic and meets a gnome that cryptically foretells that she should beware appearances. It is easy to spot the added material, even if you didn't know the original story, as human storytelling tends to follow the same patterns (hence ideas like the Monomyth). Stories have an exposition, a body, a crisis point, and then a resolution. Exposition suddenly appearing in the body of the narrative and such, are tell-tale signs of added material.
In the Biblical narrative, this is seen in things like the Documentary hypothesis, where presumed disparate strains of narrative can be teased apart from the Pentateuch, based on structure and style.
So when looking at the Gospels, they are clearly once-off written units (barring one or two verses that might be additional material and the long ending of Mark), though perhaps drawing material from one another or other sources. So something placing the text unequivocally in the first century, like getting Pilate's title right, sets the entirety (barring those caveats) at that time.

With a set of sayings, you can't do this. Some may appear to be of kind with ideas prevalent in a certain time, but they might just be archaic or early instances, instead of additions. You really can't tell. With a Gnostic text, the Gnostics being great syncreticists and so forth, this is problematic. So portions, or the entirety of the thing, might be early or late, but it is difficult to determine on textual criticism. So if portions of John seem to be written contra certain logia, it does not really help date the work in entirety; maybe just one or two extent Gnostic ideas, which might even be framed or understood differently; or an early adoption of Thomas by a Gnostic sect.

Okay I’m going to mostly set aside the debate about whether sayings are categorically less likely to bare additions than narratives, something I’m still not convinced of (look at the research on false memories, look at any oral culture anywhere - first hand accounts an narratives contain falaifications and alterations almost by definition) - the point is that it wouldn’t just be ‘one or two ideas’ of Gnosticism, it would be the dominant theme. Namely, that of gnosis, that Christ’s ministry isn’t about him being uniquely Godly unlike the rest of us, but was designed to awaken us to an inner Godliness which we all share. If John was intended as a polemical challenge against this, then it would indicate that belief system existed in early Christia circles prior to the writing of a canonical gospel - and that they we’re specifically associated with Thomas. That is something we can know and it is something worth knowing.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Okay I’m going to mostly set aside the debate about whether sayings are categorically less likely to bare additions than narratives, something I’m still not convinced of (look at the research on false memories, look at any oral culture anywhere - first hand accounts an narratives contain falaifications and alterations almost by definition) -

Yes, but we are talking about the written word. Not something so malleable. When re-writing a story or altering it, it becomes apparent, as it was put down as a unit. In like manner, a story-teller creates his story as a unit, and later adaptations that alter said unit, can also be seen. Look at how Iranians treat the History of Iskander and Daras - Alexander the Great and Darius - vis-a-vis Ferdowsi for a good example of this.

the point is that it wouldn’t just be ‘one or two ideas’ of Gnosticism, it would be the dominant theme. Namely, that of gnosis, that Christ’s ministry isn’t about him being uniquely Godly unlike the rest of us, but was designed to awaken us to an inner Godliness which we all share. If John was intended as a polemical challenge against this, then it would indicate that belief system existed in early Christia circles prior to the writing of a canonical gospel - and that they we’re specifically associated with Thomas. That is something we can know and it is something worth knowing.

Yes, but we know that idea was already prevalent. As I said, many argue that Gnosticism is a pre-Christian religion that merely became syncretic to Christianity. John written partly as polemic to it, really tells us very little we don't already know, and frankly does not help date the Gospel of Thomas very well at all, or at least not even close to definitively.

What are you trying to prove? Do you want to imply that Gnostic ideas were somehow the 'original Christian' ones? We already think there were early Gnostic adoption of Christian ideas, since at least the early second century. Gnosticism seems far closer to some form of Zurvanite Mazdaism or Esoteric Second Temple Jewish sects, or even Neoplatonic Philosophy, than what we know of the earliest Christian texts (Paul and the Synoptics). But if some Gnostic text was in use prior to this, it really changes our understanding minimally, as things like Valentinianism were early themselves, comparatively speaking.

 

[DharmaChrsitian]

Yes, but we are talking about the written word. Not something so malleable. When re-writing a story or altering it, it becomes apparent, as it was put down as a unit. In like manner, a story-teller creates his story as a unit, and later adaptations that alter said unit, can also be seen. Look at how Iranians treat the History of Iskander and Daras - Alexander the Great and Darius - vis-a-vis Ferdowsi for a good example of this.

