Robert Funk on the Gospel of Thomas 01-31Nag Hammadi Gnosticism 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 OxyrhynchusTHE GREEK FRAGMENTS OF THOMASThe Coptic Gospel of Thomas is the only complete version of Thomas we have, but it is not our only direct witness to this text. Long before the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in 1945, the story of Thomas' re-entry into the modern world began, not at Nag Hammadi, but approximately one hundred fifty miles down the Nile, near El Bahnasa, at an archaeological site known as Oxyrhynchus. There, at the end of the last century, a team of British archaeologists sponsored by the Egypt Exploration Fund uncovered a great mass of papyrus fragments from an ancient trash heap. Over the course of eight centuries this dump had served as the inauspicious repository for documents and books of the richest assortment, whose accidental survival has today provided us with one of the most important sources for understanding everyday life in the Greco-Roman world. Among the first papyrus fragments published in 1897 by the excavators, Bernard Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, was a small leaf measuring 5 2/3 by 3 1/3 inches. Numbered POxy 1, the fragment is a single leaf from a papyrus codex. Its Greek text, dated by the style of writing to around 200 C.E., is part of a series of sayings of Jesus. Grenfell and Hunt later published two other similar fragments from this find, POxy 654 and POxy 655. The former is a single fragment from a papyrus roll. The latter is actually six fragments from another roll, preserved at Harvard University's Hough-ton Library. Both, like POxy 1, were recognized as the fragmentary remains of a collection of Jesus' sayings written in Greek. Grenfell and Hunt referred to them simply as "Sayings of Jesus." Though discussed from time to time by interested scholars, the full significance of these fragments for the history of early Christianity was not realized until the 1950s, after the publication of the Coptic version of the Gospel of Thomas. It was the French scholar Henri-Charles Puech who made the connection that would pull these ancient fragments back into the limelight. Puech noticed that the sayings of Fragment 654 actually corresponded to the Prologue and first seven sayings of the newly discovered Coptic Gospel of Thomas, the six sayings of Fragment 1 to Thomas 28-33, and the fragmentary sayings of 655 to Thomas 37-40. It had been suspected that perhaps Fragments 1 and 654 represented two parts of the same text, but this had not previously been suggested for 655. After studying the Coptic version of Thomas in Nag Hammadi Codex II, Puech could argue that all three fragments were witnesses to the original Greek text of the Gospel of Thomas. The newly discovered Gospel of Thomas was not really so new after all; at least parts of it, in its original language, had been available since the turn of the century. Today, the Coptic version of Thomas, together with the Greek fragments, provide us with the only surviving exemplars of this important early Christian document. Nag Hammadi libraryTHE DISCOVERY OF THE GOSPEL OF THOMASIn December of 1945 an Egyptian farmer named Muhammed 'Ali went out to the cliffs that skirt the Nile as it winds its way through Upper Egypt near the town of Nag Hammadi. As he and his brother searched for a naturally occurring form of fertilizer to be spread on their fields, they came across an earthenware jar of obviously ancient origin. When they broke open the jar, they discovered inside a cache of thirteen leather-bound codices-papyrus books-containing more than fifty individual tractates of various origin. It was not the monetary treasure they had hoped for, but even in 1945 the antiquities trade in Upper Egypt was brisk enough that Muhammed 'Ali could guess that such a collection of crusty ancient books would have some value in the marketplace. What he did not know was that he had just uncovered one of the most important archaeological finds in the history of New Testament scholarship and the study of early Christianity. Though perhaps less widely known, the Nag Hammadi library is every bit as revolutionary for the study of the New Testament as the Dead Sea Scrolls are for the study of the Hebrew Bible. The significance of the find first became evident some three years later, when the French scholar and dealer in antiquities Jean Doresse, working for a Cairo antiquities dealer, made an inventory of the tractates contained in these papyrus codices. Among them he found a variety of treatises, some of them previously known, others known only through references to them in various ancient authors. Many of the treatises have an obviously gnostic orientation; some are ascetic, some Jewish, and, though unrecognized by Doresse at the time, one is even a classical text, a short excerpt from Plato's Republic. At the end of the second tractate in Codex II-a collection of tractates-Doresse found the title of a text that had been lost for a thousand years: Peuaggelion Pkat; Thomas, The Gospel according to Thomas. The Coptic manuscript of Thomas was written about 350 C.E.; the Greek fragments of Thomas have been dated to around 200 C.E., based on an analysis of the writing style. Thomas probably assumed its present form by 100 C.E., although an earlier edition may have originated as early as 50-60 C.E. Thomas is a collection of one hundred fourteen sayings of Jesus, listed serially each introduced by the simple formula, "Jesus said," or alternatively, "he said." For all practical purposes, Thomas is a gospel without a narrative framework; it is a sayings gospel. Scholars have long speculated that Matthew and Luke made use of a similar collection of sayings in creating their gospels; that hypothetical collection has come to be known as Q. Specialists in Q and Thomas have determined that Thomas is not derived from Q but is an entirely independent sayings gospel, parts of which may be as old as Q. In any case, the discovery of Thomas has demonstrated that a form of gospel literature consisting of sayings actually existed and was in use among some early Christian groups. The discovery has also provided scholars with an ancient and promising new fund of sayings and parables attributed to Jesus GnosticismTHOMAS & GNOSTICISMThe Gospel of Thomas is often describe as a gnostic gospel. Is that designation correct? To answer that question, it is necessary to describe gnosticism in its fully developed mature form, which it achieved in the second century c.e. Gnosticism was a religious movement in antiquity that infiltrated a number of religious traditions, including Judaism and Christianity. Fundamental to the gnostic outlook was the conviction that the world is evil. As gnosticism matured, it indulged in elaborate speculation about a variety of problems. It expressed its conviction about the world in its doctrine of creation: the world came into existence when an evil demiurge or creator god, often a fallen or rebellious angel, turned from the one true God and created the world, which is then understood as the private world of the demiurge, a product of his vain ambition. In Jewish gnosticism this evil, rebellious god was identified with Yahweh, the creator God of Genesis. Jewish gnostics accordingly read the Genesis account of creation as though it were turned on its head: Yahweh was the evil creator, concealing the truth about creation from Adam and Eve. The serpent was regarded as good, as an agent of the one true God; the serpent attempts to enlighten the first humans about the heavenly reality that lay beyond the evil creation of Yahweh. The serpent is thus a kind of savior figure. Savior figures played a prominent role in gnostic mythology: through such messengers from God—redeemers who descend to earth, alert humankind to their true condition, and then return to the heavenly realm—salvation becomes possible for gnostics. Gnostics believed that they were not of this world, but descendants of the one