Gospel of Thomas Saying 11
|
This Gospel of Thomas Commentary is part of the Gospel of Thomas page at Early Christian Writings. |
|
Funk's Parallels GThom 111:1, Ps 102:25-27, Isa 34:4, Luke 16:16-17, Luke 21:32-33, Matt 5:18, Matt 24:34-35, Mark 13:30-31, DialSav 56-57, Hippolytus Refutatio 5.8.32, Heb 1:10-12, Rev 6:12-14.
|
|
Visitor Comments All of reality as you believe it to be is illusion and will pass. Even the illuison of birth and death will be realized as such. You pass through periods of incarnation. Then you return to the spirit world of light. God (One) chose to become (create) two and thus the ten thousand things of illusion. We are all on a mission of understanding and exploring of the nature of the 10,000 things in order to return to the One. Part of the understanding to be achieved is to realize that the One has never ceased to be the One. The marvel of this moment will pass into history and die, as will the contemplator of the marvel of this moment. What the intellect creates is dead, and what lives cannot die. During the days that you ate what is dead you made it come alive. When truth is manifest, what will you do? On the day of enlightenment you become an enlightened person. But one cannot be two. 1. This appears to be advice as to how, once enlightened, to remain so. It is not easy to still the intellect. It requires determination to do so. Once stilled, the intellect returns and we are again confused as our apprehension of truth is impaired and unity vanishes. It takes practice to bring the intellect to heel. 2. Note that there appears to be a literary flaw in the above interpretation because of the disconnect between "Sentence A", which is "During the days that you ate what is dead, you made it come alive" and "Sentence B", which is "When truth is manifest, what will you do?" Note that the most obvious interpretation of "A" is the sacrament of communion. But this is a real-world event which is accessible to historians. This is inconsistent with the spirituality of the rest of the interpretation. But there is a way out of all difficulties. We can read "A" and "B" together as what I'll call "C": During the days when you were traditional Christians, before you knew that this is my gospel, you knew in your heart that there was a deeper spiritual meaning to what you were doing in the sacrament of communion. I, Jesus, now give you that meaning, for which you are now prepared. All truth is now made manifest. A spiritual interpretation of "C" (but applied to the future) is: Henceforth you will understand the meaning of the dead sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, as they come alive to you. In brief, Jesus is recommending to traditional Christians that they henceforth celebrate true communion by studying and trying to understand his gospel. 3. Note finally that the interpretation of "C" above again raises the question of how Jesus could have spoken of the Gospel of Thomas. It is clear, I think, that he is "requiring" Christians to believe that he wrote the Gospel of Thomas, not by shaking the finger of authority at them, but by making it impossible for them, or for anybody else who studies the matter, to believe that he didn't write it! Absolutely mind-boggling! Move over, Nicene Creed. The Master has arrived! On the Path one's world view is continually replaced by new ones. When, as a child one learns the dead ways of one's parents, one makes the "dead" alive. When faced with the knowledge of one's innate self, what will one do? As an infant one is one but becomes divided against onesself in trying to please ones parents. As a grownup divided against onesself, what will you do? There are seven nafs. The two lowest [the commanding nafs] will pass away. If the student has overcome them instead of being ruled by them, he will "live" --- otherwise he dies. BTW, this technical process is the source of the twisted reincarnation notion. You are indeed "reborn" before you [physically] die This is the Edenic Arcane. Death is the Fruit of the Tree of Life. Eating this fruit is eating what is dead. This is how we brought death to life, and life to death. Those who do not eat this fruit either stay dead (ignorantly happy) or stay alive (knowingly happy). When we were one (Adam) we become two (Adam & Eve), and now we must understand that we must become one before this Heaven (physical body, because Heaven is within), and the one above it (Soul) die (in the Second Death). This gospel talks about you becoming two, I believe this is when your body and soul separate and then you are one and your body dies then you go to another heaven where you no longer need to eat what is dead anymore. The enlightened cannot die as they know they are the universe and the universe is one (god). The