Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context of the Gospel of Thomas (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context of the Gospel of Thomas Clayton N. Jefford Risto Uro Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context of the Gospel of Thomas London and New York: T & T Clark, 2003 Pp. xi + 186.$89.95. Researchers on Thomas are likely familiar with the work of Professor Uro of the University of Helsinki, including his Q dissertation (Sheep among the Wolves, Helsinki, 1987) and Thomas at the Crossroads (London, 1998). Uro is a regular presence within the SBL Thomas Traditions Group, a careful thinker who contributes to the general discipline of Thomas studies. The present volume is designed to provide theological, sociological, and historical background to the Gospel of Thomas rather than a commentary on the text. Uro approaches the work within the literary context of the Book of Thomas the Contender and the Acts of Thomas, offering wide documentation and excellent notes. He is in close touch with varied scholarly perspectives as he combs the arguments of diverse scholars. The text is well written and reveals a singular voice. Admittedly, that voice sometimes produces a confusing idea (e.g., "Drijvers' evidence does not, however, show that Tatian has influenced the Gospel of Thomas and not vice versa" [ 27 n. 99]), but examples are rare. Uro correctly argues that the subject of the coherency of Thomas is a Holy Grail that drives much research in the area. As he remarks, we "do not know why the author or authors organized the material as it now stands. We have not achieved consensus about the sources used in the composition. We know precious little about the purpose of the composition" (3). Thus, he seeks no hermeneutical key to interpretation but a setting within Christian literature. The volume combines individual essays that revolve around the Thomasine situation. Chapter 1 (The Secret of Judas Thomas) discusses the relation among Thomasine writings as evaluated by various competing scholars. Uro traces the origins of the name "Thomas" against its Syrian background, using ideas by John Turner, Paul-Hubert Poirier, Hans-Martin Schenke, Bentley Layton, Greg Riley, and others. Ultimately he rejects any view that claims a unity within Thomasine literature via literary traits or as the work of a single school or community. In Chapter 2 (Gnosticism without Demiurge?) Uro counters the efforts of Layton and Michael Williams to categorize the literature around a central cosmological myth, seeking instead to "delineate Thomas' distinctive characteristics and make the comparison with other related texts clearer" (33). He [End Page 391] observes, ". . . Thomas and the Dialogue cannot easily be put in a linear order . . . but they do reveal an intertextual relationship which is relatively close" (50). In tentative agreement with Helmut Koester and Elaine Pagels, he finds it "possible to argue that [the Dialogue], or at least some part of it, was composed before the middle of the second century" (51) and that both Thomas and the Dialogue reflect a Christianity that has deviated both from "classic gnostic mythology" and later orthodox confessions (52). It is because of "orthodoxy and canonization" that hymns in the New Testament "sound like standard Christologies to us, while the Thomasine ideology appears somehow distorted or strange. However, exactly the opposite may have been the case for many early Christians" (52–53). In Chapter 3 (Body and Community) various topics associated with dualism, body/soul, wealth/poverty, nakedness, undressing/baptism, and body/community are addressed. Uro here engages the work of Karen King, Richard Valantasis, Stevan Davies, and others. Chapter 4 (Authority and Autonomy) reviews authority in the early church, focusing primarily upon the lost traditions of James the Just and Thomas in the light of Petrine standards and the ideals of Matthew. Ecclesiastical authority and community faith are seen to have triumphed over individual spirituality in this process. Chapter 5 (Orality and Textuality) reviews oral and written traditions, composition, and sources. Uro examines the distinctions between scribal and rhetorical cultures à la Vernon Robbins, rhetorical analysis of the Gospel of Thomas by Jon Aesgeirsson, relevant Q debate via Stephen Patterson, William Arnal, and April De Conick, as well as Schenke's view that Thomas is a catena of excerpts parallel to the work of Papias. Ultimately, Uro concludes, "These hypothetical...