true God. They thought of themselves as sparks of divine light entrapped by the evil creator god in the material world of his creation. Their goal — their salvation — was to escape this world and reascend to the heavenly realm of their origin. In Christian gnosticism, the descending/ascending redeemer figure was identified with Christ. He comes, as in other gnostic systems, to remind gnostics of their true nature, to awaken them from forgetfulness and tell them of their heavenly home. The Christ shares with them secret knowledge—gnosis—which is the means by which they can escape the world of evil and return to God. The Gospel of Thomas reflects the outlook of the gnostic movement in some respects. Jesus, for example, speaks as the redeemer come from God. He reminds his followers of their forgetfulness and tells them they are in need of enlightenment (Thomas 28). He deprecates the world (Thorn 21:6; 27:1; 56:1-2; 80:1-2; 110; 111:3). He reminds people of their origin (Thomas 49) and shows them how to escape from this world (Thomas 50). He also speaks of his own return to the place from which he has come (Thomas 38). Nearly all of these statements could be made of the Gospel of John, or of the theological writings of the apostle Paul. Consequently, it is not easy to decide whether Thomas is really gnostic, or whether it only shares some features of gnosticism, many of which are also found in emerging orthodox Christianity. Perhaps it is best to describe Thomas as reflecting an incipient gnosticism. There are, after all, a number of ways in which Thomas is not gnostic at all. Thomas has no doctrine of the creation; it provides no account of the fall. It contains nothing about an evil creator god. Moreover, Thomas seems to know Judaism in its basic, orthodox form. In addition, many sayings found in Thomas are not gnostic: they are close parallels to sayings found in the canonical gospels, and in some cases, the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar found them to be earlier versions of canonical sayings and parables. The sayings and parables that sound gnostic are best described as having gnostic tendencies. Thomas is rooted in the Jewish wisdom tradition, such as we find in Psalms and Proverbs. It is a wisdom gospel made up of the teachings of a sage. But it is moving off in the direction of gnostic speculation such as we find in later gnostic documents. In these respects, Thomas represents an early stage in Christian gospel writing and theologizing, quite comparable to what we find in the New Testament, especially in Paul and the Gospel of John. Saying #1Prolog: These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.#1 And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." Not taste death: #l, Jn8:51, 52 Not taste death. It is not altogether clear that this saying should be considered a saying of Jesus. The pronoun 'he" could refer either to Jesus or the ostensible compiler of the sayings, Didymos Judas Thomas. At any rate, it refers to the collection of sayings comprising this gospel, and this gospel could not have been known to Jesus. Furthermore, the final line ("not taste death") is a recurring theme in Thomas (18:3; 19:4; 85:2; 111:2) and therefore probably reflects the editorial interest of the compiler. The saying was designated black by common consent. Saying #2#2 Jesus said, '"Those who seek should not keep seeking until they find2 When they find, they will be disturbed. 3 When they are disturbed, they will marvel, 4 and will reign over all." Seek & find #2:l-4, #92:l, #94:1; Mt 7:7-8; Lk 11:9-10 Seek & find. Sayings Gospel Q (Luke 11:9) records a trio of terse sayings: Ask-it'll be given to you; seek-you'll find; knock-it'll be opened for you. The Fellows designated this trio pink because they appear to go with other unqualified statements Jesus made, and they reflect his absolute confidence in his Father. #2:1 is a revised version of the second of these sayings: those who see* should not stop seeking until they find. Thomas has probably remodeled thjs saying to make it fit the context in which it appears here. Nevertheless, the Fellows rated it pink along with the Q version because it probably originated with ]esus in some form close to this. Thomas records the seek-and-find satira: also in #92:1, and two of the three Q sayings in #94:1-2. #2:2-4 is a gnostic expansion: the gnostic quest leads to being disturbed which causes one to marvel, and that ends in reigning. The Greek fragment at this same verse adds a fifth stage: the reign of the gnostic results in 'rest,' wich is the gnostic catchword for salvation. Gnostic insight into the "real world* i opposed to the world of appearances, is what brings all this about. The "rest" is employed in the book of Revelation, on the other hand, for salvation: those who die in the Lord "may rest from their labors" (Rev 14:13) Saying #3#3 Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's imperial rule is in the sky/ then the birds of the sky will precede you.2 If they say to you, 'It is in the sea' then the fish will precede you. 3 Rather, the (Father's) imperial rule is within you and it is outside you. 4 When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. 5 But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty." Within you #3:l-3; #51:2, #113:2-4; Lk 17:20-21 Know yourselves #3:4-5 Within you. #3:1-2 pokes fun at the quest for wisdom found in Israelite wisdom literature (in this connection note Job 28:12-14, 20-22; Deut 30:11-14: 5or 1:1-3). Baruch 3:29-30 provides a pertinent example: Has anyone climbed up to heaven and found wisdom? Has anyone returned with her from the clouds? Has anyone crossed the sea and discovered her? Has anyone purchased her with gold coin? Know yourselves #3:4-5 The parody in Thomas puts the birds at advantage if wisdom and understanding are located in the sky; it puts the fish at advantage if the sea contains knowledge. In contrast, Thomas locates wisdom within the self (vv. 3-5). The irony of the sayings vv. 1-3 appealed to the Fellows whose view of Jesus includes a Cynic-like wit, but the evident literary interaction with wisdom texts from the Greek Bible prompted most Fellows to think its origin lay in common lore. Verse 3 forms a doublet with Thomas 113, which drew a pink designator However, #3:3 appears to have been specifically formulated ("within you and ... outside you") to go with "know yourselves" in v. 4. The Fellows gave vv. 1-3 a gray rating since the sayings echo the style and thought of Jesus. Know yourselves. This phrase is a secular proverb often attributed to Socrates. It is used here to refer to the self as an entity that has descended from God- a central gnostic concept. "Children of the living Father" (v. 4) is also a gnostic phrase (compare Thomas 49-50), which refers to people who by virtute of their special knowledge, are able to reascend to the heavenly domain of their Father. Parallels in more orthodox Christian texts indicate that followers of Jesus are also called "children." The use of the term "poverty" for life outside true knowledge (v. 5) is typical of gnostic writings. Verses 4-5 were labeled black because the language is typical, not of Jesus, but of gnosticism. Saying #4#4 Jesus said, "The person old in days won't hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live.2 For many of the first will be last, 3 and will become a single one." Place of life. #4.1 First & last: #4:2-3; Mt20:16: Lkl3:30; Mk 10:31; Mt 19:30 Place of life This saying recalls others attributed to Jesus in the synoptics, for example, Matt ll:25//Luke 10:21: I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned but revealed them to the untutored. However, it has been reformulated. Its affinity with other sayings in Thomas relate the status of a child to salvation. In #22:2, Jesus says, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the (Father's) domain." The image of the baby or child appealed to the gnostic sensibility as an appropriate image for salvation. The