The Gospel of Thomas is so interesting. It is neither a canonical Gospel, nor is it authoritative, but it is beyond interesting and helpful for historical Jesus studies. The Gospel of Thomas is referred to by New Testament scholars as “logia,” or a “Sayings Gospel,” because it is not a narrative account of Jesus’ life, as are the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and the Gospel of John, but rather a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. In fact, there are several different categories or genres of Gospels. Sayings Gospels is one of these categories. Other categories include Narrative Gospels, Infancy Gospels, Fragmentary Gospels, Jewish-Christian Gospels, and Orphan Sayings and Stories. Interestingly, most Christians occupying pews on Sunday mornings all over the country have no idea that there are more than four Gospels in existence. Yes, there are more than four, and while they are considered extra-canonical and non-authoritative there is so much information within them that is extremely valuable for historical Jesus and primitive Christianity research.
The Gospel of Thomas is interesting because it does not offer a narrative account of Jesus life and ministry, as previously mentioned. Instead it is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. There is no birth or resurrection narrative in the Gospel of Thomas. Many New Testament scholars suggest that the earliest Christian communities relied completely upon the sayings of Jesus and that narrative forms developed later as the communities developed. Jesus, after all, spoke in short, pithy statements – scholars call these short pithy statement aphorisms – because he and his audience were an agrarian people who either didn’t read/write, or have open access to the materials necessary to do so regularly. When they did write, the wrote on parchment (untanned skins of animals), papyrus (thin Papyrus plant strips pressed together and dried into sheets), or wax tablets (layer of wax applied to a flat piece of wood with raised edges). Such materials were expensive and not as readily available as writing materials are in our own day. Jesus, as a result, and as 1st Century culture would dictate, spoke in aphorisms and parables so that his sayings could be easily remembered and repeated by word of mouth. “The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed,” is an example of his short pithy statements. Interestingly, the Synoptic Gospels reflect this agrarian necessity, while the Gospel of John does not. In fact, the Gospel of John neither contains aphorisms, nor does it contain one parable. Instead, John contains long speeches attributed to Jesus and lots of theology that sounds like it came from the church establishment more than the peasants’ field. At any rate, The Gospel of Thomas, as a Gospel that contains only sayings attributed to Jesus, reflects a very early and primitive characteristic of the earliest Jesus communities. This fact alone makes Thomas very interesting.
A few of the most interesting sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas include the following (Note: Thomas does not include sayings numbers. They were added later by scholars, just as the chapter and verse numbers were added later to the canonical gospels. Sayings numbers make referencing particular sayings easy, just as chapter and verse number do for the canonicals.):
Saying 3: Jesus said, “If your leaders say to you, ‘Look, the (Father’s) 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 within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty.”
Saying 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. For many of the first will be last, and will become a single one.”
Saying 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?” Jesus said, “Don’t lie, and don’t do what you hate, because all things are disclosed before heaven. After all, there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and there is nothing covered up that will remain undisclosed.”
Saying 9: Jesus said, Look, the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), and scattered (them). Some fell on the road, and the birds came and gathered them. Others fell on rock, and they didn’t take root in the soil and didn’t produce heads of grain. Others fell on thorns, and they choked the seeds and worms ate them. And others fell on good soil, and it produced a good crop: it yielded sixty per measure and one hundred twenty per measure.
Saying 28: Jesus said, “I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. 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. But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they will change their ways.”
Saying 39: Jesus said, “The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so. As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves.”
Saying 42: Jesus said, “Be passersby.”
Saying 47: Jesus said, “A person cannot mount two horses or bend two bows. And a slave cannot serve two masters, otherwise that slave will honor the one and offend the other. “Nobody drinks aged wine and immediately wants to drink young wine. Young wine is not poured into old wineskins, or they might break, and aged wine is not poured into a new wineskin, or it might spoil. An old patch is not sewn onto a new garment, since it would create a tear.”
Saying 53: His disciples said to him, “Is circumcision useful or not?” He said to them, “If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect.”
Saying 77: Jesus said, “I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.”
Saying 95: [Jesus said], “If you have money, don’t lend it at interest. Rather, give [it] to someone from whom you won’t get it back.”
Saying 102: Jesus said, “Damn the Pharisees! They are like a dog sleeping in the cattle manger: the dog neither eats nor [lets] the cattle eat.”
