The First Synod of ATS Part II: The Gospel of Thomas

Part 1

In the last thread in this series I only covered 8 sayings in Thomas... for this part I will be skipping many of the sayings that don't really relate to what is said in the gospels... Of course the goal of these discussions is to examine which sayings do relate to the gospels in the bible.

I will cover the rest as much as I can in the next part of this series

So we continue on...

9 Jesus said, "Now the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), and scattered them. Some fell on the road; the birds came and gathered them up. Others fell on the rock, did not take rood in the soil, and did not produce ears. And others fell on thorns; they choked the seed(s) and worms ate them. And others fell on the good soil and produced good fruit: it bore sixty per measure and a hundred and twenty per measure."

this saying can be found in all three of the synoptics Matthew 13, Mark 4, and Luke 8...

~

10 Jesus said, "I have cast fire upon the world, and see, I am guarding it until it blazes."

Luke 12
I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled!

~

14 is a complicated saying involving parts of the gospels combined into one....

Thomas
Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will give rise to sin for yourselves; and if you pray, you will be condemned; and if you give alms, you will d6o harm to your spirits.

(Relating to the condition of the heart... reference Matthew 6)

Thomas
When you go into any land and walk about in the districts, if they receive you, eat what they will set before you, and heal the sick among them.

Luke 10
Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you; 10.9 heal the sick in it and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has come near to you.

Thomas
For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but that which issues from your mouth - it is that which will defile you."

Matthew 15:11

Mark 7:18

~

16 Jesus said, "Men think, perhaps, that it is peace which I have come to cast upon the world. They do not know that it is dissension which I have come to cast upon the earth: fire, sword, and war. For there will be five in a house: three will be against two, and two against three, the father against the son, and the son against the father. And they will stand solitary."

Matthew 10
Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 10.35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 10.36 and a man's foes will be those of his own household.

Luke 12
Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; 12.52 for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; 12.53 they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

~

20 The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us what the Kingdom of Heaven is like." He said to them, "It is like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds. But when it falls on tilled soil, it produces a great plant and becomes a shelter for birds of the sky."

Reference the parable of the mustard seed covered in all three of the synoptic gospels...

~

24 His disciples said to Him, "Show us the place where You are, since it is necessary for us to seek it." He said to them, "Whoever has ears, let him hear. There is light within a man of light, and he (or "it") lights up the whole world. If he (or "it") does not shine, he (or "it") is darkness."

Luke 11
Your eye is the lamp of your body; when your eye is sound, your whole body is full of light; but when it is not sound, your body is full of darkness.

~

25 Jesus said, "Love your brother like your soul, guard him like the pupil of your eye."

Love your neighbour like your self?

~

26 Jesus said, "You see the mote in your brothers eye, but you do not see the beam in your own eye. When you cast the beam out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to cast the mote from your brother's eye."

Matthew 7... Judge not

Luke 6
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 6.42 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye.

~

30 Jesus said, "Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there are two or one, I am with him

Matthew 18
Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 18.20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

~

31 Jesus said, "No prophet is accepted in his own village; no physician heals those who know him."

Found in all four of the biblical gospels...

~

32 Jesus said, "A city being built on a high mountain and fortified cannot fall, nor can it be hidden."

Matthew 5:14
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

~

33 Jesus said, "Preach from your housetops that which you will hear in your ear [(and) in the other ear]. For no one lights a lamp and puts it under a bushel, nor does he put it in a hidden place, but rather he sets it on a lampstand so that everyone who enters and leaves will see its light."

Found in all four of the biblical gospels, and reiterated more then once in Matthew

~

34 Jesus said, "If a blind man leads a blind man, they will both fall into a pit."

One of my favorite verses... Found in both Matthew and Luke

~

35 Jesus said, "It is not possible for anyone to enter the house of a strong man and take it by force unless he binds his hands; then he will (be able to) ransack his house."

Matthew 12
Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.

Mark 3
But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.

Luke 11
When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace; 11.22 but when one stronger than he assails him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoil.

~

36 Jesus said, "Do not be concerned from morning until evening and from evening until morning about what you will wear."

Matthew 6
Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

Luke 12
Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat, nor about your body, what you shall put on. 12.23 For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing.

................................

More to come in the Part III

In all honesty who can deny the connection between Jesus and these sayings?

The parallels are uncanny!

reply to post by Akragon


Very nice Akragon, I love the gospel of Thomas because there is alot of profound wisdom in it even though you will get alot of naysayers saying how it is not in line with the teachings of Jesus and his followers I think it fits in perfectly. ( a good bit of it anyway)

I have not finished reading it all but just wanted to SnF it to make sure I have it bookmarked.

Excellent thread. Another reason I'm a member here.
IMO, in regards to organized religion, it's best to hear stories from all sides and angles in order to gain a larger perspective so that one may come up with a more intelligent conclusion on ones beliefs.