quest for life is also a Thomean theme: "Congratulations to the person who has toiled and has found life" (Thomas 58). The similarity of theme and language suggests that Thomas has revised the saying to his own perspectives. First & last. The form of this saying in Matt 20:16 was awarded a pink designation: The last will be first and the first last. In Mark 10:31, the reversal is qualified by the addition of "many": Many of the first will be last, and of the last many will be first. It also takes this form in Matt 19:30. The Fellows are of the opinion that the unqualified form is more likely to have originated with Jesus, since his style is given to exaggeration, hyperbole, and overstatement. Further, the first version cited above is more concise. The second has been softened. #4:2 was designated gray because the reversal has been qualified, as in Mark, and the edge of the saying blunted. Becoming "a single one" (v. 3) is a motif that appears elsewhere in Thomas. In #22:5, male and female are turned into a single one; in #23, one and two become a single one; the two made into one become children of Adam in #106:1. The last reference suggests the androgynous state before the creation of human beings, when male and female had not yet been differentiated. In gnostic theory, Adam and Eve were created by a lesser god, who bungled the job in making two sexes. These ideas are foreign to Jesus. Saying #5#5 Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. 2 For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, [3 And there is nothing buried that will not be raised."] Hidden & revealed. Some Fellows thought the first saying should be red or pink, because of its similarity to the following saying, which was designated pink. It invites people to notice the presence of God's imperial rule here and now. The ability to participate in that basic vision brings other knowledge with it, knowledge that is presently hidden. Recognizing what is before one is also a theme of #113:2-4: It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, "Look, here!" or "Look, there!" Rather, the Father's imperial rule is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it. However, in the judgment of other Fellows, #5:1 reflects the Thomean theme that appears in the prologue and Thomas 1: the sayings collected in Thomas are "secret" sayings; "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." Divided opinion produced a gray weighted average. There are four variations on the saying that appears in v. 2: 1. There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. #5:2 2. There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing covered up that will remain undisclosed.#6:5-6 3. There is nothing veiled that won't be unveiled, or hidden that won't be made known.Luke 12:2 4. There is nothing hidden except to be brought to light, nor anything secreted away that won't be exposed.Mark 4:22 The simplest form of the saying is (1) since in #5:2 it consists of a single line. This form is probably the earliest. All other forms of the saying consist of two parts. The variations demonstrate once again that Jesus' followers remembered the gist of what he said rather than his exact words. In all of its forms this saying is linked to a second saying that interprets it. In this instance, the interpretive saying (5:1) precedes the primary saying. The tandem remark (5:1-2) promises that a deeper knowledge will follow from a true understanding of what lies close at hand. The meaning assigned to the saying varies with the context in which it appears. In Mark 4:22 it refers to Mark's theory about the enigmatic character of the parables. In Luke 12:2 and Thom 6:5 it cautions against hypocrisy or speaking falsely. In Matt 10:26, which is the parallel to Luke 12:2, cited above from Q, it enjoins the disciples to preach boldly. Luke also records a version in 8:17, which he has taken from Mark; in its context in Luke 8, it legitimizes the mission of the Christian movement. These differences call attention to the freedom and creativity with which the authors of the gospels have recycled this aphorism, applying it to new and varying contexts. Though the saying was given a multiplicity of contexts and meanings, the Fellows gave it a pink rating in every case, except Mark 4:22, where it seems to have been garbled. Although the saying has proverbial qualities-it is quite general and could be applied to any number of situations-it is memorable and paradoxical. Moreover, it is exceedingly well attested. These were reasons enough to warrant a pink designation. Buried & raised. A Greek fragment of Thomas records a third verse, not found in Coptic Thomas. The contrast between what is buried and raised recalls the earliest Christian proclamation of the death and resurrection of Jesus, such as the version recorded by Paul in 1 Cor 15:3-4. Thomas seems to have no interest in the crucifixion, however, so in Thomas this saying can scarcely reflect the Pauline creed. (#55:2 contains another obscure allusion to the cross.) As a generalized saying, the contrast may be an oblique allusion to the rite of initiation-baptism-in which the believer dies and is raised to new life. Paul explains this symbolism in Rom 6:1-11. Either way the saying is understood, it expresses a later Christian or gnostic perspective, not that of Jesus himself. Saying #6#6 His disciples asked him and said to him, "Do you want us to fast? How should we pray? Should we give to charity? What diet should we observe?"2 Jesus said, "Don't lie, 3 and don't do what you hate, 4 because all things are disclosed before heaven. 5 After all, there is nothing hid den that will not be revealed, 6 and there is nothing covered up that will remain undisclosed." On lies #6:2 Golden rule #6:3; Mt7:12; Lk6:31; common lore Hidden & revealed #6:4-6; #5:2; Mt 10:26; Lk 12:2; Mk4:22: Lk8:17 The answers Jesus is represented as giving in 6:2-6 appear to be unrelated to the questions about fasting, praying, and giving posed by the disciples in v. 1. Jesus does answer these three questions directly in 14:1-3. The discrepancv between #6:1 and 2-6 has led some scholars to speculate that the texts of #6 and #14 have somehow been confused. On lies. The admonition not to lie is common wisdom. There is no way to verify whether Jesus said it. In any case, it tells us nothing significant about Jesus. Golden rule. Luke (6:31) and Matthew (7:12) attribute a positive form of the golden rule to Jesus ('Treat people the way you want them to treat you"). Both the negative (Thom 6:3) and the positive forms of the adage are widely attested in ancient literature. Accordingly, Jesus did not originate this well-known admonition. The question is: did Jesus quote it with approval? Numerous scholars have pointed out the limitation inherent in the golden rule: to make oneself the standard of treatment extended to others is an egoistic perspective. In genuine love, one ought, in fact, to make the other person the standard of treatment. The Fellows designated the negative form of the adage black, but the positive form received a gray rating on the grounds that Jesus could conceivably have quoted it. Hidden & revealed. The various versions of the pair of linked sayings recorded in vv. 5-6 were compared in the comments on #5:2. It was noted there that one saying is regularly accompanied by a second that interprets the first. In #6, we have an extended context: the reader is admonished not to lie and not to do what is hated, because everything will be disclosed before God (heaven is a circumlocution for God). The two sayings that follow simply expand on that idea. To the counterparts of v. 5 the Fellows had already given a pink designation, so they repeated it here. They took v. 6 to be close to Mark 4:22, which they had given a gray designation. The vote on the variations of this saying was actually very close; the weighted average fell near the line dividing pink and gray. Saying #7Human & lion #7:l-2 #7 Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human.2 