The Eagle Has Landed
My book on the Gospel of Thomas finally arrived yesterday! After waiting 16 months, I was glad to see it. The book lists for $16.95 but Amazon has it for $6.40. Disregard the information that says it won’t be released until May 1. It’s available now!
The book is dedicated to my friend and former dean, Dr. Michael J. Gorman. It would be difficult for me to recount all that Mike did for me during the five years I spent teaching at St. Mary’s Seminary and University in Baltimore. He gave me my first opportunity to teach while still pursuing the Ph.D., wrote numerous letters of reference for me, and has consistently provided sage advice in numerous areas. The first part of the book was written during a particularly difficult year in my life and Mike did a lot for me during that period. I owe a great deal to him and I wanted to publicly acknowledge his contributions to my personal and professional development. Here’s how I close the preface:
Lastly, I want to thank my friend and former dean, Dr.Michael J. Gorman. The first half of this book was written during a very difficult year in the life of my family. During that period no individual showed more concern, offered more support, or sought to create more avenues of benefit to me—and Mike did all of this on his own initiative. Since 2005, Mike has been a mentor to me both professionally and personally. His advice on a wide range of issues has enriched me as a teacher, as a scholar, and as a person.Mike is an excellent teacher and a gifted scholar. However, despite his scholarly acumen and teaching ability, I have been most impressed and impacted by Mike’s loyalty as a friend. The Johannine Jesus tells his closest followers, “By this all men will know you are my disciples if you love one another” (John 13:35). In all my dealings with Mike he has truly embodied the spirit of this verse. It is with admiration and tremendous gratitude that I dedicate this book to him.
Thanks, Mike!
Notes of Interest and Upcoming Events
The school where I am employed, Mount Olive College, is located in the booming metropolis of Mount Olive, North Carolina. If you haven’t eaten many pickles or driven through the backroads of eastern North Carolina, you’ve probably never heard of the town or the college. Therefore, you can imagine my amazement yesterday at finding a BBC story about Haitian immigrants who have relocated right here to our tiny town. Take a moment to watch the video.
Also, if you do find yourself in or around Mount Olive anytime soon, there are two upcoming events about which you might want to be aware. The first is our second annual Faith and Rural Life Conference, sponsored by The Mount Olive Area Ministerial Association, the Thriving Rural Communities Initiative at Duke Divinity School, and several other regional, faith-based organizations. The event will be held on Februray 27, 2012 on the campus of Mount Olive College. This year we will have keynote addresses from Steve Troxler, Fred Bahnson, and Billy Ray Hall, along with a number of workshops.
The college will also be hosting our annual Vivian B. Harrison Lectures on March 26-27, 2012. This is always a great event. Last year we had Dr. Kavin Rowe of Duke University Divinity School. This year’s speaker will be Dr. Ellen Ott Marshall, Associate Professor of Christian Ethics and Conflict Transformation at Candler School of Theology, Emory University. Her talks will be centered around the topic of “Christians in the Public Square.” Admission is free to the public. We invite you to come out and join us.
Final Page Proofs Are In!
Today I FINALLY received the final page proofs for my book, What Are They Saying About the Gospel of Thomas? Amazon lists May 1, 2012 as the anticipated date of publication, but the email I got today said the book will be in the warehouse by mid-March. The manuscript has been at the press since January 2011….so it’s somewhat overdue (in my humble opinion). Don’t forget to pre-order your copy. The book lists for $12.95 but Amazon has it for $6.40 (that’s a savings of over 50%!). It’s a steal, if I do say so. : )
Interview with Simon Gathercole on the Gospel of Thomas (Part II)
Here’s part two of my conversation with Simon Gathercole on the Gospel of Thomas:
(CWS) 4. I am looking forward to reading your forthcoming book, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences. Since this subject is addressed in your book, I would like to explore your understanding of Thomas’s compositional language. As you know, over the past decade Nick Perrin has sought to advance the position that Thomas was originally composed in Syriac and is dependent upon the Diatessaron. What are your thoughts on his thesis?