cycle of life, organic life being eating to fuel organic life, life being one, with the universe which too is alive (god). Coming to the light what will "you" do, you being the false ego; when the enlightened comes into being, where does "you" go (the imaginary you)? "You" can neither go to the light nor escape death. When you were one, the coming into human form, birth, whole and integral but then conditioned in society to and the ego develops (my thoughts, my memories, my desires and wants, seperation from the whole) what will you do when you are two? The confusion and conflict of a divided human, the efforts of "you" (ego) being futile to attain wholeness, will being the enemy of enlightment. On the day you were one you became two. This reminds me of how pure in spirit a newborn child is (we are one); then, once we are taught the worldly ways (eat of the dead), we become divided in our obligations to our spiritual life and our material life (we are two). We have to then turn (or abandon) our "dead" ways back into living for purely for our spirit. |
Scholarly Quotes Jean Doresse writes: "The first part of this paragraph is quoted and commented on by the Philosophumena (V, 8, 31). According to this work, the Naassenes explained it as follows: 'If you have eaten dead things and made them living things, what then will you do when you eat living things? These living things are rational beings, intelligences, men - pearls which the great Being without form has cast into the work of here below!'" (The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, p. 371) Marvin Meyer writes: "The two heavens will pass away. Presumably the third heaven (the realm of God; compare 2 Corinthians 12:2-4) will not. On the heavens passing away, compare Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; Matthew 5:18 (Q); Luke 16:17 (Q)." (The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, p. 73) F. F. Bruce writes: "The first part of the saying reminds us of Matthew 24.35 (cf. Matthew 5.18; Luke 16.17): 'Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away' - but it is not a close parallel. As for eating dead things, this probably means that when the flesh of dead animals is eaten by human beings it becomes part of a living body (cf. Saying 7). [A similar Naassene saying is quoted by Hippolytus, Refutation v.8.32.] The eating of flesh was probably discouraged, as making it more difficult to attain the light of immortality; the views of a vegetarian Syrian sect called the Encratites may have influenced the tradition in this and some other regards. The words about being one and becoming two refer to the dividing of man into male and female (cf. Saying 4). If sex was to be transcended in the life to come, it was felt best that it should play no part in the present life (this may be a further Encratite trait)." (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 117) Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freedman write: "The third part of the saying describes the condition of the Gnostic believer. Those who were formerly divided have been united; they have worked together (Saying 59); they are at peace (49); they have become one (103). Unfortunately, it looks as if becoming 'two' were regarded as the believer's goal. Perhaps it would be best to hold that the present unity of the believers represents their goal, and - in spite of the parallelism of the saying - that the becoming 'two' is something they should avoid. Jesus is not a divider (Saying 72), except in the sense that he divides families into Gnostics and non-Gnostics (Saying 16)." (The Secret Sayings of Jesus, p. 130) Stevan Davies writes: "Those who achieve the excellence Thomas commends are people who live from the living one immortally (sayings 11, 111), while those who do not do so live from the dead and will die (sayings 7, 11, 60, 87)." (http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/jblprot.htm) Funk and Hoover write: "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 11:2-3a seem typical of Thomas (Thom 4:1; 58; 101:3; 7; 60), as does the theme of light (11:3b; 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." (The Five Gospels, p. 479)
Gospel of Thomas Saying 12 |
|
This Gospel of Thomas Commentary is part of the Gospel of Thomas page at Early Christian Writings. |
|
Funk's Parallels Luke 9:46-48, Luke 22:24-27, Matt 18:1-4, Mark 9:33-35.
|
|
This Gospel of Thomas Commentary is part of the Gospel of Thomas page at Early Christian Writings. |
|
Funk's Parallels POxy 654 6:1, GThom 6:1, POxy1 27, GThom 27, GThom 104, Luke 11:1-4, Luke 9:1-6, Luke 10:1-12, Matt 6:2-4, Matt 6:5-15, Matt 6:16-18, Matt 10:5-15, Matt 15:10-20, Mark 6:7-13, Mark 7:14-23, Did 8:1-3, POxy 1224 2, 1 Cor 10:27, Acts 10:9-16, Acts 11:1-10.