Yes, but we know that idea was already prevalent. As I said, many argue that Gnosticism is a pre-Christian religion that merely became syncretic to Christianity. John written partly as polemic to it, really tells us very little we don't already know, and frankly does not help date the Gospel of Thomas very well at all, or at least not even close to definitively.

What are you trying to prove? Do you want to imply that Gnostic ideas were somehow the 'original Christian' ones? We already think there were early Gnostic adoption of Christian ideas, since at least the early second century. Gnosticism seems far closer to some form of Zurvanite Mazdaism or Esoteric Second Temple Jewish sects, or even Neoplatonic Philosophy, than what we know of the earliest Christian texts (Paul and the Synoptics). But if some Gnostic text was in use prior to this, it really changes our understanding minimally, as things like Valentinianism were early themselves, comparatively speaking.

What it does (if true) is establish that Thomasian Gnosticism wasn’t a later development as is often claimed. This would provide evidence of an early dating, not just for Gnosticism itself, but of a school associated with Thomas, and by extension some early version of the gospel of Thomas itself - specially one that practiced a theology antithetical to the Joahnine tradition. While I think that proof of such intertextuality could cast doubts upon the legitimacy of johns gospel, I am not trying to prove that Gnosticism is somehow the ‘original Christianity’ (a concept I reject on principle). Nor am I attempting to reject the standard orthodox teaching as ahistorical (Personally I do accept the hypothesis that Mark contains eyewitness claims that trace back to the life of Peter.) - I am simply fascinated in the historical Jesus, as I expect any devout chrsitian would be, and yes - I would appreciate it if there was more reliable documentation of his ministry outside the historically orthodox conception.

The simple fact that Gnosticism predates Jesus’ ministry doesn’t mean an early date for Thomasian gnosticism bears no historical intrigue. It would seriously complicate standard dismissals of its illegitimacy on the grounds of its simply being a ‘later tradition’. Particularly I’m thinking of the common claim that everything Thomas has in common with the Synoptics was early, and that all Gnostic ideas were added later. Intertextuality with John challenges that defense, suggesting an early date for the gospel of Thomas, and implicating some of its unorthodox content as potentially historical expressions of Christ’s teaching.

The thing is that I am not trying to prove that any particular theology is the ‘true Christianity’ - I am simply interested in history, and I’m willing to pursue the non-canonical texts with an open mind. Why is it that a person cannot be intrigued by the potential historicity of a non-canonical text without being accused of holding some kind of wild anti-establishment conspiracy theory? Its that kind of habitual defensiveness which makes me suspect very seriously that, if there was serious evidence for the historicity of a non-canonical, that myriad scholars would miss it of vain desire for it to be ahistorical. It is a series disproprtisontely defensive reactions to this kind of minimally threatening consideration, of which your response is one of many, that has compeled my interest in the gospel of Thomas.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

What it does (if true) is establish that Thomasian Gnosticism wasn’t a later development as is often claimed. This would provide evidence of an early dating, not just for Gnosticism itself, but of a school associated with Thomas, and by extension some early version of the gospel of Thomas itself - specially one that practiced a theology antithetical to the Joahnine tradition. While I think that proof of such intertextuality could cast doubts upon the legitimacy of johns gospel, I am not trying to prove that Gnosticism is somehow the ‘original Christianity’ (a concept I reject on principle). Nor am I attempting to reject the standard orthodox teaching as ahistorical (Personally I do accept the hypothesis that Mark contains eyewitness claims that trace back to the life of Peter.) - I am simply fascinated in the historical Jesus, as I expect any devout chrsitian would be, and yes - I would appreciate it if there was more reliable documentation of his ministry outside the historically orthodox conception.

The simple fact that Gnosticism predates Jesus’ ministry doesn’t mean an early date for Thomasian gnosticism bears no historical intrigue. It would seriously complicate standard dismissals of its illegitimacy on the grounds of its simply being a ‘later tradition’. Particularly I’m thinking of the common claim that everything Thomas has in common with the Synoptics was early, and that all Gnostic ideas were added later. Intertextuality with John challenges that defense, suggesting an early date for the gospel of Thomas, and implicating some of its unorthodox content as potentially historical expressions of Christ’s teaching.

The thing is that I am not trying to prove that any particular theology is the ‘true Christianity’ - I am simply interested in history, and I’m willing to pursue the non-canonical texts with an open mind. Why is it that a person cannot be intrigued by the potential historicity of a non-canonical text without being accused of holding some kind of wild anti-establishment conspiracy theory? Its that kind of habitual defensiveness which makes me suspect very seriously that, if there was serious evidence for the historicity of a non-canonical, that myriad scholars would miss it of vain desire for it to be ahistorical. It is a series disproprtisontely defensive reactions to this kind of minimally threatening consideration, of which your response is one of many, that has compeled my interest in the gospel of Thomas.