Saying 113: His disciples said to him, “When will the kingdom come? It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, ‘Look, here!’ or ‘Look, there!’ Rather, the Father’s kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don’t see it.”
There are odd sayings attributed to Jesus in The Gospel of Thomas too. These odd sayings would include the following:
Saying 10: Jesus said, “I have cast fire upon the world, and look, I’m guarding it until it blazes.”
Saying 11: Jesus said, “This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?”
Saying 14 Jesus said to them, “If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits. 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. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it’s what comes out of your mouth that will defile you.”
Saying 19: Jesus said, “Congratulations to the one who came into being before coming into being. If you become my disciples and pay attention to my sayings, these stones will serve you. For there are five trees in Paradise for you; they do not change, summer or winter, and their leaves do not fall. Whoever knows them will not taste death.”
Saying 21: Mary said to Jesus, “What are your disciples like?” He said, They are like little children living in a field that is not theirs. when the owners of the field come, they will say, “Give us back our field.” They take off their clothes in front of them in order to give it back to them, and they return their field to them. 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. As for you, then, be on guard against the world. Prepare yourselves with great strength, so the robbers can’t find a way to get to you, for the trouble you expect will come. Let there be among you a person who understands. When the crop ripened, he came quickly carrying a sickle and harvested it. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!
Saying 22: Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, “These nursing babies are like those who enter the kingdom.” They said to him, “Then shall we enter the kingdom as babies?” 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, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, 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, then you will enter [the kingdom].”
Saying 60: He saw a Samaritan carrying a lamb and going to Judea. He said to his disciples, “that person … around the lamb.” They said to him, “So that he may kill it and eat it.” He said to them, “He will not eat it while it is alive, but only after he has killed it and it has become a carcass.” They said, “Otherwise he can’t do it.” He said to them, “So also with you, seek for yourselves a place for rest, or you might become a carcass and be eaten.”
Saying 61: Jesus said, “Two will recline on a couch; one will die, one will live.”
Again, Thomas is interesting in as much as it informs a scholarly study of the historical Jesus and early Christian communities. The date of authorship is often debated. Some scholars believe it has a late, 2nd Century date of authorship; others believe it was written prior to the canonical Gospels and as early as 60AD. Personally, I find stronger evidence for a very early dating of Thomas. The Gospel, as a result, offers those who are interested in early Jesus movements an incredible window into their early and formative stages.
Interestingly enough, there is another “Sayings Gospel” that is cited by New Testament scholars, albeit theoretically, referred to as “Q”. “Q” is a lost gospel embedded in the text of Matthew and Luke. NT Scholars believe that a lost Gospel referred to as “Q” exists because Matthew and Luke share so much of the same material that is not present in Mark’s Gospel (Mark was/is Matthew and Luke’s original source). The Gospel authors wrote their Gospels with other Gospels in front of them, and on their desk, so to speak. The Synoptic Gospels contain more than a few examples of this. In the Synoptics, the careful reader will, for example, discover blocks of text in Mathew and Luke copied verbatim from Mark, which preceded both in date of authorship. Careful readers will also find material shared – verbatim – in Matthew and Luke that is not from Mark. This material, scholars suggest, points towards a lost Sayings Gospel called “Q”. The discovery of The Gospel of Thomas lends much credibility to these scholarly suggestions concerning a lost source Gospel used by Matthew and Luke called “Q”.
It’s all fascinating. We have so much to learn about the earliest and most primitive movements that looked towards Jesus as teacher, leader, and way. It’s really too bad that we have commercialized and commodified the faith so much that the majority of believers will neither look into any of this history, nor will they ever feel the need to do so. And they think they “know” the Bible. It’s as untrue as it is sad, really.
Related posts:
Personally I find arguements for an early dating unconvincing. Possibly some of the individual sayings are early but the overall Gnostic style and emphasis suggests considerable drift from the Jewish context of Jesus. I also find the final saying, which is rather androcentric, undermines much of the feminist claims made for this sayings gospel. Nevertheless, I agree its interesting as a window into the context of the early church.
That final saying was added later, according to some. Regardless of it’s date or source, it is a strange saying, for sure.
I lean towards an early date for Thomas for a number of reasons. The biggest being that it lacks a birth and resurrection narrative. Paul’s writing lacks these things too, and if Paul started writing around 50AD (which predates the canonical Gospels), then I think it’s safe to say a pretty big shift away from the Jewish context of Jesus to the Gentile world of Paul had already taken place. So, if there is a later date for Thomas, I’m not sure a shift away from a Jewish context would be provide the validity needed to substantiate it.