And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human." Human & lion. This saying is obscure. In antiquity the lion was known to be powerful and ferocious. Hunting lions was the sport of kings. The lion was often the symbol of royalty. The winged lion figures in apocalyptic visions, sometimes as the consort of God, at other times as a symbol of evil. In Rev 4:7, the four figures that surround the throne are the lion, the young bull, the human figure, and the eagle. These images were later adopted as symbols of the four canonical evangelists; the winged lion specifically became the symbol for the Gospel of Mark. The lion was also used to symbolize human passions. Consuming the lion or being eaten by the lion may therefore have had to do with the relation to one's passions. Understood this way, the saying embodies an ascetic motif. At any rate, Jesus, who was reputed to be a glutton and a drunkard, probably did not coin this saying. Saying #8#8 And he said, The human one is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of little fish.2 Among them the wise fisherman discovered a fine large fish. 3 He threw all the little fish back into the sea, and easily chose the large fish. 4 Anyone here with two good ears had better listen! Wise fisherman #8:l-3; Matt 13:47-48; Two good ears #8:4; #21:10: #24:2: #65:8; 96:3; Mk4:9, etc. Wise fisherman. The parable of the wise fisherman in Thomas contrasts the large fish with the numerous small fish caught in the net. The contrast between the large and the small is a persistent theme in Thomas, for example, in the parables of the leaven (96:1-2) and the lost sheep (#107:1-3). Thomas has no interest in the last judgment, which is the theme of the corresponding parable of the fishnet in Matthew (13:47-48). The form in Thomas is quite similar to a common hellenistic proverb about the wise fisherman recorded by Aesop: A fisherman drew in the dragnet he had cast (into the sea) only a short time before. As luck would have it, it was filled will all kinds (of fish). The small fish made for the bottom of the net and escaped through its porous mesh. The large fish were trapped and lay stretched out in the boat. Two good ears. This injunction is often appended to parables and sayings that are obscure or difficult to understand. It occurs repeatedly in the gospels and other early Christian literature. It is the sort of appeal that any sage might have made after telling a story or uttering a witticism. The Fellows put it in the gray category because they thought Jesus might have used it, but did not invent it. In addition, it adds nothing important to our knowledge of who Jesus was. Saying #9#9 Jesus said, Look, the sower went out,, took a handful (of seeds), and scattered (them).2 Some fell on the road, and the birds came and gathered them. 3 Others fell on rock, and they didn't take rout; in the soil and didn't produce heads of grain. 4 Others fell on thorns, and they choked the seeds and worms ate them, 5 others fell on good soil, and it produced a good crop: it yielded sixty per measure and one hundred twenty per measure. Sower #9:1-5; Mk 4:3-8; Matt 13:3-8; Lk8:5-8a Sower. Thomas has preserved what the Fellows take to be the form of the parable of the sower that is closest to the original. The seed is first sown on three kinds of ground that fail to produce: the road, the rocky ground, and among the thorns. When sown on good soil, the seed produces yields at two different levels: sixty and one hundred twenty. Originally, the yields were probably thirty, sixty one hundred, as Mark records them, although the doubling of sixty to one hundred twenty may have been original. The structure probably consisted of two sets of threes: three failures, three successes. Most of the Fellows were persuaded that the sower originated with Jesiis. Dissenting votes were based on the observation that sowing and harvesting were figures commonly used as analogies in hellenistic rhetoric for pedagogical failures and successes. The only question was whether the parable was borrowed from that lore or whether Jesus was its creator. Saying #10#10 Jesus said, "1 have cast fire upon the world, and look, I'm guarding it until it blazes."Fire on earth #10; Lk 12:49 Fire on earth. Both the context and the form of the saying in Thomas distinguish it from the Lukan version ("I came to set the earth on fire, and how 1 wish it were already ablaze!"). In Luke, the saying is part of a cluster probably already formed in Q, and reflects the early Christian community's mythologized view of Jesus as one who came into the world for its redemption. In Thomas, the saying appears as a single aphorism, not part of a cluster, and with none of the Christianizing language of the Lukan version. The saying in Thomas is thus probably not dependent on Q or Luke, but represents an independent tradition. Because the saying occurs as a single statement in Thomas and without Christianizing language, the Fellows awarded it a pink vote, whereas the Lukan version was voted gray. In Luke's version, Jesus is impatient for the fire to be ignited, suggesting that the fire will occur in the future. The Fellows found this apocalyptic note alien to Jesus. In Thomas' version, in contrast, the fire is already ignited, and Jesus is protecting it until it becomes a blaze. This threatening and subversive image seemed to the Fellows to be more characteristic of Jesus' language, hence the pink vote. Saying #11#11 Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away.2 The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. 3 During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the light, what will you do? 4 On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?" Heavens pass away #ll:l-4 Heavens pass away. A number of themes in this complex led the Fellows to conclude that these sayings derive from a form of Christianity exhibiting mild gnostic tendencies. This appears to be the form of Christianity Thomas espoused. The speculative cosmology in #11:1 has parallels in other gnostic texts. The obscure statements regarding life and death in ll:2-3a seem typical of Thomas (#4:1; #58; #101:3; #7; #60), as does the theme of light (#ll:3b; compare with #24:3; #50:1; #61:5; #83:1-2). #11:4 may refer to a common gnostic idea that humanity has fallen from an original, perfect state of undifferentiated unity (22:4-7). All these considerations suggest that the Thomas tradition is the origin of this complex rather than Jesus. Saying #12#12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"2 Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being." James as leader #l2:2 James as leader. In the synoptic gospels, Peter is portrayed as the leader of the Christian movement among Judeans. Luke represents Paul as the leading missionary to gentiles in the book of Acts. There is another early tradition, reflected here in Thomas, that James, the brother of Jesus, was the leader of the Jerusalem Christian community. James and Paul came into conflict over whether gentile converts to Christianity had to observe the Law (Acts 15:1-29; Gal 2:1-10). The specific issue was whether gentile male converts had to be circumcised. According to the tradition reported by later Christian writers, James was strict in his observance of the Law, so strict, in fact, that he became known as James the Just. It is this James who is extolled in #12:1-2. Conflict over who was to lead the new Christian movement arose only after the death of Jesus, in the judgment of many scholars. This saying, like mam others in the gospels, looks back on Jesus, rather than reflects events in his own lifetime. Saying #13#13: Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like."2 Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just angel." 3 Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher." 4 Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like." 5 Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended." 