Oh yeah.
S&F

You're cherry picking, Akragon

Originally posted by adjensen
You're cherry picking, Akragon

sure am... ( in some cases)

but im making my point, and besides that wasn't Jesus one of the great "cherry pickers" in history?

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by adjensen
You're cherry picking, Akragon

sure am...

( in some cases)

That's fine, but you're misrepresenting the actual Gnostic Thomas, which is a disservice to its author.

but im making my point, and besides that wasn't Jesus one of the great "cherry pickers" in history?

Huh?

adj

That's fine, but you're misrepresenting the actual Gnostic Thomas, which is a disservice to its author.

Nicely phrased, but there is the distinct possibility that the Coptic Gnostic Thomas is not the original work. If so, then sifting out material which cannot have been an accurate report of the teachings of any Jewish rabbi is an obvious first step in restoring the underlying work. It is a service to the genuine author to disserve the plagiarist, if that is the situation.

Akragon

The parallels are uncanny!

Well, no, parallels are inevitable given either of the two competing hypotheses. One is that an underlying original gospel was in circulation at the same time as what became the canonical Gospels, telling about the same Jesus based on some of the same sources. The other hypothesis is that the document in our hand is a much later helping of Gnostic luncheon meat served with a side dish of familiar-sounding quotable quotes.

If the second, then some authentic stuff is useful. If you just made up wacky Jesus stories, then you wouldn't want people to be thinking, "Hmm, that must be some other Jesus." Regardless of which hypothesis is true, the Coptic Gnostic Thomas is definitely a later work, and a translation (and maybe an "improvement") of an earlier Greek version. Assuming that the translator's source text wasn't just made-up Jesus lore, then the M.O. for passing off a fake version of a real Gospel is explained in the probably forged Secret Mark.

In that letter, Alexandrian Gnostics are protrayed as having taken a genuine Mark, adding their own material, but keeping as much of the original as possible intact. Many people had heard parts of the real Mark in church. You couldn't simply pass off a new work as being the original. You could, however, respond to challenges by saying "My version includes the parts they didn't read to you in church." In the letter's telling, the result is convincing enough that an investigator requests that Clement of Alexandria sort out what is real and what is fake.

Much as we're doing right now with Thomas.
-

Thomas Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will give rise to sin for yourselves; and if you pray, you will be condemned; and if you give alms, you will d6o harm to your spirits.

This is the temptation of Christ through Christs view and when you fast the doors of your soul are open to God but as with doors being open be careful who enters for that is why you must test all spirits. The evil spirits will temp and promise you things and they know what it is you desire, they are relentless in bringing you down. That's why Christ says keep your eye on me and don't turn away, something like that for I never have any books by my side and I rely on prayer.

reply to post by adjensen

That's fine, but you're misrepresenting the actual Gnostic Thomas, which is a disservice to its author.

I don't recall trying to pay homage to the author in any case...

We're trying to sort out exactly what Jesus actually said within this book, and the first priority in my humble opinion, is to separate what is related to the Jesus we actually know, and the "gnostic" version of him.

Remember as you said in the previous thread, there is no context in Thomas. Its a book of sayings, meaning someone remembered what he said and wrote it down, or was there was he said it.

My cherry picking is similar to picking out sayings... no context involved, just the same words...

Once we've established what he might have actually said in Thomas, we can point out where these sayings came from... and IF the sayings were altered or not...

And of course there is a possibility that Jesus said everything in this book, theres really no way to prove it...

but we can speculate

reply to post by Akragon


Actually, the interesting discussion would be why those passages, which have New Testament counterparts, were included -- what do they add to Thomas that other NT parables and sayings do not? That might help sort out the odds of the original First Century texts being added to in the Second Century, or the whole thing being composed as one writing in the Second Century.

adj

Actually, the interesting discussion would be why those passages, which have New Testament counterparts, were included -- what do they add to Thomas that other NT parables and sayings do not?

That assumes that the source for Thomas's orthodoxy-friendly sayings was what became the New Testament. We don't know whether that's the case. Another problem is that the New Testament isn't just the Gospels. Look at verse 1 again:

1. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

That's not from Jesus, as you, JS and I all agree, but the verse doesn't say that it is from Jesus. The separation of verse 1 from the "header," as if it were a saying of Jesus, isn't in the text, it is something moderns have done for convenience. Here's the image from the Nag Hammadi cache:

www.metalog.org...

So, given that Jesus didn't say this, and taking the text at its word, then did anybody in the early Christian movement say it? Why yes, Paul did. In 1 Corinthians 15: 51, widely accepted as genuine Paul,

Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed,

See also 1 Thessalonians 4: 14-18, which is also widely accepted as genuine Paul.

And just as Thomas 113 teaches a present tense Kingdom, Paul teaches a present-tense end of days. (Chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians generally, but look at the first two verses especially; from 2:

Through [Paul's gospel] you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you, ..