Beyond all of that, I think the most interesting thing these extra-canonical gospels point towards is the diversity of groups active in the primitive Christian setting (read: post Constantinian) that claimed Jesus as their way. These diverse groups seemed to get along fairly well, without persecution from an authoritative group. Yes, they argued and disagreed, but they didn’t become violent enforces of doctrine until one of these groups was adopted as the state religion by the emperor.
I see the lack of birth and resurrection narrative in Thomas as theologically motivated, and thus highly suspect as an indicator of antiquity.
Now, on resurrection. Paul’s writings were not in the narrative genre, sure, but so what? I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say the resurrection was absent from his writings. On the contrary, I would go so far to say that the resurrection was the primary focus of his gospel. As most scholars admit Paul’s writings are the earliest we have, the trend of theological development in the Greek world would seem to be away from Jewish resurrection belief, not towards it. I am with N T Wright in this.
Next, on incarnation. Lack of a birth narrative in Paul is incidental, as two of the four New Testament gospels likewise lack a birth narrative. In fact, the last book of the New Testament to be written also lacks a birth narrative. Are we mistaken for dating Revelation late because the writer left the birth narrative out? Hardly a slam dunk argument for Thomas.
As for claims that the final saying of Thomas was added later, if true it undermines claims for the antiquity of the text of Thomas as we find it. But personally I think it’s just an uncomfortable fact that modern Gnostics find hard to stomach. A high Mariology is often found in close association clerical mysogeny, a high Sophiology should not be taken as feminist as face value either.
As for the diversity of the early church, I think it’s overrated. There were some communities that valued narrative tradition and apostolic networking and some communities that valued mythical speculation and elitist isolation. It should not really surprise us that the latter developed a plethora of mutually exclusive gospels, what’s harder to swallow is their claims of each group to have the more traditional gospel. And note, the narrative tradition established itself way before Constantine and Augustine appeared on the scene, that many of its earliest advocates were pacifists, and that theology of apostolic succession underwent significant non-canonical development to arrive where where we find it post-Constantine. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Constantinian compromise would not have been possible without the absorbtion of Gnostic / platonic theology into the later church.
Matt, you wrote “I see the lack of birth and resurrection narrative in Thomas as theologically motivated, and thus highly suspect as an indicator of antiquity.”
You do realize we are talking about an agrarian culture when aphorisms were originally the point, right? And that the narrative form of later Gospels show signs of development all the way from Paul’s writings to John’s Gospel. There are, as a result, a lot of good reasons to believe that the earliest Gospels were simple collections of Jesus’ sayings. That’s all people could recall, and since they didn’t write a lot of things down, recall was important. I’m not sure how we could even speculate what theological motivations spurred Thomas, apart from the obvious Gnostic expression(s), which really aren’t affected at all by the inclusion or absence of birth/resurrection narratives. So, what theological motivation do you suspect was behind the lack of narrative in a Sayings Gospel?
You wrote, “Now, on resurrection. Paul’s writings were not in the narrative genre, sure, but so what? I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say the resurrection was absent from his writings. On the contrary, I would go so far to say that the resurrection was the primary focus of his gospel. As most scholars admit Paul’s writings are the earliest we have, the trend of theological development in the Greek world would seem to be away from Jewish resurrection belief, not towards it. I am with N T Wright in this.”
I never said that resurrection is absent from Pauline thought/writings. It would be more than a stretch to suggest so. Resurrection is the foundation of Pauline theology, and Christianity for that matter. I did say there is no birth narrative as found in later Gospels. It’s just not there. In fact, the closest thing we have in Pauline thought to a birth narrative is Romans chapter one, and it could be read in tension with the later birth narratives contained in the Gospels. Paul writes as if he never heard of the supernatural, virgin birth (Jesus was born “according to the flesh” in Romans chapter one). There is no resurrection narrative/story either, at least not as found in later Gospels. Is resurrection present, theologically? Yes, of course. But there is no story. Furthermore, the shift away from the Jewish context I referred to is a socio-cultural one, not theological. The scene was becoming more and more Gentile. This is what I referred to in my earlier response to you, and it is relevant to your original comment concerning Jewish context.
At any rate there is no birth/resurrection narrative in Pauline writing.