6 And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. 7 When Thomas came back to his friends, they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?" 8 Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you." Who am I? #13:1-8; Cf. Mk 8:27-30; Mt 16:13-20; Lk9:18-21; Jnl:35-42 Who am I? As in the synoptic parallels, Jesus asks his disciples to say what his true religious status and significance is. He is given two inappropriate, though honorable, answers before he receives the proper response (though in Thomas i: is rather enigmatic). In these scenes, the disciples' confessions are more memorable than anything Jesus says. Statements of the disciples' faith or insight become models for new converts to follow. In John 11:27, for example, Martha confesses, "I believe that you are the Anointed, God's son, who is to come to earth." This miniature confession exhibits the essential ingredients found in other early statements of faith. These became the core of the first creeds. These confessional scenes are stylized: they are shaped by the author's theological orientation. Since Jesus rarely initiates dialogue or refers to himself in the first person, he would not have elicited confessions of faith of which he was the object. The Fellows designated the words attributed to Jesus in this story black bv common consent. Saying #14#14 Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves,2 and if you pray, you will be condemned, 3 and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits. 4 When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. 5 After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it's what comes o, of your mouth that will defile you. Fasting, prayer, charity #14:1-3; Cf. Mt 6:2-8 Eat what is provided #l4:4; Lk 10:8-9 What goes in #l4:5; Mk7:15, Mt 15:11 Fasting, prayer, charity. Although the radical criticism of popular piety represented by these sayings won for them some red and pink votes, a large majority of the Fellows voted black or gray. The majority agreed that the sayings reflected the concern of the early Christian movement to define its social boundaries over against other Judean groups for whom fasting, prayer, and charity formed the pillars of religious practice. Eat what is provided. In Thomas the first of the two sayings recorded in vv. 4-5 is one element in a composite cluster that begins with a critique of the traditional pious practices of prayer, fasting, and charity, and ends with the saying about what really defiles a person (v. 5). Thomas provides an independent attestation of the saying recorded also in Luke 10:8, but in a context of his own creation. The sayings are not identical but very close: Luke 10:8: "Whenever you enter a town and they welcome you, eat whatever is set before you.">BR> #14:4: "When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you." The context in Thomas implies that the author is using the saying to address the question of social and religious practice more generally than in the synoptic parallels, where the admonition occurs in instructions specifically addressed to traveling emissaries. Consistent with this difference in context, there is no mention of lodgings or of a peace greeting in Thomas (in Luke 10:5-7 these things are mentioned). The author's interest is focused on the question of dietary laws and other religious practices. The Fellows designated this saying pink along with its parallel in Luke 10:8. These were the only exceptions to the gray and black designations for both the other parallels to this saying and all other sayings in the set of instructions for the road. (Consult the notes on Mark 6:8-11 and Luke 10:1-16 for particulars.) The saying is attested in two other independent sources (Mark and Q). It is consistent with the criticism made of Jesus for eating with "sinners"-non-observant Judeans-articulated in Mark 2:16 and Q (Luke 7:34; Matt 11:19). These factors account for the pink vote: a radical injunction of this sort might well have come from Jesus. What goes in. The aphorism in #14:5 is to be compared with its counterpart in Mark 7:15: It's not what goes into a person from the outside that can defile; rather it's what comes out of the person that defiles. The context is different in Mark, and this fact makes it almost certain that the saying once circulated apart from either context. As we observed in the comments on Mark 7:14-15, this statement is a fundamental challenge to the regulations governing purity and pollution, and thus to what distinguishes the real Judean from the alien. Eating a common meal with pagans defiled the practicing Judean, which meant that he or she could not participate in other religious observances until purified. Jesus apparently ignored, or deliberately transgressed, food laws. He frequently ate with those who were ritually defiled, according to the gospels. In this, as in other matters, such as sabbath observance, he was violating powerful taboos. As a consequence, the Fellows decided that this saying sounds like Jesus. Saying #15#15 Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father."Your Father #l5 Your Father. There are no parallels to this saving in early Christian or gnostic tradition. Among some gnostic groups, the highest god is referred to as the "unbegotten" (one not born), since birth would imply that the god was finite This may be the background of this saying. Another possibility is this: Jesus may here be equating himself with the Father, as he sometimes does in the Gospel of John (10:30; 14:9). In either case, the Fellows took this to reflect later Christian or gnostic tradition. Saying #16#16 Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world.2 They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war. 3 For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, 4 and they will stand alone." Not peace but conflict #16:1-4; Lk 12:51-53, Mt 10:34-36 Not peace but conflict. This cluster in Thomas corresponds to a similar complex in Q, as recorded in Luke 12:51-53: Do you suppose I came here to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, on the contrary: conflict. As a result, from now on in any given house there will be five in conflict, three against two and two against three. Father will be pitted against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. Matthew has a slightly different version (10:34-36), which he also took from Sayings Gospel Q. The saying has been varied in the three sources: Luke appears to be the middle term between Matthew and Thomas. All three versions are "I have come" sayings, which, in the judgment of most Fellows, is a Christian formulation: Jesus is represented as sent from God to fulfill a specific mission ("I have come to ...'). The Fellows doubt that Jesus spoke of himself in this way, because they doubt that he thought of himself as having been assigned a messianic role Further, part of this passage is based on Mic 7:5-6. Thomas has also considerably revised this group of sayings from its Q form, which the Fellows took to be the more original. It is the form, not the content, of this complex that Fellows could not attribute to Jesus. For a saying of Jesus that does permit conflict, see Luke 14:26. #16:4 is clearly an addition to the basic tradition; to be "alone" reflects a point of view peculiar to Thomas (compare #49:1; and #75). Saying #1717: Jesus said, "I will give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no hand has touched, what has not arisen in the human heart."No eye has seen #l7 Cf. 1 Cor 2:9 No eye has seen. This saying has a complex history. It is derived ultimately from Isa 64:4: From ages past no one has heard, no ear perceived, no eye has seen any god besides you, who works for those who wait for him. Paul quotes the saying in 1 Cor 2:9, but does not assign it specifically to Jesus. It may lie behind the Q saying in Luke 10:23-24//Matt 3:16-17, but the parallel is not close. Later the saying is widely attested in Christian and related sources, and often attributed to Jesus. The Fellows