Gospel of Thomas? Pre or Post Synoptics?

[Charles Wilson]

One more thought from this saying:

16. Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.
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, and they will stand alone."

Who is Jesus planning to make war against? The gospel writers portray a mainly pacifist Jesus. This really does not fit the ideology of any mystical group from the Second century. It does fit the ideology of Jewish Zealots prior to the Jewish-Roman War.

Hello Jay.
Johnny One Note here.

Josephus, Antiquities, 13, 14, 2:

"Now as Alexander fled to the mountains, six thousand of the Jews hereupon came together [from Demetrius] to him out of pity at the change of his fortune; upon which Demetrius was afraid, and retired out of the country; after which the Jews fought against Alexander, and being beaten, were slain in great numbers in the several battles which they had..."

This is another Jannaeus reference. This is after Demetrius Eucerus has committed the Appalling Abomination. In the most ludicrous of descriptions by Josephus, Demetrius has defeated Jannaeus decisively at Shechem, near the Temple at Gerizim. **Suddenly!!**, the Jews of Demetrius "take pity" on Jannaeus, leave Demetrius and cause him to leave the country because he's afraid! Yeah, sure, Josephus. Right. Uh-huh. The Jews who hired Demetrius are now getting hammered by Jannaeus. "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, and they will stand alone." Jannaeus then takes Jerusalem, after the crucifixion of the 800 (Mark 13: 17: "And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! ").

Jannaeus.

CW

[outhouse]

Puzzling.

Warmly,

I try not to over read anything here.

To me, it is another method to state the people had conscious thought of jesus and carried it to many places.


To me, they found importance with keeping some humanity in their depiction

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Jay,

I am wondering how people can think that Paul's epistles are pre-gospel because they show virtually no knowledge of the gospels

Exactly: why, if Paul's (authentic) epistles are pre-gospels, they would show knowledge of the gospels written later, with a lot of fiction and embellishment that Paul could not have been aware of?

and treat Jesus as a God

Paul and the gospels treat Jesus as a god. I do not see your point.

and still think that the Gospel of Thomas is post NT gospels when, just like Paul's writings, they show virtually no knowledge of the gospels and treat Jesus as a God.

Actually, gThomas shows knowledge of the canonical gospels and some more ('to the Hebrews' & 'to the Egyptians').

This seems inconsistent to me. If the Gospel of Thomas had been included in the NT, who would not say that it was more primitive and earlier than the Gospel of Mark?

The so-called "primitiveness" was likely devised by the author(s) in order to make gThomas looks early, as not too elaborated, more so when dealing with earlier gospels material.
Also, that perceived "primitiveness" has a lot to do about the ebionistic beliefs of that particular Jesus' sect, which would explain the gospel of Thomas is very light regarding Jesus as a god (and no mention of Jesus as in heaven, as pre-existent, as Christ, as the Lord, as Son of David, as the apocalyptic Son of Man, and performing miracles). Furthermore, it has Peter and Matthew considering Jesus as only a messenger and a wise philosopher respectively.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Jay,
gThomas 16 "Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.
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, and they will stand alone."

Let's compare with corresponding Q passages from gMatthew & gLuke:

Mat 10:35-35 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;"

Lk 12:51-53 "Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division;
for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three;
they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

It certainly look the gThomas version is an amalgamation of the relevant passages in gMatthew but more so gLuke, with some simplifications and exaggeration (see later).
Because gMatthew is more militant than gLuke, I think "Matthew" wrote "sword" which likely was not in Q. The "sword" might symbolize persecution against Christians.

Luke's version makes more sense than the others:
Starting by gMark, Q and the synoptic gospels had Jesus predicting all events (mostly the bad ones) affecting the early Christian communities. The idea might have been, if it was prophesied, it's part of God's plan, nothing to worry about.
The saying is referring to the splitting of families because some members converted to Christianity while the others did not (see also Mk 3:32-34 & 10:29-30).
However "Thomas" picked "sword" from gMatthew and added "fire" & "war".

Cordially, Bernard

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Everybody agrees that the sayings gospel "Q" came before the four gospels. Why should anybody make a sayings gospel, a more primitive form, after there are narrative gospels containing narratives of narrative, plot, characters, miracles, actions and sayings.

I am wondering how people can think that Paul's epistles are pre-gospel because they show virtually no knowledge of the gospels and treat Jesus as a God, and still think that the Gospel of Thomas is post NT gospels when, just like Paul's writings, they show virtually no knowledge of the gospels and treat Jesus as a God. This seems inconsistent to me. If the Gospel of Thomas had been included in the NT, who would not say that it was more primitive and earlier than the Gospel of Mark?

Hi Jay, I would say, that if we not argue with the hypothetical "Q", then we could see the opposite. In Paul we have little information about the "earthly" Jesus, but there are (two or three?) more "narrative" informations as sayings. It seems that our Bernard had made a very good case on his website. It was the later Luke and/or the later Matthew and clearly also John, who made the sayings of Jesus against the early more "narrative" Mark so prominent. Another development to a pure sayings text would then be in the range of possibility.

[Charles Wilson]

In Paul we have little information about the "earthly" Jesus, but there are (two or three?) more "narrative" informations as sayings. It seems that our Bernard had made a very good case on his website. It was the later Luke and/or the later Matthew, who made the sayings of Jesus against the early more "narrative" Mark so prominent. Another development to a pure sayings text would then be in the range of possibility.

KK-

I believe that you are on to something. We, "down to our time" (Hi, Jay!), also are dealing with a "Narrative" that we sometimes ignore at our peril. The Narrative is: "Paul wrote first and the Gospels came later."
Maccoby states, The Mythmaker, "...for the earliest writings in the New Testament are actually Paul's letters, which were written in about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until the period AD 70-110..."