(SJG) One of the things I tried to do in my book was to take a very large sample of the “semitisms” that some have argued point in favour of a W. Aramaic or a Syriac origin for the book and show that they are basically all useless as evidence for a Semitic original. In terms of Nick Perrin’s thesis in particular, one of the difficulties is that we have hardly any Syriac literature from the first and second centuries CE, and so we can’t reconstruct the grammar and vocabulary of Syriac in that period with any degree of confidence. On the specific matter of Nick’s argument about the Diatessaron, the problem is compounded further, as we don’t have the Diatessaron in anything like its original form – not a word of the original Syriac (if that even was the original language of the Diatessaron) survives.
(CWS) 5. I know you’ve got a book to sell….so please don’t give away too much. But can you briefly provide an exposition of your view on Thomas’s relationship to the Synoptic Gospels?
(SJG) Part of it I’ve already given away in what I said about about Luke. I expand the argument to include Matthew as well. Matthew is an interesting case because the disciple Matthew is referred to in GTh 13 as an authoritative spokesman (alongside Peter) for a view contrary to that of Thomas. So I think it’s very likely that this in an attempt to undermine the Gospel of Matthew. There are also instances where, as with Luke above, Matthew’s redaction of Mark is clearly incorporated into Thomas. Overall, my view is that Matthew and Luke shaped the oral tradition upon which Thomas drew, and there is a substantial degree of influence upon Thomas from the Synoptic gospels.
(CWS) 6. What is your view on the compositional history of Thomas? In other words, do you regard Thomas as a compositional unity or are you persuaded by the piecemeal, “multiple accretions” approach advocated by April DeConick? Do you find either of these approaches convincing?
(SJG) I don’t find it too much of a problem to conceive of it as a relative unity. There are obviously a number of sources, and these haven’t necessarily been combined into a seamless whole. But I suppose I go slightly against the consensus in thinking that the Greek fragments are not too different from the Coptic version. It doesn’t seem to me that the text is very fluid and constantly open to extra accretions.
(CWS) 7. Another interest that I have, and one that I hope to promote on this blog, is research on the historical Jesus. In your opinion, is there anything in the Gospel of Thomas that goes back to the historical Jesus? If yes, what? If no, explain why not.
(SJG) I think that there is a lot in the Gospel of Thomas that – at least in broad general terms – goes back to the historical Jesus. The parable of the sower and the parable of the wicked tenants, for instance! One of the difficulties with this question is the demise (of which I approve) of the criteria of authenticity. How can you tell if something like Thomas’s parable of the assassin is authentic? I don’t know. My own preference is to look at the works as a whole for their portrayal of Jesus. In this respect, I think Thomas is miles away from the historical Jesus – rejecting the prophets and circumcision (GTh 52-53) and speaking in semi-Platonic language about the true image within (GTh 83-84). Thomas seems to me a far cry from the milieu reflected in the canonical gospels which fixes Jesus much more clearly in a real first-century Jewish world.
I’m sure Simon could have said a great deal more about these issues had it not been for time constraints. I do want to again offer my thanks to Simon for taking the time out of his busy schedule to answer our questions. 
His book, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences, is due to be released at the end of March. We look forward to the conversations that will surely take place at that time.
Interview with Simon Gathercole on the Gospel of Thomas (Part I)
It has been awhile since I conducted an interview with anyone working seriously on the Gospel of Thomas. Today I am glad to post the first part of my conversation with Simon Gathercole, Senior Lecturer in New Testament in the Faculty of Divinity at Cambridge University. Dr. Gathercole has published numerous books on topics as wide-ranging as the christologies of the Synoptic Gospels, the soteriology of Paul’s letter to the Romans, the Book of Tobit, and the Gospel of Judas. In recent years he has turned his attention to the Gospel of Thomas with essays on Thomas’‘s relationship to Paul and Luke, respectively. Dr. Gathercole’s forthcoming monograph, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences, is set to be released next month. I wanted to catch him in advance of the book’s publication and provide him an opportunity to discuss his views. Thanks, Simon for agreeing to participate.
(CWS) 1. I have asked this question of every scholar I have interviewed on this blog: What initially sparked your interest in studying the Gospel of Thomas?
(SJG) Since first studying the New Testament I have always been interested in different views about Jesus, whether those purport to come from the NT or elsewhere. I suppose that both in the popular realm and in some scholarly circles there has been a growing interest in seeing the apocryphal gospels as equally legitimate interpretations of Jesus by comparison with the canonical gospels. I’m interested in evaluating the differing portraits of Jesus that one finds in all the gospels, both canonical and non-canonical.
(CWS) 2. Several years ago you wrote an essay exploring Thomas’s relationship to the writings of Paul (“‘The Influence of Paul on the Gospel of Thomas [53.3 and 17]’, in J. Frey, E. E. Popkes, and J. Schröter, eds., Das Thomasevangelium: Entstehung – Rezeption – Theologie [BZNW 157; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008]). Very little has been written on this topic to date. To your mind, what, if any, is the relationship between Thomas and Paul?
(SJG) I don’t think there’s any direct literary relationship – at least it can’t be demonstrated that Thomas had read Paul. (It’s impossible of course to prove that the author hadn’t.) But there are some telling similarities, in particular in sayings 3, 17 and 53 – the latter in particular with some very close parallels to Rom. 2.25-3.2. It may be, and here one is speculating, that Thomas emerged from a kind of “ultra-Pauline” circle, such as produced the Epistle of Barnabas, but it’s very difficult to know.
(CWS) 3. The relationship between the Synoptic Gospels and Thomas is a notoriously thorny issue for those working in Gospel studies. In a recent article on the relationship between Thomas and the Gospel of Luke, you write that “Thomas constitutes an interesting chapter in the reception history of Luke” ["Luke in the Gospel of Thomas,” NTS 57 [2011]: 114-44). Can you briefly summarize your position and explain why you think Thomas is (possibly indirectly) dependent on Luke rather than vice versa?
(SJG) I think that there are clear examples of instances where Luke has redacted Mark, and that some of those Lukan redactions of Mark appear in the Gospel of Thomas. I argued this in my NTS article (2011) [see bibliographic info listed above]. One of the things which strikes me most is that in three cases, Luke introduces an element into Mark, and then Thomas expands upon that Lukan element. So for example, in the image of the “light under the bushel”, Luke adds that the light is “for all who go in”, and Thomas expands it further to “all who go in and come out” (GTh 33); Luke adds a single “perhaps” into the parable of the wicked tenants, then Thomas includes this and adds another again (GTh 65); Luke adds a reference to prayer into the controversy about fasting, and Thomas includes this addition, and adds an extra reference to prayer (GTh 104). Again, I don’t think this is a matter necessarily of Thomas having read Luke (though this is impossible to rule out), but it reflects Thomas or his sources having known the stories in their Lukan forms, and elaborating on them further. So there is a gradual expansion, in these sayings at least, from Mark to Luke to Thomas, which I don’t think can be read in any other order (unless one denies Markan priority). The arguments for Thomas having influenced Luke in other sayings (which I also discuss in my article) seem to me to be based on very poor evidence.
Next time Simon will discuss his forthcoming book and his views on the recent theories of Perrin and DeConick. Stay tuned for Part II. . . .
Dramatized Irony, Markan Intercalations, and the Godfather
Commentators on the Gospel of Mark have been aware of the so-called “Markan Sandwich” passages for some time. There are some good treatments of this subject but I have always found Tom Shepherd’s dissertation, Markan Sandwich Stories, to be most helpful. 
I especially appreciate his emphasis on “dramatized irony” as one of the most important elements of these carefully intercalated passages. It’s been my experience that many undergraduates are unfamiliar with literary concepts like ”irony,” so lately I’ve been using as many examples from the movies and television as I can find to illustrate these concepts.
I have found the famous baptismal scene from the original Godfather movie (1972) to be the most effective for explaining to students what “dramatized irony” is and how it works. When I show students this clip and then read passages like Mark 5:21-43 or 11: 12-25, the text seems to come alive (and, they seem to understand what “dramatized irony” is much better than when I simply define it).