|
|
Visitor Comments The ego has the capacity to turn any form of piety or religious ritual into an idol. The ego never heals. Religious practices and taboos are part of the meaningless illusion of the world. Remember that what you do to another you have done to yourself and God. Everything that you do is part of your ongoing prayer dialogue with God. Too often self-righteousness stems from charity. The person who fasts does not truly fast. The person who prays is not sincere. The giver of alms is removed from the receiver. When you are received receive what is given. Help the afflicted, but do not speak. Do not kill truth. 1. Fasting is not taking that which you have (been given) and can be seen as a form of waste. If you have no food you cannot fast 2. Praying is asking for affirmations. Something which a true believer does not need. 3. Giving alms to someone in need suggest that the person is capable of doing more, or something else, to ease someone's suffering. . in my opinion: Always help the ones in need, ask nothing in return and be grateful for that what is given to you. I think this all refers to another part of the text that states that: in order to be able to see the big picture you should always be aware of that what is in front of you. This seems to be a direct answer to saying #6, and #6 seems to be questions that the disciples are asking because they know that by following the teachings of Jesus, they are no longer practicing Judaism. They are asking what their new 'religion' asks of them, what rules it may have, and this is the answer to that. The essence of this passage is that one goes the wrong way by trying to do good things. Instead one should do what is natural and proper to one's nature and spirit, and true virtue will develop of its own accord. To eat what is set before you extends by analogy to the way in which one transacts with the world. One should not be averse to that which is. One should be willing to swallow whatever comes along and be fed by it. We speak from the abundance of what is in our hearts. It isn't what we eat or abstain from eating or doing publicly that defiles us, but that which is in our hearts and proceeds from our mouths that defiles us. Be strong in the material world, but don't let it suck you in. Act like the noble spirit you are at all times. Do, say, be what is right in the present. Do not limit yourself by restictions. Act for the common good, for the longtime consequences, not for immediate satisfaction and pleasure. |
Scholarly Quotes Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freedman write: "Positive proof that he did so [copy from the canonical gospels] seems to be provided in Saying 14. . . . The statement about healing the sick has nothing to do with the context in Thomas; it is relevant only in Luke's collection of sayings. Therefore, Thomas copied it from Luke." (Gnosticism & Early Christianity, pp. 185-186) Gerd Ludemann writes: "This develops the notion of v. 4 about eating all that is set before one, and gives a reason for it. The dependence on Luke 10.7-8 in v. 4 also decides positively the dependence of v. 5 on Mark 7.15. For the invitation to heal the sick does not fit in v. 4 at all, and is best explained by the use of Luke 10.9." (Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 597) F. F. Bruce writes: "Fasting, prayer and almsgiving (cf. Saying 6) are three forms of piety mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6.1-18), but the instructions given here are quite different from those given there. Such pious activities, it appears, are superfluous and indeed harmful for the true Gnostic. (Similar sentiments about prayer and fasting are expressed in saying 104.) The second and third sentences in the saying are respectively parallel to Luke 10.8 f. and Matthew 15.11 (cf. Mark 7.15). The addition of the injunction 'eat what is set before you' of the words denying that food conveys defilement underlines the relevance of the injunction to the Gentile mission (cf. Acts 10.15; 1 Corinthians 10.27)." (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 119) Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freedman write: "This saying deals with subjects already brought up in Saying 5: fasting, prayer, almsgiving, and dietary observances. Here the statements ascribed to Jesus are more explicit than they were before. Fasting produces sin; prayer results in condemnation; almsgiving harms the spirit. Some ground for Thomas's notion is given in Mark 2:18-20 (Matthew 9:14-15; Luke 5:33-35), where Jesus says that the sons of the bridechamber cannot fast while he is with them. Since Thomas regards the kingdom as present rather than future, fasting (a fortiori, prayer, almsgiving, and dietary laws) is pointless and, indeed, sinful." (The Secret Sayings of Jesus, pp. 