This is a problem and it is a big one. The gap is 20 to 50 years. Paul's "Church" is *supposedly* making great strides in growth and acceptance. Paul, however, received his vision from "No Man". There is literally no need for ANY "HIstory" for a "Jesus". "If you do not need works to get into Heaven then why are you telling me about Jesus' WORKS?" The "Churches" carry no command to collate sayings, keep new Holy-Days or describe miracles. The Gospels are a record, supposedly, of a savior/god who has writings describing him, praising him, telling us what he said...and there is no reason for any of it. "In Paul we have little information about the "earthly" Jesus..." Yes. Exactly.

Thus, either "Paul's success with the Churches" is a lie or the assumption that Paul wrote first may be challenged.

CW

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Bernard,

My interpretation would be this.

As far as the derivation goes, Thomas is the original.
"Fire, sword and war" unmistakably means fierce violence. The five in a house would refer to 1) a father, 2) a son, 3) a son, 4) a father, and 5) the person left over. The first father fights against his son, the second son fights against his father. The 3 against 2 and 2 against 3 and they stand alone, means that each of the groups of two (father and son) thinks that the fifth person is on their side (3 against 2), but they stand alone, meaning the fifth person (Jesus) isn't on either side. Jesus brings about the war in the household, but doesn't support either side.

Matthew has tried to soften the saying by just saying "sword" instead of "fire, sword and war." He doesn't get the solution to the mathematics in Thomas' saying, so he drops the mathematical puzzle and just trys to create some kind of balance with son and father and daughter and mother. He knows Thomas has more people in the household, so he adds daughter-in-law and mother-in-law. Matthew knows that daughter-in-laws generally fight with their mother-in-laws, so he thinks it is okay to add it. He doesn't understand the point of Thomas' saying, which is that people in a family will fight with each other, but Jesus won't take anybody's side.

Luke as he habitually does when faced with two sources, combines them. He adds the mathematics from Thomas and the daughter/mother, and daughter-in-law/mother-in-law and to try and create some kind of balance he adds the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law. This adds up to 4 against 4 and not 3 against 2 or 2 against 3. He has botched the mathematics even worse.
Note also that he has eliminated the violent "fire, sword and war" -- doesn't really fit in with Jesus' pacifist agenda.

Only Thomas' saying makes sense as a legitimate clever puzzle with a real solution.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay,
gThomas 16 "Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.
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, and they will stand alone."




Let's compare with corresponding Q passages from gMatthew & gLuke:

Mat 10:35-35 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;"

Lk 12:51-53 "Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division;
for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three;
they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

It certainly look the gThomas version is an amalgamation of the relevant passages in gMatthew but more so gLuke, with some simplifications and exaggeration (see later).
Because gMatthew is more militant than gLuke, I think "Matthew" wrote "sword" which likely was not in Q. The "sword" might symbolize persecution against Christians.

Luke's version makes more sense than the others:
Starting by gMark, Q and the synoptic gospels had Jesus predicting all events (mostly the bad ones) affecting the early Christian communities. The idea might have been, if it was prophesied, it's part of God's plan, nothing to worry about.
The saying is referring to the splitting of families because some members converted to Christianity while the others did not (see also Mk 3:32-34 & 10:29-30).
However "Thomas" picked "sword" from gMatthew and added "fire" & "war".

Cordially, Bernard

[robert j]

Hi Charles,

Charles Wilson wrote ---

Paul's "Church" is *supposedly* making great strides in growth and acceptance ...

Thus, either "Paul's success with the Churches" is a lie or the assumption that Paul wrote first may be challenged.

Success? Perhaps an argument could be made using the mostly fictional Acts of the Apostles --- those that choose to do so, then I leave you to those fictions. But if one looks to Paul's four communities and the five authentic letters addressed to those communities, a different picture is evident.

The last we hear from Paul, some of the Galatians had rejected his concept of freedom from the law and were flirting with circumcision --- perhaps some had already done the deed. After several written appeals from Paul for the recognition of his authority, the Corinthians apparently rejected Paul after being visited by evangelists they liked better. Depending on how one reads the letter to the Thessalonians, one might see a qualified success ---- or one might recognize Paul's stroking and puffery, and reading between the lines recognize the congregation as a work in progress that Paul was still working for financial recognition of his work. That leaves as a clear success only the Philippians --- Paul's most supportive community --- and apparently the only group providing Paul with financial compensation for his spiritual work.

robert j.

[Charles Wilson]

Thank you robertj-
1. As a member of the "Roman Club", I see the NT as a construction made after the end of Jerusalem in 70. The "Signs Gospel", for example, embedded in John points to Titus and Domitian holds the pen last - sort of. The "Baptism of John" is replaced by "Baptism of the Holy Spirit", a Supersession of Domitian Christianity over Titus Christianity. (Acts isn't a "Fiction", per se, but a symbolic tale of the Legions, especially the 12th, and a man named Mucianus, Governor of Syria. A distinction without a difference here, perhaps.)

2. Your points are well taken as to Paul and the "Churches". He is micro-managing the recalcitrant churches - It's a good thing everyone could read and the Post Office had Overnight Delivery back then! That idea, however returns us to the point: Paul's Churches make sense AFTER the Gospels have provided a History of the "Jesus" that makes the Hand-off to Paul. "I lived, I died, I started a church, and then I gave Paul a vision and moved everything to Rome and..." WHOA!!! Paul did all of that FIRST, after having stated that The Vision makes everything else meaningless - in a transcendent sense, