The Contributions of the Christian Apocrypha to the Study of the Historical Jesus

March 6, 2008 by Tony

As mentioned in my previous post, the Wedgewood Baptist Church have sent me some questions to answer regarding the Christian Apocrypha. Here is another one (and I'd be interested to see what other scholars think of the question):

Could you name two or three contributions Christian Apocrypha (CA) have made to the historical study of Jesus?

I assume that should read the “study of the historical Jesus.” If so, only a few CA texts have been used in the effort to find authentic Jesus traditions outside the canonical gospels. These are Gospel of Thomas, the Egerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Peter. The agrapha (i.e., isolated sayings, which can include the citations from the lost Jewish-Christian gospels) are also a good source, though very few of them have been considered early (mind you, that is because the investigators have ruled out some of them as authentic only because they are so different from canonical sayings; and that is a spurious argument). Of the three gospels, GT has made the greatest contribution; even conservative scholars have been forced to admit that some of its unique sayings may be authentic, though they often state that these sayings do not change the image we have of Jesus from the canonical gospels. The CA have made a contribution also in widening the available pool of evidence for the historical Jesus; once one makes the ideological leap to consider that these might have authentic Jesus traditions, then our investigations are taken to …

Reflections on Teaching Gnosticism IV: The Gospel of Thomas

March 6, 2008 by Tony

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 …