Ratzinger on Jesus (Or: Sometimes We All See What We Want in the Text, Even If It’s Not Really There)
I do not make a habit of reading papal publications. It’s not that I have a particular bias against them, I just don’t find them particularly interesting for what I do. However, this semester I am making an exception. I am reading through Ratzinger’s two books on Jesus. I thought they might serve as interesting and different supplemental reading for my course on the Life and Teachings of Jesus.
Let me provide a little context. I begin nearly every biblical course I teach with this statement: “I have a set of lenses you cannot see, but without which I cannot see.” This disclosure is meant to lead to a frank discussion of how our individual lenses guide, color, and even taint our interpretation of texts. In reality, what we bring to a given text is often as determinative in our interpretation (if not more so), than what we actually find in the text. I contend that we cannot do responsible exegesis, nor can we enter into intellectually-honest dialogue with one another unless we are honest about this fact. I take as my case in point, Ratzinger on Jesus.
His first book begins with a foreword that is essentially an overview of the methodology he will be using. This seems like a good place for him to start. Ratzinger makes it clear that he is using a historical-critical approach, guided by canonical criticism all set in the context of the Roman Catholic tradition. From there, he proceeds to an exposition of Jesus’ life and vocation, using the four canonical gospels as something of a “mosaic” from which to discuss these issues.
In his exposition of Jesus’ baptism and calling he writes:
A broad current of liberal scholarship has interpreted Jesus’ Baptism as a vocational experience. After having led a perfectly normal life in the province of Galilee, at the moment of his Baptism he is said to have had an earth-shattering experience. It was then, we are told, that he became aware of his special relationship to God and his religious mission. The mission, moreover, supposedly originated from the expectation motif then dominant in Israel, creatively shaped by John, and from the emotional upheaval that the event of his Baptism brought about in Jesus’ life. But none of this can be found in the texts [of the gospels] (Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration, 23, emphasis added).
Everything Ratzinger affirms in this paragraph is true. Now, let’s put aside for a moment the question of whether it’s legitimate to speculate and make constructions based upon things that are not in the biblical texts (for the record, I think such extra-textual constructions are necessary). For Ratzinger, this critique becomes a criterion to dismiss a particular way of thinking about Jesus. If it’s not in the texts, it’s probably not a legitimate conclusion.
However, just a page earlier in the same chapter we find Ratzinger’s reconstruction of Jesus’ baptism, based on the four gospels. He discusses the baptismal scene in each of the Synoptic accounts. He then turns to the Fourth Gospel and goes directly to the Baptist’s pronouncement that Jesus is the “Lamb of God” (1:29, 36). The Gospel of John says nothing about a baptism, yet Ratzinger ignores this and writes:
The reference to the Lamb of God interprets Jesus’ Baptism, his descent into the abyss of death, as a theology of the Cross, if we may so express it. All four Gospels recount in their different ways that, as Jesus came up from the water, heaven was ‘torn open’ (Mk 1:10) or ‘was opened’ (Mt 3:16; Lk 3:21); that the Spirit came down upon him ‘like a dove’; and that in the midst of all this a voice from heaven resounded (p. 22, emphasis added).
Ratzinger’s observation about the the testimony of “all four Gospels” is incorrect. At no point in his discussion does he make it clear that John’s Gospel has no baptismal scene. In fact, the evangelist goes out of the way to avoid the suggestion that the Baptist has baptized Jesus. Everywhere we see the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel he is informing everyone that he is simply an unworthy forerunner to Jesus. He must decrease while Jesus must increase. This so-called “anti-Baptist polemic” of the Fourth Gospel has been a prominent discussion in Johannine studies for years, yet Ratzinger ignores this in favor of a more “catholic” interpretation of the literature.
Don’t get me wrong, I do not fault Ratzinger for having or even using his own interpretive “lenses.” What I balk at, however, is the double standard of suggesting that someone else must demonstrate his/her argument “from the text” when he does not always do the same. I am going to mention this to my class in today’s lecture as a means of fostering greater dialogue about the exegetical process. But for now, can we be honest and admit that there are times when all of us find what we are looking for in the text? This would make many of our conversations more enjoyable and much more intellectually-honest.