No need to go tilting at windmills my friend, or becoming rancorous. I don't understand why you are so intent on dismissing the importance of the fact that the Gospel of Thomas is a collection of Logia then. For this is of utmost importance if what you are interested in is the historical narrative.

For the Gospel of Thomas comes from Nag Hammadi, which was probably buried in the 4th century (so quite late, from an "historical Jesus" perspective). The Oxyrhynchus papyri seem to quote some of it, from about the 2nd century, but with significant differences in wording and order of logia - so our extent Gospel of Thomas most likely underwent numerous redactions. So barring some new earlier manuscript, the argument for a late date is much stronger than an early one. Even those that support an early date, do so for the idea of a central group of logia, not the vast majority of the work - at least from what I have read on the thing.

Thing is, the Orthodox sources will always be our best sources. Simply because they have a long paper trail. The Church Fathers quote them, opponents of Christianity quote them (like Porphyry or Celsus), and we have fragments datable to the 2nd century. No other source we have is so secure as to early date. So on current knowledge, as far as I am aware, your best bet for reconstructing an 'historical Jesus' lies in the four Gospels. The other infancy Gospels and Gnostic Gospels can certainly give you some perspective on other traditions, but they are always built on dubious quicksand as to date. If John is written against a 'Thomasian Gnosticism', it still sets that Gnosticism in the early 2nd century at best, and the Gospel of Thomas is unlikely to reflect its form at that time very well, but rather a much later iteration thereof. So our historical Jesus still rests with the Synoptics firstly, and John secondly (due to early paper trail) , before the Gospel of Thomas should even be considered, by Historical-Critical methodology.

 

[DharmaChrsitian]

So barring some new earlier manuscript, the argument for a late date is much stronger than an early one. Even those that support an early date, do so for the idea of a central group of logia, not the vast majority of the work - at least from what I have read on the thing.

If John is written against a 'Thomasian Gnosticism', it still sets that Gnosticism in the early 2nd century at best, and the Gospel of Thomas is unlikely to reflect its form at that time very well, but rather a much later iteration thereof. So our historical Jesus still rests with the Synoptics firstly, and John secondly (due to early paper trail) , before the Gospel of Thomas should even be considered, by Historical-Critical methodology.

Sorry if my tone came off unnecessarily hostile. My frustration is coming from what I see as a gap in your logic. I don’t understand how you can say, on the one hand we might be able to demonstrate that portions of Thomas predate John, and on the other continue to claim John is a better historical source. If John knew about Thomas that would mean some of the Thomasian logia would have predated John, and those sayings would represent an earlier and therefore more historically valuable strain of teaching. This would not be true of the gospel as found at Nag Hammadi, but -and this is the crucial point that I think you’re overlooking- we could identify particular logia as predating John, because they embody the theology John is designed to challenge. And this is why I don’t understand your conclusion, that somehow Thomas’ date is necessarily late (you say early 2nd century at best) - but I’m failing to see how there’s any necessary limit on how early it could have been. If all we know is that it’s earlier than John, then might it not be much earlier than John? It’s especially interesting I think in light of Q theory, and the anthropological shift in thinking about the early Jesus movement as an oral culture that likely would have likely utilized sayings before narratives. I see no reason for assuming some core of the sayings, if not many of them, go back to ~30ce. Am I missing something in your reasoning?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t a lot of the historical Jesus study already emphasize Thomas considerably more than John? I was actually today just leafing theough the The Five Gospels, as published by The Jesus Seminar, and they consider virtually nothing within John to have historical value. Thomas on the other hand they give considerably more credibility. But maybe their work isn’t as normative as I’m making it out to be?

And one last point, more of a question really - I’m curious on this issue of secondary attestation. Don’t the early fathers make considerable reference to a variety of non canonicals? Seeing as how we don’t have any early manuscripts of the
canonicals, doesn’t that mean that an early copy of a non-canonical text would be just as historically valuable as anything in the orthodox chain of custody? I don’t imagine you believe that the canonicals mere being accepted within the tradition makes them more historically reliable. So is there something I’m missing here? This portion of your argument I had a hard time wrapping my head around, especially given the massive archeological finds of the last century - it seems very possible that there’s more out there waiting to be found.