How far is Paul's idea from Thomas' "discover[ing] the interpretation of [Jesus'] sayings?". And this is in the present tense, your salvation is something now in progress.)

I am not saying that Paul is the source for Thomas, but I am saying that Thomas does have early Christian ideas, in this case, in common with an author who influenced orthodoxy (influenced? Paul? influenced!). It is, in my view, the canonical Gospels that de-emphasize a present-tense Kingdom, and place it in the indefinite future, no part of it yet begun, and an event, not a process unfolding now. Those Gospels are confidently later than Paul, and in my view very possibly later than core Thomas.

reply to post by eight bits

That's not from Jesus, as you, JS and I all agree, but the verse doesn't say that it is from Jesus.

I guess that I'm confused -- the verse follows the line "these are the secret sayings of Jesus", which implies that everything in the text that isn't attributed to someone else ("disciples", generally,) should be attributed to Jesus.

Or do you take it another way, that "he said," in versus that use it, can refer to anyone?

adj]

I guess that I'm confused -- the verse follows the line "these are the secret sayings of Jesus", which implies that everything in the text that isn't attributed to someone else ("disciples", generally,) should be attributed to Jesus.

Or do you take it another way, that "he said," in versus that use it, can refer to anyone?

Using the translation I gave in the previous thread, laid out according the picture in my previous post in this thread, (all punctuation is modern, and the modern numbering is removed):

These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." Jesus said, ...

The immediate antecedent of the pronoun "he" is Didymos Judas Thomas, not Jesus. There is no textual foundation for "... recorded. And he said, ..." rather than "...recorded, and he said, ..." The interpretation makes sense, as an explanation of why DJ Thomas went to the trouble of recording what Jesus spoke. Saying so provides a reason to read the book. There is a clear opposition between the "he said" and the first occurrence of the to-be-oft-repeated "Jesus said."

Moreover, you and I agree that Jesus didn't say what "he" said. I identified at least one early Christian, author of the earleist surviving Christian literature, and proto-orthodox enough for most, who said something very similar. Taking into account that we're looking at a translation of a translation, I'd say it's a fairly good match. And, as noted, it is an appropriate thing for an author-editor-compiler to say to the reader.

I don't think the pronoun can refer to just anyone, but I don't see any basis to say that it refers to Jesus except that it has a number, as if it were a saying, and the rest of the head doesn't. But the numbering is only for convenience of reference; it is not the author's contribution. I think he tells us where the sayings begin: the first "Jesus said," and until then, we're still in the metadata or preface.

reply to post by eight bits


But, as we're both agreed that Didymos Judas Thomas didn't write it, either, do you think that the author of the text was the one who made up that statement, and intentionally applied it to the Twin, rather than to Jesus?

I agree that, with English as our guide, Saying 1 could certainly be applied to Didymos Judas Thomas, but I'm not sure what the benefit of that would be, and I have zero knowledge of Coptic and about the same of Greek, so I don't know if they treat impersonal pronouns the same way that we do in English.

adj

But, as we're both agreed that Didymos Judas Thomas didn't write it, either, do you think that the author of the text was the one who made up that statement, and intentionally applied it to the Twin, rather than to Jesus?

Yes. The author of the text is, in my view, ascribing the statement "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death" to DJ Thomas.

As to the pronoun usage, I have the translator's, Marvin Meyer's, book, and he says:

1 "he said" The speaker is thought most likely to be Jesus, although he could conceivably be Judas Thomas with an editorial note.

So, it seems what I propose is possible within the grammar. Given that it is possible, I prefer it for the reasons already given. Also, as a general rule, given a choice between two readings, one which could be realistic and one which must be unrealistic, I will favor the possibly realistic one, whenever I think it s the author's intention to be taken as being realistic (even if I know he's fibbing).

reply to post by Akragon


Akragon is your purpose to compare and contrast Thomas's sayings to those recorded in the Bible therefor giving Thomas some credence or verification? I like this one 18. The disiples said to Jesus, Tell us how our end will be. Jesus said, "Have you disovered, then, the beginning, that you look for, the end? For where the beginning is there still the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning; he will know the end and experience death". Thomas seems very much more of a philosopher than the others/or proclaiming itself an actual recorder of Jesus's words more of a soothsayer reinterpreter; or NOT as actually hearing the words understanding them and transcribing them (no wonder not included).

Originally posted by eight bits
adj

But, as we're both agreed that Didymos Judas Thomas didn't write it, either, do you think that the author of the text was the one who made up that statement, and intentionally applied it to the Twin, rather than to Jesus?

Yes. The author of the text is, in my view, ascribing the statement "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death" to DJ Thomas.