were reluctant to assign the saying to Jesus. The scriptural parallel suggests the hand of early Christian interpreters who were searching for the scriptural justification of their movement. The ambiguity of its attribution in the sources also raises doubts about its origination with Jesus. It was designated black by common consent. Saying #18#18 The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?"2 Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death." Beginning & end #l8:l-3 Cf. #19:4 Beginning & end. Thomas consistently opposes speculation about the end (compare Thomas 3; 51; and 113). The idea that one returns in the end to one's beginning has parallels in gnostic texts: the goal of the gnostic's existence is to escape the created world of evil and return to the state of primordial perfection that existed at the beginning. Aspects of this concept are also reflected in Thomas #49. The final phrase in 18:3 is particularly Thomean (compare #1; #91:4; #85:2; #111:2). All of these factors led the Fellows to designate the saying black. Saying #19#19 Jesus said, "Congratulations to the one who came into being before coming into being.2 If you become my disciples and pay attention to my sayings, these stones will serve you. 3 For there are five trees in Paradise for you; they do not change, summer or winter, and their leaves do not fall. 4 Whoever knows them will not taste death." Five trees #19:1-4 Five trees. This saying exhibits two themes familiar from later gnostic works: die idea of personal preexistence (19:1) and the "trees of Paradise" (19:3). In Gen 19, God caused trees to spring up in the Garden of Eden; in their midst was the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Similarly, in the new Jerusalem there will grow along the river of the water of life the tree of life which will yield twelve different kinds of fruit, one each month, and its leaves will have healing properties (Rev 22:2). The motif of the trees is common IT. Israelite lore. The themes of Thom 19:1-4 are human origins and the paradisal state that awaits those who pay attention to the words of Jesus (v. 20). It therefore accords generally with Thomas' incipient gnostic proclivities. Verse 4 employs a typical Thomean phrase (#1; #18:3; #85:2; #111:2). The Fellows designated this cluster black by common consent. Saying #20#20 The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us what Heaven's imperial rule is like."2 He said to them, It's like a mustard seed. 3 (It's) the smallest of all seeds, 4 but when it falls on prepared soil, it produces a large plant and becomes a shelter for birds of the sky. Mustard seed #20:l-4; Mtl3:31-32: Lkl3:18-19; Mk 4:30-32 Mustard seed. The parable of the mustard seed has a simple four-part structure. God's imperial rule is like: 1. a mustard seed 2. when sown on the ground 3. becomes a big plant 4. and birds of the sky nest in/under its branches The mustard seed is proverbial for its smallness. The mustard plant is actually an annual shrub, or weed, yet in Matthew and Luke it becomes a tree, while in Mark it becomes the biggest of all garden plants. Only in Thomas does it remain simply "a large plant." The mustard seed is an unlikely figure of speech for God's domain in Jesus original parable. His listeners would probably have expected God's domain to be compared to something great, not something small and insignificant. As the tradition was passed on, it fell under the influence of two figures: that of the mighty cedar of Lebanon as a metaphor for a towering empire (Ezek 17:22-23): and that of the apocalyptic tree of Dan 4:12, 20-22. In Daniel, the crown of the tree reaches to heaven and its branches cover the earth; under it dwell the beasts of the field and in its branches nest the birds of the sky. These well-known figures undoubtedly influenced the transmission and reshaping of the original parable. In his use of this metaphor, Jesus is understating the image for comic effect the mighty cedar is now an ordinary garden weed. This is parody. For Jesus God's domain was a modest affair, not a new world empire. It was pervasive but unrecognized, rather than noisy and arresting. Some scholars have proposed an alternative interpretation. The birds stand for those irritating "toll collectors and sinners" (the followers of Jesus) who are attracted to a noxious plant (God's domain), and God's empire thus sprouts up in Israel's ordered field as an unwanted intrusion. On either reading the parable betrays an underlying sense of humor on Jesus' part. It is also anti-social in that it endorses counter movements and ridicules established tradition. The Fellows judged the version in Thomas to be the closest to the original. It was therefore given a red designation. The three synoptic versions have been accommodated to a greater or lesser degree to the apocalyptic tree theme and so were designated pink. This parable is a good example of how the original Jesus tradition, perhaps shocking in its modesty or poorly understood, is revised to accommodate living and powerful mythical images drawn from the Hebrew scriptures. Saying #21#21 Mary said to Jesus, "What are your disciples like?"2 He said, They are like little children living in a field that is not theirs. 3 When the owners of the field come, they will say, "Give us back our field." 4 They take off their clothes in front of them in order to give it back to them, and they return their field to them. 5 For this reason I say, if the owners of a house know that a thief is coming, they will be on guard before the thief arrives, and will not let the thief break into their house (their domain) and steal their possessions. 6 As for you, then, be on guard against the world. 7 Prepare yourselves with great strength, so the robbers can't find a way to get to you, for the trouble you expect will come. 8 "Let there be among you a person who understands. 9 When the crop ripened, he came quickly carrying a sickle and harvested it. 10 Anyone here with two good ears had better listen! Children in a field #21:l-4 Thief in the night #21:5-8; #l03; Mt24:43-44; Lk 12:39-40; Sickle & harvest #21:9; Mk4:29 Two good ears #21:10; #8:4; #24:2; #65:8; #96:3; Mk4:9 etc. Children in a field. Verses 2-3 may have originated with a parable whose conclusion has been replaced by the obscure saying in v. 4. The original parable has been lost. The conclusion in v. 4 is a metaphor with several possible interpretations: (1) It may be an allusion to Christian baptism, which would reflect the concerns of the emerging Christian community. (2) It may refer to gnostic and other early Christian notions that upon death the soul sheds the body (clothing) and proceeds to the heavenly realm from whence it has come (compare Thomas 29; 87; 112). (3) Or it may symbolize the return to a primordial state of sexual non-differentiation, to an androgynous state (compare Thomas 37). At all events, the parable in its present form reflects theological concerns that did not originate with Jesus. Thief in the night. The version of this complex of sayings in #21:5-7 has been edited to reflect gnostic interests: Thomas did not share the apocalyptic expectation of the return of the son of Adam; rather, the thing to be on guard against was "the world." The world was a threat to the gnostics, who believed that the things of this world might lull them to sleep and cause them to forge: their real home in the realm of light. Verse 8 is an interpretive conclusion to the preceding compendium of sayings, that was probably provided by Thomas. The Fellows agreed to a black designation for the entire segment. Sickle & harvest. This saying is an allusion to Joel 3:13. In Mark 4:29 it is attached to the parable of the seed and harvest. Its appearance in two different contexts suggests that it circulated independently at one time. Both Mark ana Thomas have given it an arbitrary location. The image is usually associated with the last judgment, which is what prompted some of the Fellows to vote black However, it may also refer to the bountiful harvest that Jesus anticipates as a result of the providence of God who causes grain to grow (this is one way to read Mark's parable of the seed and harvest, 4:26-29). This possibility induced other Fellows to vote pink or gray. Two good ears. This admonition appears five times in the Gospel of Thomas and frequently elsewhere in the gospels and other early Christian literature. It was a favorite way to conclude parables or obscure sayings. We cannot be sure that Jesus urged his disciples to use their ears with this particular saying, but he may well have said something very like it. Saying #22#22 Jesus saw some babies nursing.2 He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the (Father's) domain." 