 

[ubicaritas]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the gospel of Thomas just a collection of logia, sayings attributed to Christ? As there is no narrative structure, sayings can be added or taken away at will, without it being clear this has occurred. So to decide its date is difficult, as some logia might be very early, some very late.

That John reflects an anti-Gnostic tradition is possible, as Gnosticism was definitely already present at that time (some theorise it predates Christianity, and therefore merely became syncretic with it). How much this specifically relates to the Gospel of Thomas is anyone's guess.

I am one of those uncommon liberal Christians that believes that John has an early dating. John A.T. Robinson, the notorious Anglican bishop who wrote the controversial Honest to God, wrote a book called Redating the New Testament where, among other things, he argues for an early dating for John, contrary to the direction of most liberal scholarship during his time.

He notes: "One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period - the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple - is never once mentioned as a past fact. "

 

[DharmaChrsitian]

I am one of those uncommon liberal Christians that believes that John has an early dating. John A.T. Robinson, the notorious Anglican bishop who wrote the controversial Honest to God, wrote a book called Redating the New Testament where, among other things, he argues for an early dating for John, contrary to the direction of most liberal scholarship during his time.

He notes: "One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period - the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple - is never once mentioned as a past fact. "

Interesting. I’ve heard this argument once before (there being no mention of the temple suggesting an earlier date). And I am inclined to defer to it. The anti-miracle bias of liberal scholarship is genuinely problematic imo. I don’t see anything in the canonicals that suggests to me explicit prophecy of the temple’s destruction (though I haven’t looked at it especially close). There’s clearly a suggestion that it could happen, but apocalypticism was rampant, so a generalized anti-establishment attitude should be no surprise. A complete absence of any mention of the temples destruction does seem to present a really problematic dissonance between the way liberal scholarship tends to charectoeize early Christians, as deeply self-righteous and eager to mythologize history. You’d think if any of those documents were written post-exile they would have went hard on connecting the doomsday claims of the OT prophets to Jesus’ rejection. That doesn’t seem to become a major theme until the epistles.

Am I characterizing the argument fairly? Am I off about anything? Anything else you’d care to add? This conversation is gold to me.

Allow me to bring it back to Thomas though. Of course we know that there were later additions, and this might be what we’re dealing with in John. But if John has a pre-exillic date, and if the anti-Thomas polemics are original to that text, it would suggest a pre-exotic date for a Thomasian Gnosticism, no?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Sorry if my tone came off unnecessarily hostile. My frustration is coming from what I see as a gap in your logic. I don’t understand how you can say, on the one hand we might be able to demonstrate that portions of Thomas predate John, and on the other continue to claim John is a better historical source. If John knew about Thomas that would mean some of the Thomasian logia would have predated John, and those sayings would represent an earlier and therefore more historically valuable strain of teaching. This would not be true of the gospel as found at Nag Hammadi, but -and this is the crucial point that I think you’re overlooking- we could identify particular logia as predating John, because they embody the theology John is designed to challenge. And this is why I don’t understand your conclusion, that somehow Thomas’ date is necessarily late (you say early 2nd century at best) - but I’m failing to see how there’s any necessary limit on how early it could have been. If all we know is that it’s earlier than John, then might it not be much earlier than John? It’s especially interesting I think in light of Q theory, and the anthropological shift in thinking about the early Jesus movement as an oral culture that likely would have likely utilized sayings before narratives. I see no reason for assuming some core of the sayings, if not many of them, go back to ~30ce. Am I missing something in your reasoning?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t a lot of the historical Jesus study already emphasize Thomas considerably more than John? I was actually today just leafing theough the The Five Gospels, as published by The Jesus Seminar, and they consider virtually nothing within John to have historical value. Thomas on the other hand they give considerably more credibility. But maybe their work isn’t as normative as I’m making it out to be?

And one last point, more of a question really - I’m curious on this issue of secondary attestation. Don’t the early fathers make considerable reference to a variety of non canonicals? Seeing as how we don’t have any early manuscripts of the
canonicals, doesn’t that mean that an early copy of a non-canonical text would be just as historically valuable as anything in the orthodox chain of custody? I don’t imagine you believe that the canonicals mere being accepted within the tradition makes them more historically reliable. So is there something I’m missing here? This portion of your argument I had a hard time wrapping my head around, especially given the massive archeological finds of the last century - it seems very possible that there’s more out there waiting to be found.

