Paul uses the same expression and he certainly does not know about any crucifixion except a metaphorical one.
The saying #55 as it stands now makes no logical sense
55. Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me."
Hating your father and mother may be a prerequisite to being Jesus' disciple. This just means that fathers and mothers hate Jesus, so you have to hate them back to be a Jesus disciple.
But hating your brother and sister cannot be a prerequisite to carry a cross to crucifixion. My brother may be a Jesus disciple and is carrying a cross. Why do I have to hate him? That is crazy jibberish.
[snip]
Couldn't that saying just be hyperbole and not literal? I've always understood it as meaning that one should be willing to completely reject one's family to follow Jesus, if that is necessary (emphasis on "necessary"). Maybe that's just my Christian bias showing through, but does the Greek allow for this understanding?
Dr. A. Nyland has the following footnote in his book entitled The Gospel of Thomas.
Miseo, “hate” is not always as strong as, and has a wider meaning than, the English word “hate”. For example, Homer uses it in the sense “Zeus hated (did not allow) that he should become a prey to the enemy dogs of Troy”, Iliad 17.272.
Thus, Nyland translates saying #55 of the Gospel of Thomas in the following manner
Jesus said, “ Whoever puts their father and mother first cannot become a disciple to me. Whoever puts their brothers and sisters first and does not take up their cross in my way will not be worthy of me.”
In regard to Gospel of Thomas being post-synoptic saying #53 emphasis on circumcision would favor a post-synoptic date or possibly an awareness of Pauline writings by the redactor IMHO.
His disciples said to him, “Is circumcision beneficial or not?”
He said to them, “If it were beneficial, their father would sire them already circumcised from their mother. Rather, it is true spiritual circumcision that has become completely beneficial.”
Paul's writings are considered pre-synoptic by many people. That the Gospel of Thomas agrees with Paul on the inefficacy of circumcision does not mean it is post synoptic. We would have to prove first that Paul's writings is post synoptic for this argument to be valid.
Paul's writings are considered pre-synoptic by many people. That the Gospel of Thomas agrees with Paul on the inefficacy of circumcision does not mean it is post synoptic. We would have to prove first that Paul's writings is post synoptic for this argument to be valid.
Warmly,
Jay Raskin
Good point, chronologically the events in the synoptics predate the Pauline writings however the actual date of composition of these two writings could be reversed. IMHO, the synoptic's emphasis on the controversy over the Sabbaath suggests it chronicles event of concern to a primarily jewish community. The Pauline writings emphasis on the inefficacy of circumcision would seems to be more directed to gentiles and hellenized jews living outside of Israel at the time.
my view is that there was a core of very early material, a saying source that was mainly in line with Orthdox theology. That core was probably written in mid first century. Then it was placed into a framework much latter, a framework of gnostic theology. What I'm calling the older core has been isolated as synonymous with Q, in fact some have theorized it might be Q. The sayings are very Q like.
The latter frame is very Gnostic and alluds to the powers and other elements of late second and early third century gnosticism.
