tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post1069339292854074621..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Kernel ThomasMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-7746068896769322022007-05-10T14:37:00.000-04:002007-05-10T14:37:00.000-04:00Mark, Stephen, and Michael,These are fascinating q...Mark, Stephen, and Michael,<BR/><BR/>These are fascinating questions you raise. My use was only done in practical terms to indicate "the" something earlier that became the Gospel of Thomas. <BR/><BR/>It was not and is not meant by me to be indicative of a particular community of Christianity associated with some gospel or another. I actually have come to detest the idea of "Matthean Christianity" and "Markan Christianity" and "Thomasine Christianity" in the sense that their gospels mark a peculiar church or some such thing. Thomasine Christianity-Christians were familiar with the Gospel of Thomas, but they also were familiar with other gospels and literature I am sure. So I use it very broadly to indicate the type of Christianity that was prevalent in Edessa in the late first and early second centuries. <BR/><BR/>The theology of the complete Gospel of Thomas corresponds with the Edessian literature. This would be what I would label "Thomasine." The Kernel, however, is not Edessian. It is Jerusalemite (did I just make up a word?).April DeConickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06616757055618151612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-78979105934578305202007-05-10T10:44:00.000-04:002007-05-10T10:44:00.000-04:00This is the same sort of observation I made in my ...This is the same sort of observation I made in my review of Paul Anderson's "interfluentiality" at the regional SBL meeting. In speaking about pre-Gospel tradition, in what meaningful sense can we speak of distinct Markan, [Q], Lukan, Matthean, Johannine, Thomasine streams of pre-Gospel oral tradition? This is not to deny the distinctive traditions and interpretations among these Gospels <I>as Gospels</I>, and perhaps even distinctives in traditions and interpretations among tradents and communities prior to and contemporaneous with these Gospels. But I thought exactly of what you bring up related to Mark and Matthew: Mark is part of the "Matthean tradition." This then has real significance in looking for any "Matthean Christianity": we cannot simply look at the M material to see what is "Matthean," since most of Mark is brought into Matthew, including both traditions and interpretations of/stance toward those traditions. But this is going in a little different direction than your post, I think, and Thomas brings a set of different questions to the table as well.Michael Pahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06225370303628344885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-90642260262243191952007-05-10T09:36:00.000-04:002007-05-10T09:36:00.000-04:00Interesting observation, Mark.If there's no Thomas...Interesting observation, Mark.<BR/><BR/>If there's no Thomas in the Kernel Thomas, then the (hypothetical) text is being named after, not what it was, but what it was going to become. So the name is an anachronism.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.com