Thing is, we can't determine if John is written against specific logia. What would those be? Wouldn't it be 'inner light'-type stuff and such? But those are already present in the culture! We read of the 'divine spark' in Hellenistic Philosophy, or Socrates' daimon, or the reading of the Eleusian mysteries as a regenerative rite. Or the 'Sons of Iight' of the Qumran sect. So you can make a conjecture of John against certain logia, but it might just as well be against the worldly Hellenistic culture or something else entirely. Perhaps our extent logia are even written contra-John! Without more textual evidence, we cannot firmly place any logia before the 2nd century Oxyrhynthus papyri, and even if we concede the hypothesis, it would be complete guesswork and thumbsuck how much earlier than John any logia would be. They definitely aren't present in the Synoptics or Paul, so later, unless you say they were 'pruned out' and assume they are discarded Q material or such - but how can such things be shown? This is thus just building castles in the air, rather than fruitful historical enquiry. Our earliest corroboratable date for the logia would still coincide therefore with John, so about 110 AD by standard critical methodology.

As to why there is so much stress placed on non-canonical gospels? Because they are new evidence brought to light, not that they are of better quality. It is novelty, or think of the fanfare when the Gospel of Judas was translated a few years back. They are in fact inferior, evidence-wise, due to few manuscripts and references and a lack of paper trail. There is also a bit of Jazzing-up and slaughtering of sacred cows here, that make people think "oh there must be something there if the Church went to the trouble to suppress it". It is a flawed perspective.
For Church Fathers quote the Gospels extensively, but tend to just make one or two offhand remarks about non-canonical gospels. That amounts far more to hearsay and seldom even allows us to place if the version we have, is what the specific Church Father was talking about.

The Synoptics we can confirm have early first century material by other means, and John is early associated with them and mentioned. We cannot do so for non-narrative logia, nor do they pop-up early in other sources (as John is conjectural, not a definite contra-mentioning). So they are still our best sources by far, even if people have a tendency to go look in odd crannies for some other vision of an 'historical Jesus', usually intent on supporting their own a priori conception of what this entails, I think.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I am one of those uncommon liberal Christians that believes that John has an early dating. John A.T. Robinson, the notorious Anglican bishop who wrote the controversial Honest to God, wrote a book called Redating the New Testament where, among other things, he argues for an early dating for John, contrary to the direction of most liberal scholarship during his time.

He notes: "One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period - the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple - is never once mentioned as a past fact. "

John is clearly the latest of our four gospels, as it is presuming much of the background with its cryptic language of 'Bread of Life' and its ilk. It is less about telling a story, than making a Spiritual point.

Now we date the Gospels 70-110 AD, but the only reason for that, is because the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD and it is mentioned in the Synoptics. If you assume prophecy really exists, then a date from 40- 50 AD onwards might also be valid, as we know it has legitimate early first century material. I think John would remain the latest one, but a date before 70 AD is pushing the credible for John, I think. That it doesn't prophecy the destruction of the Temple makes sense, as to its readers, the Temple was no longer that important. They'd moved on to Synagogues and non-sacrificial forms of worship and early Christianity, although this presumes a later date. There is a period where the argument can be made, but I think the character as being the 'spiritual gospel', written more for edification than evangelisation say, argues against it. But hey, maybe?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

To add to what I was saying, let's think of a secular source:

For Socrates, we have two good sources on his death - Plato and Xenophon, both his pupils. Their writings we've always had, but Xenophon mentions other accounts thereof though.
Now we discover one or two copies of a new account, radically at odds in the character of Socrates, of unsure date or perhaps a later copy, ascribed to Crito or Cratylus. Do we now trust this above Plato or Xenophon? We can certainly investigate it, it might be early, it might be legitimate, but certainly the others are simply better sources as they are unequivocally connected - not only to Socrates, but the predominant Philosophic tradition descended from his pupils and extent.
Otherwise you sink in a morass of confusion.

Or put another way, do you trust a dated newspaper article, written a few years after the event described, more vs. a loose undatable diary page, or vague recollection of someone who may or may not be firsthand?
So investigate, but you must be careful how you weigh the merits of the different sources.

 

[DharmaChrsitian]

To add to what I was saying, let's think of a secular source:

For Socrates, we have two good sources on his death - Plato and Xenophon, both his pupils. Their writings we've always had, but Xenophon mentions other accounts thereof though.
Now we discover one or two copies of a new account, radically at odds in the character of Socrates, of unsure date or perhaps a later copy, ascribed to Crito or Cratylus. Do we now trust this above Plato or Xenophon? We can certainly investigate it, it might be early, it might be legitimate, but certainly the others are simply better sources as they are unequivocally connected - not only to Socrates, but the predominant Philosophic tradition descended from his pupils and extent.
Otherwise you sink in a morass of confusion.