134-135) R. McL. Wilson writes: "As Grant has pointed out, the condemnation at the beginning of this saying takes up three phrases from the Sermon on the Mount [Matt. vi. 16 (fasting), 5 (prayer), and 2 (alms)] in the reverse order; and such reversal of the order is characteristic of Naassene usage. In the passage quoted the opening words are a general summary of the charge to the Seventy in Luke x. 1, followed by Luke x. 8-9 ('if they receive you . . .'). The final sentence has its parallel in Matthew xv. 11, but it may be added that Luke x. 2 is logion 73. In this case Grant and Freedman would appear to be correct in suggesting that the saying 'seems to prove that Thomas used our gospels.' The significant feature is the inclusion of Luke x. 9, the injunction to heal the sick, which is quite out of place in a saying concerned with dietary restrictions, but is easily explained from the Lucan context. There is, however, one point which they have overlooked: in the Gospels the specific injunction 'eat what they set before you' is peculiar to Luke, but Creed notes that there is 'striking resemblance in language' in the Lucan passage to 1 Corinthians x. 27, and that 'it is not unlikely that St. Paul's language is an echo of this injunction,' although the application is quite different. If Paul is quoting and adapting a saying of Jesus, this would point us back to the tradition underlying Luke." (Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, pp. 71-72) Kurt Rudolph writes: "Even more trenchantly the Jewish laws mentioned in logion 14 are made out to be of no consequence, indeed as detrimental to salvation: Fasting gives rise to sin, praying to condemnation, the giving of alms to harming one's spirit; one should eat everything that is set before one. It is important to heal the sick, by which probably the ignorant are referred to. The saying concludes with a quotation from Mark's Gospel; later still Luke's as well as Matthew's Gospel are brought in on this question. Of sole importance is the 'fast as regards the world' because only that leads to the 'kingdom'. The 'great fast' is taken in this sense also by the Mandaeans: It is no external abstention from eating and drinking but a cessation from inquisitiveness, lies, hatred, jealousy, discord, murder, theft, adultery, the worship of images and idols." (Gnosis, p. 263) Helmut Koester writes: "The basic difference between Thomas and Mark is that Mark states the second half in general terms ('what comes out of a human being'), while Thomas specifies 'what comes out of your mouth.' In this respect Thomas agrees with the form of this saying in Matt 15:11 ('but what comes out of the mouth defiles a human being'). This might argue for a dependence of Thomas upon Matthew. However, the Matthew/Thomas form of this saying is most likely original: the first half of the saying requires that the second half speaks about words which the mouth utters, not excrements (see Mark 7:19). Moreover, what the Gospel of Thomas quotes here is the one single saying from the entire pericope that can be considered as a traditional piece and that formed the basis of the original apophthegma - consisting of vss. 1-2, 5, and 15 - out of which the present complex text of Mark 7:1-23 has been developed." (Ancient Christian Gospels, pp. 111-112) J. D. Crossan writes: "The Thomastic version is obviously closer to the Matthean-Lukan [Mt 23:25-26, Lk 11:39-40] than to the Markan [Mk 7:15] since it has the going into the mouth/coming out of the mouth dichotomy rather than the outside/inside distinction. It has been argued that this proves that 'the Gospel of Thomas here follows Matthew' and is dependent on him (McArthur 1960:286; see Schrage: 55; Menard, 1975:101). But this does not explain why the Synoptic texts are in the third person while the Thomistic version is in the second person (Sieber: 193)." (In Fragments, pp. 253-254) J. D. Crossan writes: "The accusation concerning washing is made against Jesus in Q ( = Luke 11:38) and he replies, naturally, in the second person in Q/Luke 11:39-40 = Matt. 23:25-26, but this has become an accusation against Jesus' disciples in Mark 7:1-2, 5 to which the aphorism in 7:15 speaks in the third person. The general tendency of the tradition is to change an attack on Jesus into an attack on his disciples (Bultmann: 48). This development appears concerning washing as Q ( = Luke 11:38) reappears in Mark 7:1-2, 5, and also concerning eating as Gos. Thom. 4c reappears in Matt. 15:11 (17, 18). 'It seems more likely, therefore, that the second person, a defence of Jesus himself, is the original' (Sieber: 193)." (In Fragments, p. 254)
Gospel of Thomas Saying 15 |
|
This Gospel of Thomas Commentary is part of the Gospel of Thomas page at Early Christian Writings. |
|
Funk's Parallels Manichaean Psalm Book 121,25-33.
