Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

FROM THE GOSPELS TO JESUS §7.6
seems to attest the developed form of the Gnostic redeemer myth {GTh 28). ul
And the overall perspective of the document can be fairly described as that of
second-century Gnosis. 118 In consequence, therefore, we should not be surprised
if we find that any earlier traditions have been redacted in a Gnostic direction.
Second, there is another persistent fallacy operative in this area, that 'independent'
means 'more original'. Where elements in the Nag Hammadi documents
cannot be derived from Christian tradition, the corollary is regularly drawn
that these elements pre-date Christianity (proof that Gnosticism is as old as
Christianity). But the ancient Mediterranean world was a melting pot for many
religious traditions and philosophies. So, 'independent' may simply mean 'independent
of Christianity' rather than 'earlier than Christianity'. In our present
case, the different version of the Jesus tradition attested by the Gospel of Thomas
is often assumed to be the more original. 119 But all that analysis demonstrates is
that the versions are different. 120 The possibility remains open that that is all
there is to it (attesting the diversity of ways in which the tradition was told and
retold in Christian congregations), as well as the possibility of redaction either or
both ways. This again is a subject to which we will have to return (chapter 8).
In particular, Koester's treatment of the Gospel of Thomas leaves him vulnerable
to the charge of petitio principii. For again and again he assumes rather
than demonstrates that the Gospel of Thomas bears witness to an early, nonapocalyptic
layer of Jesus tradition. 121 But it is perfectly comprehensible that a
Gnostic redaction, for which a 'realized eschatology' was central, should have
omitted and 'corrected' all tradition which attested a future eschatology and hope
of a coming Son of Man. 122 And if, on other grounds, a future eschatology seems
to belong to the bedrock of the Synoptic tradition, 123 then the more probable conclusion
will have to be that the Gospel of Thomas does indeed attest to a
mediaeval Christianity as pre- or proto-Protestant, for all the value these designations would
contain as descriptions of Second Temple Judaism and mediaeval Christianity.
117. Cf. the 'Hymn of the Pearl' in Acts of Thomas 108-13.
118. Note, e.g., GTh 3.4-5; 37.2-3; 50; 77; 84; 87.
119. Crossan gives the same warning: 'independent does not necessarily mean earlier'
{Four Other Gospels 35).
120. Of the cases cited by Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels 89-124, note, for example,
GTh 9, 20, 21b, 39, 63, 64, 76, 99, 100, 109 (Koester 92, 97-99, 103-104, 108-10, 112).
121. Koester, 'GNOMAI DIAPHOROF 137-39; also 'One Jesus' 171, 186-87; also Ancient
Christian Gospels 92-99. In the last case, the comparison with John is similarly tendentious
in claiming that John avoided the Gnostic implications (as indicated by Thomas) of the
tradition he was using (115-23).
122. As Koester acknowledges (Ancient Christian Gospels 97). But we should again
note that Koester also agrees that 'the Gospel of Thomas presupposes, and criticizes, a tradition
of the eschatological sayings of Jesus' ('Jesus the Victim' 7 n. 17).
123. See below, §12.4.
164