Or put another way, do you trust a dated newspaper article, written a few years after the event described, more vs. a loose undatable diary page, or vague recollection of someone who may or may not be firsthand?
So investigate, but you must be careful how you weigh the merits of the different sources.

If we discovered another account of Socrates, referred to by Xenophon, that was radically at odds (although I strongly contend that the Jesus of Thomas, though unique, is completely compatible with the canonicals) with our the other pictures of Socrates, then yeah of course we reconsider our understanding of Socrates. Why wouldn't we? Because we have a tradition of doing otherwise? New evidence can change past conclusions, even if they were tradition. It's bizarre to have to say that out loud. It is not 'conspiratorial' to suggest that there is more behind a tradition than we understand. The formation of a tradition itself necessitates the emphasis of certain qualities over others. There absolutely have to be things about the historical Jesus that aren't contained in the line-of-custody canonical tradition, so why not try to consider the legitimacy of outside sources? What you're talking about it simply an intellectual defense of sticking one's head in the sand. This is seriously one of the most painful and fruitless conversations I've ever tried to have -you've talked past everything I've said the whole time-I'm done with it.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

If we discovered another account of Socrates, referred to by Xenophon, that was radically at odds (although I strongly contend that the Jesus of Thomas, though unique, is completely compatible with the canonicals) with our the other pictures of Socrates, then yeah of course we reconsider our understanding of Socrates. Why wouldn't we? Because we have a tradition of doing otherwise? New evidence can change past conclusions, even if they were tradition. It's bizarre to have to say that out loud. It is not 'conspiratorial' to suggest that there is more behind a tradition than we understand. The formation of a tradition itself necessitates the emphasis of certain qualities over others. There absolutely have to be things about the historical Jesus that aren't contained in the line-of-custody canonical tradition, so why not try to consider the legitimacy of outside sources? What you're talking about it simply an intellectual defense of sticking one's head in the sand. This is seriously one of the most painful and fruitless conversations I've ever tried to have -you've talked past everything I've said the whole time-I'm done with it.

There you go tilting at windmills again. My friend, I haven't talked past anything, but you've been attempting to discuss with a stawman of your own creation. I never said we must not consider new information, never advocated ignoring anything or not re-evaluating positions , never said the theory impossible.
From my first post, I merely said we must keep perspective. A few logia that might be early, that we cannot properly reconstruct, that we are theorising might have existed based on presumed later forms thereof, can hardly be considered as legitimate as the canonical gospels. By all means we can investigate, in fact we should, but this is largely conjecture and supposition. The Gospel of Thomas, for what its worth, is evidence of a specific view of Jesus - but it is clearly not even close to our best evidence on historical grounds. If we are to reconstruct an 'Historical Jesus', our best sources will always be our earliest ones of proven provenance and supported by other documents, ie the Canonical gospels. Everything else are secondary sources to these, as they are far less supported or datable, though may still be useful. Of course, any and all positions must be evaluated in light of any new discoveries that might be made.

I thank you for the discussion. It was an odd collection of misunderstanding and cross purposes. I bid you good day.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think the anti-Gnostic angle makes sense; I don't think an anti-GoT angle does though. Thomas is entirely too late, and John too early, for John to have been written to counter Thomas. I know some theorize that Thomas may be 1st century; but this seems more conjecture or even wishful thinking than anything else--a mid-late 2nd century date for Thomas seems most plausible, though Thomas' source material is earlier (as Thomas does seem to rely heavily on the Synoptic texts). Even a late-date John of about 100-110 (the John Rylands fragment, P52, dated to about 120-160 requires that John be dated before the fragment's existance) would still place it well before Thomas' existence.

One thing about Thomas is that, given its lack of narrative, is a very peculiar text and calling it a "Gnostic" text is even tentative, though I think it is deserving in being called that. It does not contain the usual Gnostic cosmological narrative that most Gnostic "gospels" have, but the sayings do seem to point toward an esoteric, hidden/secret knowledge that requires being initiated to understand--that itself fits the Gnostic criteria.

At the end I don't think a John v Thomas hypothesis works, but I do think an argument that one of John's purposes is to combat early Gnosticism is a valid one. I simply don't think John is late enough/Thomas is early enough to try and pit John against Thomas directly.

-CryptoLutheran