|
|
Visitor Comments Compare with Qur'an, 17-61. See also Qur'an, 25:2. We are all not born in our true nature as souls. When you have achieved contact with your soul you have achieved contact with God. There is only One of us. When you apprehend the living one who is not of the dead world, drop your personal masks and worship Him. That is the source of all life. This refers to the innate adult self, which develops with puberty; but I wouldn't advise you to worship it, as it is yourself and should not be idolised. Perhaps it is the ego that is born of a woman; when we come to know That which is All, That which is not born but Is, That which defies the illusion of separateness that our born ego endures, then should we worship That. Reminds me of the koan "...what was your true face before your mother was born?". We have identified ourselves with our material forms, sensations and thoughts. We are urged to go beyond this illusion. The true teacher is certainly born of earthly woman. But he has transcended his lower nature [commanding self, nafs-i-ammara] and so is reborn. So it is correct to say he is not born of woman. Woman can be generally broken down to that which produces a body from within its body - the creative aspect of the self. The development of one's personality, knowledge of self/other, the worldly vision, etc., are fruits of this creative womb. Meditative practice is said to bring forth the experience of 'emptiness' which lies outside of the realm of interdependence where knowledge exists. It is to this emptiness that Jesus alludes. This provides incontrovertible evidence that Shakespeare was a closet Gnostic (cf. Macbeth, 5.8--"I bear a charmed life, which must not yield, / To one of woman born"). This passage says to bow to no man and believe in you until you meet someone who had no physical mother, obviously a non-existent human. As disciples, you will cross paths with many souls. If you encounter one who is so different that he or she could not have been born of woman (no man that you are likely to meet in this world) only then bow your face to the ground and worship the Adonai [Lord]. Translation: "When males can circumvent the natural dependence on females for reproduction then they become gods." The one not born of woman is the inner true self, the spirit, the I. When you see the I, which isn't something you will perceive with your eyes, recognize your true self! |
Scholarly Quotes Marvin Meyer says that "Manichaean Psalm Book 121,25-33 also declares an identity between the father and the one not of human birth" and quotes: "[I] hear that you are in your father (and) your father hidden in [you]. My Master. [When I say], 'The son was [begotten],' I [shall] find [the] father also beside him. My master. Shall I destroy a kingdom that I may provide a womb of a woman? My master. Your holy womb is the luminaries that conceive you. In the trees and the fruit is your holy body. My master Jesus." (The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, pp. 75-76) Funk and Hoover write: "There are no parallels to this saying 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 the 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." (The Five Gospels, p. 482) Robert M. Grant: "Man who is born of woman is subject to sin, according to Job 14:1, as Doresse notes (page 143). The greatest of those born of women was John the Baptist (Matthew 11:11; Luke 7:28). Therefore, for our Gnostic (as for other Gnostics), Jesus cannot have been born of a woman (in spite of the fact that Paul says he was - Galatians 4:4). Of course it is possible that like some Gnostic teachers he held that while Jesus was born of a woman, the spiritual Christ descended upon him at the time of his baptism; the Naassenes believed that the threefold being descended upon Jesus. In any event, the one not born of woman is to be worshipped, since he is the (heavenly) Father. This conclusion seems to reflect the words of John 14:9: 'He who has seen me has seen the Father' (cf., John 10:30: 'I and the Father are one')." (The Secret Sayings of Jesus, p. 135) F. F. Bruce writes: "But for the last clause, we might have interpreted this saying to mean that Jesus - unlike John the Baptist (cf. Saying 46) - was not born of woman. But whatever the compiler or editor believed about the mode of Jesus's coming into the world (see Saying 19a), this is probably not in view here, since Jesus and the Father are distinguished (cf. Saying 3). Even so, he would no doubt have drawn his own conclusions from such a saying of Jesus as that of John 10.30: 'I and the Father are one.' The Father is in any case the unbegotten One." (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, pp. 119-120)
Gospel of Thomas Saying 16 |
|
This Gospel of Thomas Commentary is part of the Gospel of Thomas page at Early Christian Writings. |
|
Funk's Parallels GThom 10, Mic 7:5-6, Luke 12:49-53, Matt 10:34-39, Mark 13:12.