You wrote, “Next, on incarnation. Lack of a birth narrative in Paul is incidental, as two of the four New Testament gospels likewise lack a birth narrative. In fact, the last book of the New Testament to be written also lacks a birth narrative. Are we mistaken for dating Revelation late because the writer left the birth narrative out? Hardly a slam dunk argument for Thomas.”
Matt, you are missing a big point. If you begin with Paul (the earliest accounts we have of the Jesus event), and cycle through later accounts chronologically, you will find development of the narrative itself. So, no, Paul doesn’t contain birth narratives, and neither does Mark (the next account). In fact, Mark doesn’t contain a resurrection narrative either (it ends with scared people). As you go through the accounts chronologically, you will find development of the story. By the time you arrive at John, the story has been completely developed to the point of Jesus existing before time and space. You may call this incidental, if you like. I wouldn’t.
That said, this shines a lot of light on documents like Thomas and “Q”, which were striped-down saying Gospels. The fact that they were primitive enough to contain only sayings of Jesus, and lack the narrative development of later accounts, does lend some credibility to the early date hypothesis.
I’m not even sure what to say about your Revelation comment. It’s completely irrelevant to this topic and entirely out of place.
You wrote, “As for claims that the final saying of Thomas was added later, if true it undermines claims for the antiquity of the text of Thomas as we find it. But personally I think it’s just an uncomfortable fact that modern Gnostics find hard to stomach. A high Mariology is often found in close association clerical mysogeny, a high Sophiology should not be taken as feminist as face value either.”
Perhaps. But then we could say the same thing about, let’s say, Mark’s Gospel, which had the ending attached to it at a later date too.
You wrote, “As for the diversity of the early church, I think it’s overrated. There were some communities that valued narrative tradition and apostolic networking and some communities that valued mythical speculation and elitist isolation. It should not really surprise us that the latter developed a plethora of mutually exclusive gospels, what’s harder to swallow is their claims of each group to have the more traditional gospel. And note, the narrative tradition established itself way before Constantine and Augustine appeared on the scene, that many of its earliest advocates were pacifists, and that theology of apostolic succession underwent significant non-canonical development to arrive where where we find it post-Constantine. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Constantinian compromise would not have been possible without the absorbtion of Gnostic / platonic theology into the later church.”
Me thinks you should look deeper into the divergent opinions of Jesus represented by early Jesus communities/movements. the more important feature of these divergent and early communities had less to do with valued narrative tradition and apostolic networking and some communities that valued mythical speculation and elitist isolation, as you say, and more to do with who they thought Jesus was and how who they thought Jesus was informed their expression and everyday way of life and living. In fact, I’d even suggest that those things you cite above, are not event present in the primitive Jesus movement(s). I almost want to make room for what you call “Narrative Tradition,” but I think you are using that term to point towards something other than “Oral Culture,” which is what we are ultimately talking about here.
Furthermore, narrative tradition was not an option for the earliest movements; it was all they had as agrarian people. It’s not like some people decided they would dump oral tradition and network in more advanced ways. The early Jesus movement was founded in an oral culture that shared their stories.
So, I think you are skipping a whole lot of important history. I mean, you are already talking Platonic thought and the School of Alexandria … You are way ahead on the time line here, bro. And even there, I’d humbly say you are skipping a lot of important historical events and details.
Thanks, Matt. This is a good conversation. Continue …
Shawn
Everyone has a theology, an understanding of God, even a child. By suggesting the authors of Thomas had a theological motivation for neglecting the resurrection I am not saying anything about their education level, postivie, negative or otherwise. I am just saying that resurrection understood as boldily transformation was antethetical to Gnostic belief so its hardly surprising to find it absent in a Gnostic text. It would be more surprising if it was there.
As the absense can be explained theologically, absense alone is insufficient to establish antiquity. Further evidence is required. That the resurrection featured prominatly in the earliest letters of Paul demonstrates that resurrection announcements were circulating in Christian circles long before Thomas reached its final form. Was it that the final author of Thomas, who penned the Gnostic introduction, was ignorant of Christian resurrection claims? Or was it he just rejected Christian resurrection claims? Before drawing conclusions we must remember that Paul’s letters were composed before the Gospel of Thomas. What is more, there is a proto-narrative in 1 Corinthians 15.1-4 that shows all the evidence of being even more ancient. Aphorisms weren’t the only thing that circulated, stories did too. Resurrection belief was very early, it was circulated before Thomas was composed, if resurrection belief is missing from Thomas its not because the ideas weren’t in circulation at the time.