3 They said to him, "Then shall we enter the (Father's) domain as babies?" 4 Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, 5 and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, 6 when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, 7 then you will enter [the (Father's) domain]." Children in God's domain #22:l-7 Cf. Jn3:3,5; Mk 10O:13-16; Mtl8:3; 19:13-15; Lk 18:15-17; #106:1 Children in God's domain. The saying in which nursing infants become the analogy for those entering God's domain has parallels in Mark (10:14-15) and the other synoptics who copy him. Mark, in fact, has a pair of sayings joined: Let the children come up to me, don't try to stop them. After all, God's domain is peopled with such as these. I swear to you, whoever doesn't accept God's imperial rule the way a child would, certainly won't ever set foot in (his domain). The first saying concerns the status of children in the kingdom, the second has to do with entering that domain. The Fellows understood the second to reflect early Christian interest in the rite of initiation, in Christian baptism. Rebirth is necessary to enter God's domain, according to John 3:5, and that means being born of the water and the spirit, which is an allusion to what transpires at baptism. The first saying in Mark 10:14 was awarded a pink rating because Jesus was probably sympathetic to the plight of children in his society. The second was rated gray because the Fellows doubted that Jesus continued John the Baptist's rite; baptism was reinstituted later by the Jesus movement, many of whose leaders had earlier been followers of John and thus were familiar with that rite. The saying in Thom 22:2 was also designated gray because it appears to be related to the second saying in Mark (10:15), which concerns entering God's domain by means of Christian baptism. The initial saying (v. 2), which is earlier than any of the written gospels, is followed, in Thom 22:4-7, by interpretive rephrasing. One enters life by recovering one's original self, undivided by the differences between male and female, physical and spiritual. The theme of unifying opposites is well known from later gnostic texts. This surrounding commentary on v. 2 was designated black as the work of the Thomas community. Saying #2323 Jesus said, "I shall choose you, one from a thousand and two from ten thousand,2 and they will stand as a single one" One from a thousand #23:1-2 Cf. #49, #75, #106:1, #4:3, #16:4 One from a thousand. To become a "single one" is a common theme in Thomas, even though its meaning is not altogether clear: note 4:3; compare 16:4; 49:1; 75. The idea of being "chosen" to become a single one is also characteristic of the thought patterns of Thomas. The idea is repeated in Thomas 49-50. The phrasing, "one from a thousand and two from ten thousand," is repeated in later gnostic texts. The use of the phrase "one from a thousand" may indicate that the gnostics thought of themselves as an elite, relatively rare species among humankind. The phrase "single one" (v. 2) points to undifferentiated existence prior to creation. Saying #24#24 His disciples said, "Show us the place where you are, for we must seek it."2He said to them, "Anyone here with two ears had better listen! 3 There is light within a person of light, and it shines on the whole world. If it does not shine, it is dark." Two good ears #24:2; #8:4; #21:10; #65:8; #96:3; Mk4:9, etc. The world's light #24:3; Jn8:12; 9:5; 11:9-10; 12:35-36,46; Cf.Jn 1:4-5; Mt5:14a Two good ears. This admonition, which usually follows sayings and parables that are hard to understand, here introduces an obscure saying. As in all its other appearances, the adage was given a gray designation. The world's light. The concept of a person bearing a spark of light that recalls one's origin and determines one's nature is a gnostic commonplace. While reminiscent of other sayings about light, especially in the Gospel of John, it is here dearly a gnostic formulation. Saying #25#25 Jesus said, "Love your friends like your own soul,2 protect them like the pupil of your eye." Love of friends #25:1-2; Cf. Mk 12:31, Mt22:39, 19:19; Lk 10:27 Love of friends. Verse 1 is reminiscent of all those places in the gospels where Jesus is credited with quoting the admonition of Lev 19:18 in one form or another: "Love your neighbor as yourself." It was designated gray because it draws on common lore. Verse 2 is an extension of that same sentiment, restating the meaning of v. 1 in different words. It appears to be an addition from the hand of Thomas and was therefore voted black. Saying #26#26 Jesus said, "You see the sliver in your friend's eye, but you don't see the timber in your own eye.2 When you take the timber out of your own eye, then you will see well enough to remove the sliver from your friend's eye." Sliver & timber #26:l-2; Mt 7:3-5; Lk 6:41-42 Sliver & timber. Thomas' version of this humorous comparison is simpler than the form found in Q, which suggests that the latter has been expanded. The Q version (Luke 6:41-42) reads: Why do you notice the sliver in your friend's eye, but overlook the timber in your own? How can you say to your friend, "Friend, let me get the sliver in your eye/ when you do not notice the timber in your own? You phony, first take the timber out of your own eye, and then you'll see well enough to remove the sliver in your friend's eye. Thomas does not use the word "phony"-someone who pretends to be something he or she isn't-so this element may be secondary. The Q version is also redundant (lines 4-5 in the Q version repeat lines 1-2). The exaggerated difference between sliver and timber recalls the gross disproportion between the two debts in the parable of the unforgiving slave: ten million dollars versus ten dollars (Matt 18:23-35). Hyperbole is characteristic of Jesus' figures of speech. Moreover, Jesus urges forgiveness rather than condemnation as the standard of behavior (Luke 6:37 and the Lord's prayer). This saying is right in line with what is otherwise known of Jesus. The version in Thomas drew the highest weighted average because of its simplicity, although all three forms (Luke 7:41-42//Matt 7:3-5) were designated pink. Saying #27#27 "If you do not fast from the world, you will not find the (Father's) domain.2 If you do not observe the sabbath as a sabbath, you will not see the Father." Fasting & sabbath #27:l-2; Cf. Mk2:18-20; Mt9:14-15; Lk 5:33-35; Mk 2:23-28; Mt 12:1-8; Lk 6:1-5 Fasting & sabbath. While Thomas does not favor literal fasting (see 6:1; 14:1 104), he considered "fasting from the world" as sound doctrine (note 110 and 56:1-2; 80:1-2; 111:3). The "world" for Thomas is power and wealth (81; 85 which means everything that distracts from the recovery of that inner spark tha: is one's true self (compare the following saying, 28:1-4, which speaks of drunkenness, blindness, and emptiness). In other words, Thomas advocates a mild form of asceticism. The meaning of #27:2 is obscure, but it probably has to do with restoring what Thomas may have regarded as a loss of integrity in personal piety. A similar concern seems to lie behind Thomas 6. Neither saying is paralleled elsewhere in the Jesus tradition. Saying #28#28 Jesus said, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them.2 I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. 