But that returns us to the question of why Thomas, rather than Jesus. It appears to be an enabling or endowing phrase, and while but you and I, and the Gnostics, would say that Jesus had authority to make such a revelation, does Thomas? And even if he does, wouldn't it seem more "valid", for want of a better word, if Jesus said it?

That leads me to a couple of possibilities -- one being the author believing that either Jesus did not have that authority (which seems weird) or he simply never said anything like it, in the author's opinion; and the other being that there is some connection between Thomas and that authority that isn't otherwise apparent.

For the latter, if we look at The Acts of Thomas, we see a possible reason. In that work, Thomas is cited to be the twin of Christ, a handy dualist designation. Christ is the worker of the spirit, Thomas is the worker of the flesh. Christ is the bringer of Gnosis, Thomas is the revealer of it. Christ directs, Thomas does. Both have authority, but Thomas has the authority of material acts, including the production of a document that claims to help the reader discern the truth regarding Christ's words.

Anyway, that's one way to look at it. There are issues, not the least of which is that Acts of Thomas post-dates Gospel of Thomas by at least 50 years, more likely a hundred, so two generations removed. That's easily resolved with our Coptic translator having knowledge of the Syriac AoT and switching the Greek "Jesus said" to a Coptic "He said" in Saying 1 to conform to that pseudo-Gnostic work.

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
reply to post by Akragon

 

Akragon is your purpose to compare and contrast Thomas's sayings to those recorded in the Bible therefor giving Thomas some credence or verification? I like this one 18. The disiples said to Jesus, Tell us how our end will be. Jesus said, "Have you disovered, then, the beginning, that you look for, the end? For where the beginning is there still the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning; he will know the end and experience death". Thomas seems very much more of a philosopher than the others/or proclaiming itself an actual recorder of Jesus's words more of a soothsayer reinterpreter; or NOT as actually hearing the words understanding them and transcribing them (no wonder not included).

edit on 20-4-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

Well, as I've said in the previous thread... Jesus had literally thousands of followers, I have serious problems believing that only three people out of all of them wrote anything about a man who walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead..etc etc

It doesn't make sense... and considering the comparisons I believe without a doubt that there is a direct connection to Jesus in Thomas.

I also believe that there has been documents hidden by the church that tell a different side of the Jesus story that they didn't want to tell.... and its very possible that the gospel of Thomas is evidence of this "other side"

Who hides scripture in caves?

I'll tell you who... someone who sees spiritual value in a text that is on the list to be destroyed! Just as the gnostics were eradicated... Thomas was a different view of Jesus and someone or a group never wanted it to come to light.... There was obviously more then four copies of it at one point in history... yet we only have one full document and a few scraps.

Personally I can clearly see some unscrupulous characters and activities in the first 300 some odd years of the church... and nothing has changed since those days.

For example, lets take Marcion... there is absolutely nothing left of his writing. The only things we know of him is from reconstructions of writing from people that were already against him.

Now if one wants to find information on someone.... Do you go to said persons enemy to find out what they're about?

I think not...

Im not really in favor of such an early dating for Thomas... but I do believe its likely from the first century which puts it on par with much of the NT... as far as dating is concerned.

And until the some hidden information about Jesus comes to light (which will likely never happen) Thomas is the closest thing we have to him outside of the gospels

IMHO

In all honesty who can deny the connection between Jesus and these sayings?

Why argue about who wrote what and who copied from whom?

Jesus had lots of good advice for easy living with God.

The Romans only put in the parts that they most agreed upon at the time.

And added bits like "pay your taxes" etc....

Most of Jesus' puzzle-stories make common sense.

whether they are fluffed up this way or that way doesn't really matter.

Jesus showed us the way,

all we have to do is walk it.

Thomas For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but that which issues from your mouth - it is that which will defile you."

You will not be punished for your sins,

you will be punished by your sins.

9 Jesus said, "Now the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), and scattered them. Some fell on the road; the birds came and gathered them up. Others fell on the rock, did not take rood in the soil, and did not produce ears. And others fell on thorns; they choked the seed(s) and worms ate them. And others fell on the good soil and produced good fruit: it bore sixty per measure and a hundred and twenty per measure."

Jesus told us to sow our seeds and feed the birds.

Enough seeds will germinate to grow a good crop.

The birds that you feed will poo on the ground and fertilise the land for your crop.

Birds circulate the air, creating wonderful vortices that bring life to your plants.

They eat insects, protecting your harvest.

God sings to us through birds,

all we have to do is listen.

This is the true message of Jesus.




Tfw.

reply to post by Theflyingweldsman




Not sure if I agree with your interpretations of those sayings... but that's ok

For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but that which issues from your mouth - it is that which will defile you."

This is reiterated in the gospels... It means, it doesn't matter what you eat... food does not defile the spirit like the jews believed...(unclean meats, washing hands) its what you say that can defile you...

thanks for your reply though...