Insufficient time to respond to the rest yet. Have to take a rain check on that.
Very well. You think it’s late dated; I think it’s early. There are people on both sides of this debate, and for good reasons.
Scholars have proposed dates for Thomas as early as the mid first century or as late as the mid second century, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the supposedly core sayings or the actual text. Many scholars say the last decades of the first century are most likely.
Scholars have similarly proposed dates for Paul’s letter to the Galatians as early as the mid forties or late as the mid fifties in the first century.
So even if we take the most pessimistic assessment of Paul and the most optimistic assessment of Thomas, we still end up with dates that place Thomas no earlier than Paul. Yet what do we find in the opening paragraph to the Galatians? A resurrection announcement! My argument is independent of an early or late dating for Thomas.
You wrote, “…you will find development of the narrative itself” I don’t dispute that the stories were developed after Thomas, what I dispute is any suggestion that the stories were invented after Thomas. I think it’s quite reasonable to suggest that the orally transmitted stories would have been much simpler than the textually transmitted stories, but even in their most undeveloped and primitive forms, which we find in Paul and elsewhere, resurrection was featured as the climax to the life and death of Jesus.
You wrote, “Perhaps. But then we could say the same thing about, let’s say, Mark’s Gospel, which had the ending attached to it at a later date too.” I happily accept the appearance narratives in Mark were added at a later date, but the empty tomb narratives amount to the same thing: a resurrection announcement.
“…Me thinks you should look deeper into the divergent opinions of Jesus represented by early Jesus communities/movements…” I’ve looked into them more than most. I still think Elaine Pagels and co. have exaggerated the significance of the Gnostic communities.
“…and more to do with who they thought Jesus was and how who they thought Jesus was informed their expression and everyday way of life and living.” How is that any different from the non-Gnostic groups? Not quite sure what you’re trying to establish there.
“…I almost want to make room for what you call “Narrative Tradition,” but I think you are using that term to point towards something other than “Oral Culture,” which is what we are ultimately talking about here.” Stories, narratives, whatever you want to call it, I don’t see any reason to think oral culture was limited to sayings.
“…So, I think you are skipping a whole lot of important history. I mean, you are already talking Platonic thought and the School of Alexandria … You are way ahead on the time line here, bro.” Gnostic and Platonic thought had a lot in common, moral elevation of soul over body being a biggun. Only once Jesus was successfully de-politicized was the empire able to co-opt him and use him to legitimize their violence.
I think this is very interesting that we seem to be on similar ground social justice wise but very different ground on Thomas, even as we draw links between the two. You’ve got me curious.
LOL. Ships passing in the night.
I’m not quite sure why resurrection is even an issue. No one is saying that resurrection is either unimportant, or unidentifiable with early Jesus movements.
I’m not sure what the dates of Paul’s writing has to do with anything either, only because you are for some reason equating the dates of Paul’s works with the theological significance of resurrection, which has little to do with what we are ultimately talking about. At any rate, Thomas, if the early date is accepted, would have been written while Paul was writing himself. Incidentally, Paul’s writing is known to be fairly void of narrative information about Jesus’ life. We find a lot of teaching about Jesus and Christian doctrine, but we hear very little in Paul about Jesus’ life itself. All of the “Life of Jesus” info. comes in the form of narrative frameworks provided in later Gospels. So, actually, that time roughly around 60AD-70AD is a time when people are beginning to transfer to writing the stories and thoughts and sayings of Jesus that were from the beginning passed along orally. The Jesus event was birthed in an oral culture. No one worth their salt debates that fact. That is why Thomas is so important and interesting. It is a reflection of the culture that the Gospel was born within. It is a reflection of a time/culture that depended upon aphorisms and parables and anecdotes that were short enough to recall, repeat, and exchange. The earliest “layer,” if you will, of the Gospel tradition was characterized by these socio-cultural literary devices.
I’m not sure what your citation of resurrection announcement has to do with any of this. You seem to be saying that the issue we are discussing is a theological one (resurrection); I am trying to point at socio-cultural literary methods and how those affected the earliest forms and how they were consequently developed over time. Your repeated citation of resurrection announcements in Paul doesn’t at all change the fact that Paul doesn’t express resurrection within a narrative framework as does the later Gospels. In fact, Paul’s similarities with Thomas, as far as form and method are concerned, are favorable to an early dating of Thomas, even thought they are writing different genres. Again, I never questioned the theological significance and truth of the resurrection; I am only saying that we do not have a narrative framework for resurrection until the later Gospels. it is not present in sayings gospels, obviously, and it is not present in Paul. What you do find in Paul are theological announcements and proclamations of resurrection. there are no stories of Jesus appearing and eating fish with Paul on the beach. The closest thing in Paul to that, is Damascus Road, and all we get there is a bright and blinding light.