3 My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty. 4But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they will change their ways." Drunk, blind, empty #28:1-4 Drunk, blind, empty. In this miniature discourse, Jesus speaks in highly theological terms about himself. He depicts himself as the redeemer who descends to earth and ascends to heaven, in terms very similar to those in the old hymn recorded in Phil 2:5-11 or in the prologue to the Gospel of John 1:1-5, 9-14, 16-18. However, here there are specifically gnostic twists: the spiritual state of humanity, according to numerous gnostic texts, is stupefied with passion and drunkeness, blind to any spiritual understanding. The savior comes to awaken such persons to their true origins. This complex, accordingly, is a summary version of gnostic redeemer myths that depict the human condition and the possibility for salvation. Saying #29#29 Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel,2 but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels. 3 Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty." Flesh as poverty #29:l-3 Flesh as poverty. This group of sayings has a strongly ascetic tone. The depreciation of the body is a frequent theme in Thomas (note especially sayings 87 and 112, but also see the remarks on #28:1-4). Such ideas are not confined to Thomas, but appear elsewhere in early Christian literature (John 3:6; Gal 5:16-18; Rom 8:3-11). However, the profile of Jesus as one who willingly associates with outsiders and the unclean and is remembered as a drunkard and a glutton (Matt 1 l:19//Luke 7:34) does not square with these remarks that belittle the body and recommend asceticism. The sayings were accordingly designated black by common consent. Saying #30#30 Jesus said, "Where there are three deities, they are divine.2 Where there are two or one, I am with that one." Two or three #30:1-2 Cf. Mt 18:20 Two or three. The Coptic version of this saying is probably corrupt, a result of mistranslation from a Greek original. The version preserved in a Greek fragment of the Gospel of Thomas, known as POxy 1, combines 30:1-2 with 77:2-3: 30 'Where there are [three, they are without] God, 2 and where there is only [one], I say, I am with that one. 77 2Lift up the stone, and you will find me there. 3 Split the piece of wood and I am there." #30:1-2 is the Thomean version of Matt 18:20 ("Wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, I will be there among them"). Here, however, the solitary one merits God's presence, not the two or three gathered together. Tros Thomean idea is found also in #4:3; 22:5; 23:2 (also compare 16:4; 49:1; 75 In this respect, the Gospel of Thomas is obviously anti-institutional: it rejects the community (the minimum requirement for which was two or three) as the basic unit in favor of the solitary individual. Saying #31#31 Jesus said, No prophet is welcome in his own turf,2 doctors don't cure those who know them." No respect at home #31:l; Mk 6:4; Mt 13:57; Lk4:24; Jn4:44 Doctor & friends #31:2 Lk4:23 No respect at home. The following versions of this saying and its counterpar are found in the gospels: Jesus said, "No prophet is welcome on his home turf; doctors don't cure those who know them." #31:1-2 And he said to them, "No doubt you will quote me that proverb, 'Doctor, cure yourself,' and you'll tell me, 'Do here in your hometown what we've heard you've done in Capernaum.'" Then he said, "The truth is, no prophet is welcome on his home turf." Luke 4:23-24 Two days later Jesus left there for Galilee. (Remember, (Jesus) himself had observed, "A prophet gets no respect on his own turf.") So when he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, since they had seen everything he had done at the celebration in Jerusalem. John 4:43-45 Jesus used to tell them: "No prophet goes without respect, except on his home turf and among his relatives and at home!" He was unable to perform a single miracle there, except that he did cure a few by laying hands on them, though he was always shocked at their lack of trust. Mark 6:4-6 And he came to his hometown and resumed teaching them in their synagogue, so they were astounded and said so: "What's the source of this wisdom and these miracles? This is the carpenter's son, isn't it? Isn't his mother called Mary? And aren't his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And aren't all his sisters neighbors of ours? So where did he get all this?" And they were resentful of him. Jesus said to them, "No prophet goes without respect, except in his hometown and at home!" And he did not perform many miracles there because of their lack of trust. Matt 13:54-58 1. The earliest form of the saying is probably the aphorism consisting of a single line found in #31:1; Luke 4:24; and John 4:44 (the simpler form is usually the earlier). This adage is characteristic of the short, easily remembered, and, in this case, ironical remark that lent itself to oral transmission, and was typical of Jesus as a sage and prophet. 2. Matthew copies Mark but omits the phrase "and among his relatives," which Luke also omits. In fact, that phrase was undoubtedly inspired by Mark's negative view of Jesus' relatives (3:21, 31-35). It doesn't suit the views of Matthew and Luke, so they omit it. 3. Whether the prophet gets no respect or is not welcome is probably merely a variation in the way the core proverb was performed. The same can be said of the variety of terms used for the place in question: "hometown," "home," "territory." 4. Further questions arise: Was the saying about the doctor originally quoted by Jesus? Was it linked to the saying about the prophet? The two are connected in Thomas 31 as a proverb consisting of two lines. It is interesting to note that Luke seems to connect the two ideas also: the crowd asks Jesus to do in his hometown what he had done in Capernaum: namely, to cure people, which follows from the secular proverb they quote him, "Doctor, cure yourself." It is possible that Luke was aware of the two-line proverb preserved in Thomas but decided to revamp it to suit the story he was developing. Further, in Mark 6:5, on the heels of the adage about the prophet, the reader is told that Jesus was unable to perform a single miracle in his hometown. Mark, too, seems familiar with the connection between the roles of the prophet and the doctor. The second part of the adage as we have it in Thomas may have been lost because the later Christian community was more interested in Jesus as prophet than it was in Jesus as doctor. In any case, the practice of healing and exorcism soon died out in the emerging church. The saying about the prophet has a proverbial ring to it, and there are some similar sayings in pagan literature, although none about a prophet. There is no clear precedent or parallel in Israelite or Judean sources. In spite of its seemingly proverbial character, a majority of the Fellows were of the opinion that the simple proverb was plausible in the context of Jesus' activity and the rejection of him in his own village; his rejection is not something the evangelists would have invented. Accordingly, the saying merited a pink designation. Doctor & friends. The companion saying about the doctor is known in a number of forms in non-biblical literature of the period. Luke uses the saying as an element in his story about Jesus' visit to his hometown. It is thus highly probable that Luke borrowed a well-known proverb and put it on the lips of Jesus because it was appropriate in this context. Thisi(is also the likely case in Thomas, where the proverb takes a slightly different form. The Fellows of the Seminar concluded that some saying about the physician, because it was a form of self-criticism, might well have been spoken by Jesus. The Fellows determined that gray would be the appropriate designation because the tradition does not agree on the specific form of the proverb. T.A.D.M.N |