Chris Weimer

Christian

Chris Weimer

Got anything for reference?

There's still a lot of debate on this and is a highly controversial topic. Ask me in a couple of months and I'll have my full analysis prepared. Currently my position is that Luke used Matthew, which would make Thomas younger, but we'll see.

Vorkosigan

I explore this topic on my Mark site. Thomas seems to depend on Mark (as does Q). The arguments in favor of Thomasine priority seem to have been created to foster a "historical apologetic" in which the sayings constitute the evidence of the HJ.

My discussion is here.

Qiwi

Exactly....
and what's more the Mathew version has completely lost sight of the meaning of the original parable, suggesting that whoever altered it lacked any understanding of the point Jesus was trying to make...
In the Thomas version the 'large fish' clearly represents 'Truth', 'Enlightenment', or however one chooses to describe it, while the 'small fish' represents all our worldly desires, hopes and fears....
but the brilliance of the parable is that it is simple, non-judgemental, and above all logical, especially to a simple Gallilean fisherman....
The small fish are simply returned to the ocean as any 'wise' fisherman knows....
However in the Mathew version the small fish are 'bad' even though there is no explanation of what constitutes a 'bad' fish as opposed to a 'good' fish...
Even worse the 'bad' fish are attacked with the utmost vituperation and contempt.... they are going to be cast 'into the fiery furnace'.
The parable is now one full of hate and bitterness....
For that reason we must reject the Mathew version and accept that the Thomas version is closest to the original as articulated by Jesus....

Sheshbazzar

you realise of course that holding this opinion in opposition to the teachings of orthodox Christianity, makes you a heretic fit to be skinned alive, and lowered head-first into a vat of boiling oil for the greater glory of gawd?

Qiwi

LOL....
But what if the Thomas Gospel really is an accurate presentation of Jesus' original teachings...?
Those that have spent a life of unquestioning subservience to a false god fully expecting that they have earned a ticket to 'heaven' are going to be sorely dissapointed....

Gospel of Thomas....
3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realise that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you will dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

Note, that there is no condemnation, threats, wailing, gnashing of teeth, or fiery furnace, simply a note of caution and some sagely advice..... :thumbs:

Diogenes the Cynic

This is a perfect example of the sapential quality I see in Thomas. It's not eschatological and it's not Gnostic. It sounds a lot like the kind of aphorisms you see in Eastern mysticism.

(Disclaimer: the above opinion is in no way a suggestion that I believe in any sort of Eastern mystic training for HJ. I just think that a lot of ecstatic, mystic experiences tend to be similar and often similarly transcendent of dogma)

Chris Weimer

Not only is it heretical, which is completely irrelevant to the conversation, but it's also only you're interpretation. All throughout the synoptics and even in Thomas you see signs of an elite group inheriting the kingdom of God. Also note that God itself is often left out of Thomas which would be very contradictory to the basic tenents of Judaism even sapiential Judaism (see Ben Sira, Proverbs, and Wisdom of Solomon). Also, the most "primitive" form of Christianity was already discussed and ridiculed by the church fathers who are the Ebionim.

rlogan

Oh, as far as "sayings" goes I would be hesitant to approach this from a dichotomous choice of one depending on the other. Oral tradition is in play regardless of which was "first".

You've demonstrated a degree of independence of Mark from Thomas, but the converse is also true. So I'm inclined to fall on the common oral tradition because "sayings" is an outstanding oral tradition venue.

As far as dating goes though, the lack of gospel birth/resurrection stories and such has to be explained in Thomas. Were the gospel stories to contain something of unique value to be retained in a sayings gospel, Thomas would have them, and it doesn't.

Vorkosigan

The narratives were one form of teaching, the sayings another. Why would they be mixed in Thomas, which is purely a collection of sayings? It's an easy lesson to forget, but narratives in antiquity could also be used for teaching. When the compiler of Thomas dumped the narrative, he was dumping one specific form of teaching in favor of another.

As far as I can see the "something of unique value" preserved in Thomas are the sayings.

I do not believe in the "oral tradition" that goes back to Jesus. That is strictly a second century phenomenon. Certainly it appears nowhere in Mark, the earliest gospel, nor does Paul seem aware of it. The sayings in Thomas come from other collections or Gospels which we do not have, or from common sayings, or from collections not originally related to Christianity, or were invented. Composing witty sayings was an exercise in ancient Hellenistic education, after all. See this for an outline.

Vorkosigan