The point is form, not theology. The issue has to do with what are called “Saying Gospels,” which are collections of only the sayings/teachings of Jesus, and lack narrative frameworks. That is the point, not what content was included or excluded from later narrative structures. You seem to be citing theology and theological content, and fail to see the bigger and most interesting point of Thomas, which is that is a simple collection of attributed Jesus sayings and teachings.
I’m not suggesting that resurrection was not present in the earliest, most primitive Jesus movements. I’m suggesting that the earliest, most primitive Jesus movements relied upon the sayings of Jesus more so than the narrative forms we see in late Gospels. And the later the Gospel, the more developed the narrative. If this is true, than it could be – and a lot of very, very bright people say it should be – observable in early Gospels. In other words, a Gospel of Jesus’ saying only would be completely expected, literarily speaking.
This is a very good conversation, Matt. Thanks, man.
your comment “The Jesus event was birthed in an oral culture. No one worth their salt debates that fact”.
I do. I know that many atheistic scholars repeat this to the extent that they end up believing it but it doesn’t make sense.
Early Christianity is a literate urban movement. Paul was an educated late commer on the scene who met with the apostles a few years after the ressurrection. the idea that nobody thought to write anything down is ludicrous. In ACTS Luke tells us that Paul took notes on his travels and was accompanied by others who were also with the apostles.
Paul’s letter in Corinthians tells us Church members of the mid first century were lining up behind Paul, Peter or Appollos with Paul arguing that they were all on the same side.
We know the Corinthian Church was litertate.
If they were lined up with Peter than either
1) Peter was there in Corinth, and they would have recorded Peters words
2) or he sent or had sent letters to Corinth.
3) or there was already a church structure with Peter as the head and having many literate members that church structure would also be literate.
Otherwise why would Paul complain about them lining up with Peter ?
Even the so called Gospel Thomas itself starts off by saying these are the words Jesus spoke that were recorded by Thomas. Not that i think the so-called Gospel of Thomas was written anytime before the end of the second century.
There is very little connection to Jewish and Palestinian culture and language as compared to the canonical Gospels. It does not look to be connected to the Jesus community.
What is interesting is that of the very few times it actually mentions other apostles ,Jesus asks to ‘compare what i am like’ and Thomas mentions two apostles – Peter and Matthew. Peter says Jesus is like a just messenger and Matthew like a wise Philosopher. The traditional church has always said that the early Gospels written were Matthew and Mark (who was the interpreter of Peter). Matthew’s gospel for the Jews tries to explain Jesus being present in the old testament and makes lots of clever connections to past writings and Mark (Peter) has his gospel strongly focussed on Jesus travelling around the countryside spreading the good news. Since Matthew is a very obscure figure, why choose Matthew in the Thomas gospel ?
Either it was Thomas wrtiting it (which i disagree with ) and then you would have to accept early Christiianty was literate OR you pick Matthew and his wise philosopher and Peter (Mark) with his just messenger because Matthew’s and Marks gospels were already well known (very likely) and so the Christian group was very literate well before Thomas was written. Thomas then goes on to say Thomas gives the best answer compared to the other two. hmmmm i wonder what that means … looks like the writer is trying to say the words (gospel) of Thomas should be read in preference to Matthew and Mark (Peter) but then that would mean they were written much earlier and are well known.
This whole idea about an oral tradition that completely changed Christianity is a massive fantasy. The early church ws urban, literate and well connected within the land and sea routes from Rome to at least Jerusalem and probably as far as Alexandria and Armenia. there are writings from each of the generations of Christians after the apostles and their writing present a widespread, well connected and literate church with a common understanding.
The idea that the later Thomas gospel didn’t have the infancy narratives because the infancy narratives were later invented is itself a big guess by people who are looking for reasons to chuck out the new testament.
Thomas is gnostic, and gnostics were a group who existed before Christianity and later attached itself to the Christian movement after it became successful.
