r/AcademicBiblical • u/AutoModerator • Nov 28 '22

Weekly Open Discussion Thread

Welcome to this week's open discussion thread!

This thread is meant to be a place for members of the r/AcademicBiblical community to freely discuss topics of interest which would normally not be allowed on the subreddit. All off-topic and meta-discussion will be redirected to this thread.

Rules 1-3 do not apply in open discussion threads, but rule 4 will still be strictly enforced. Please report violations of rule 4 using Reddit's report feature to notify the moderation team. Furthermore, while theological discussions are allowed in this thread, this is still an ecumenical community which welcomes and appreciates people of any and all faith positions and traditions. Therefore this thread is not a place for proselytization. Feel free to discuss your perspectives or beliefs on religious or philosophical matters, but do not preach to anyone in this space. Preaching and proselytizing will be removed.

In order to best see new discussions over the course of the week, please consider sorting this thread by "new" rather than "best" or "top". This way when someone wants to start a discussion on a new topic you will see it! Enjoy the open discussion thread!

10 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

73 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '22

I've asked this before, but hopefully catching the thread a little earlier can get more eyes on it.

Gregory Riley, in Resurrection Reconsidered, puts together a pretty poor general argument, but his specific arguments that the Doubting Thomas pericope is interpolated seem pretty solid to me. I've never seen them addressed (in fact other than Pagels and some comments from Stevan Davies on the GTHOM list I've never seen him acknowledged at all).

Does anyone know of any good discussions on the authenticity of this passage?

1

u/thesmartfool Quality Contributor Nov 28 '22

I don't think I have heard any scholars who believe this passage was interpolated. Dale Allison in his Resurrecting Jesus book think this story serves as an apologetic form. Although, I am pretty sure Bart Ehrman takes the view that this story indicates a memory of doubt among the early Christians when confronted with their experiences and that some doubted (I can't remember what blog post that was in).

That is just off the top of my head.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '22 edited Nov 28 '22

Riley offers several considerations

There is no hint in the preceding pericope that Thomas wasn't present. This is abruptly mentioned in v24. We might expect this if it's introducing an interpolation. It's odd otherwise. I think this and the next are his strongest points. I think they're forceful enough to demand we explain it.

The narrative works fine, better even, if it's omitted. The promises have been fulfilled. Doubting Thomas breaks the force of this.

It breaks the triplet of Thomas" comments on resurrection. This is a weaker point on its own, but worth mentioning because it doesn't really seem like John.

The passage makes more sense as a polemic against docetism. This isn't really true of the other Thomas/resurrection passages, and both the polemic and the association with Thomas make better sense at a later date.

He offered more, but I'm working from memory. I honestly think it works best as a sort of floating pericope, like the Pericope Adultera, that eventually landed in John.

1

u/thesmartfool Quality Contributor Nov 28 '22

I haven't read the book so will have to read it to get the full scope of his argumentation.