|
|
Visitor Comments Jesus' revolutionary message of our true nature and relationship to God is only slowly being realized and spread. The message will in fact create strife until it is recognized by a sufficient number who then realize their true nature and place in the world and Reality. active-mystic, you are reading your own opinions in this text. It is stated: "and they will be lifted up, being solitaries," meaning that there is an "ascending" as individuals. I think it means, however much the religious choose not to agree, that Jesus was saying: I'm not here for peace for everyone. I know that me being here means that people are going to kill one another. That's my purpose. It sounds awful but that's what it sounds like. IMHO what Jesus is saying here is that he is not come to cast peace upon the world, but upon individuals. There is a dichotomy in the gospels between the peace in the individual which Jesus promises and the peace in the world which he knows (prophetically) he cannot bring. Reminds me of the buddha's declaration "seek thy own salvation with diligence." "They will stand at rest as solitaries," i.e., take care of your own relationship with god don't worry whether your brother has it right. When one contacts one's repressed emotions, strife and dissension break out within one. One's various attitudes are at war among themselves and the grownup self is at war with the learned attitudes of the child. To rebel is to Question. There is a dichotomy- between inner peace and outer struggle. Jesus can Help bring peace to individuals, but it is up to individuals to make peace with eace other. Einstein wrote, "Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved through understanding." Mankind as a whole (one) had all been separated from God. He has come to separate us from that fallen state, not to give us peace with it. This carries us back to the question in saying 11 "But when you become two, what will you do?" In order that any Saint can take his disciples back to their spiritual home, He has to cut their attachments to all people, places, ideas and feelings of this earthly world. If there are any attachments remaining in your mind at the time of death, these will be the cause of another rebirth into this world. When all attachments have gone then each aspirant becomes solitary and is pure enough to rise to higher planes of consciousness and become one with the One. |
Scholarly Quotes Marvin Meyer writes: "The theme of standing, or stability, is found in Gospel of Thomas sayings 16, 18, 23, 28, and 50. According to accounts concerning the famous gnostic teacher Simon the Magician, he referred to himself as the standing one. The Nag Hammadi tractate entitled Three Steles of Seth applies this epithet to the divine, and adds that God 'was first to stand' (119,17-18)." (The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, p. 76) Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freedman write: "This saying is surprising when compared with the others which speak of peace and unity, for here Jesus plainly speaks of himself as a 'divider.' The two ideas can be reconciled, however, for peace and unity are characteristic of believers, Gnostic or Christian, while the division is that which comes into existence between them and outsiders. The saying is based on Luke 12:51-53 (Matthew 10:34); Luke 12:49 has already been paraphrased in Saying 9. 'Perhaps men think' is derived from Luke's question, 'Do you suppose . . . ?' 'I came to cast peace' comes from Matthew, while 'I came to case division' is composed by the author of Thomas as a parallel to the preceding line, and to Luke 12:49, from which he derives the mention of 'fire' ('sword' comes from Matthew). The next sentence is an almost exact quotation of Luke 12:52-53, though references to divisions among women are omitted because 'women are not worthy of life' (Saying 112). Those who 'stand' (and will not taste death, cf., Saying 18 and Commentary) are those who have broken their ties with earthly families and are 'single ones' (cf., Sayings 50 and 75). They must hate father, mother, brothers, and sisters (Sayings 56 and 98)." (The Secret Sayings of Jesus, pp. 136-137) Helmut Koester writes: "Thomas's version of these sayings [10 and 16] lacks Luke 12:50, certainly an addition by the author of the Gospel. Also missing in the Gospel of Thomas is the pedantic, and certainly secondary, enlargement of the family relationships at the end of Luke 12:53. Instead of Luke's "division" (vs. 51), Gos. Thom. has 'fire, sword, and war,' probably an expansion of the original reading of Q, 'sword,' which is preserved in Matt 10:14." (Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 94) Funk and Hoover write: "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 Jesu 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 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." (The Five Gospels, p. 482) It's more |