Gnostics looked at creation and matter as evil and their Jesus which was very unorthodox (unchristian) was one that was purely God and not man at all. Hence they would have no reason for writing about a human birth of Jesus.
The Gospel narratives that many would like to think were written (and corrupted) later square up with Paul’s letters and reach back to the birth of Christianity.
Hi, abucs. You do realize that Jesus himself never heard the word “Christianity” used in his lifetime, right? You do realize the word was not even spoken until later in Antioch, right? I ask this only to remind you that the primitive Jesus movement preceded the church’s gentile expansion by a considerable amount of time. And more importantly than that, it began as a movement within the Jewish peasantry.
The clash between Rome and the Jewish people was a clash between agrarian and urban culture.
The larger part of the Jewish agrarian culture was not literate.
Paul was a Pharisee. This means he -as an approved part of the religious system – would have received much training and education from scribes.
Peter was a fisherman because he wasn’t deemed worthy enough for religious, scribal training.
The other disciples were common folk because they weren’t picked to be part of the temple system either! They would not have received the same education as Paul or others in the temple system.
In the earliest days of the primitive Jesus movement, there were several competing groups who had divergent expressions of Jesus. Gnostics were one of these groups, as was the group who identified with Paul.
The Corinthian church was a gentile church established by Paul, our missionary to the gentiles, in the city of Corinth. So, of course, this was an urban church, but it is far from the beginnings of the early Jesus movement and should not be considered representative of the earliest Jesus movements. Furthermore, the Corinthian church was planted before one Gospel was ever written, according to the dates attributed to the Gospels.
You seem to be suggesting that the primitive Jesus movement started with Paul and his mission to Gentiles. You are not going back far enough. Check Paul’s history. He began by persecuting Christian who were already there and meeting in the synagogues with their Jewish brothers. Where did these early Jesus followers come from? There is much to be learned about the early Jesus movement that was present before Paul began his gentile expansion.
Finally, no one here is “looking for a reason to church the New Testament,” as you say. That statement is silly.
You also write, “The Gospel narratives that many would like to think were written (and corrupted) later square up with Paul’s letters and reach back to the birth of Christianity.” Can you show me one reference in the Pauline or even the pseudo-pauline writings that speak of the birth narratives? Remember, Paul lived, planted, and died before one Gospel was written, according to the dates of the gospels themselves.
hello Shaun,
i do realise that the term Christian was first introduced at Antioch, i don’t think that is a significant event when talking about what we call Christianity. It is simply a name. Before that the group called themselves followers of ‘the way’. They are better known and tagged as Christians today because that was the name that eventually stuck.
Yes, many scholars say that Paul died before the gospels were written. I myself do not think this is the case. I think it is a weak arguement which suggests this and the suggestion is basically to create a situation where there is a big ‘black hole’ where people are free to speculate on what happened in this self created black hole. Most people subscribing to this like to think that Christianity changed beyond comparison to the ‘Jesus movement’ that preceeded that. I think it is self serving claims with very little historical evidence to back it up.
With the birth narratives, Paul mentions that there is argueing among Christians about geneologies and he asks them to put their past legends behind them. Matthews gospel is full of ‘old style Hebrew legend’ in his writing and starts with geneologies and it is interesting that Luke’s gospel (who i accept was written by Paul’s companion) has a different geneology attached to it.
Much of Matthew’s geneology story is steeped in the Hebrew style (as Papias tells us) so that he can quote old testament scriptures such as – there was wailing in ramallah, and i called my son out of Egypt. I think those comparisons are very stretched and i think this is why Paul asked his listeners to put these stories away and his companion wrote a more correct, non Jewish styled and historical account. Luke was also careful to mention that many had written before him and done the best they could. Reading between the lines it appears to me that Luke is saying, i respect the writer and his credentials ( in think Matthew) but that Luke will give a more scholarly historical account ‘layed out in proper order’.
Paul had a bigger message than to go around talking about the details of Jesus’ birth that to him would have been second hand. What we know of Paul comes from his letters when addressed to churches who had problems so we cannot gain a full understanding of his thelogical views from such sources. I think linking Luke to Paul gives us a more rounded view of Paul so the question comes down to – how authentic is Luke/Acts to the travelling companion of Paul. I see no good reason to doubt that the writer was Luke and his Gospel is based on the early Jesus movement – specifically Matthew and Mark (Peter) who he was in contact with. This links Paul to the gospel messages of the apostles in a credible way to my way of thnking.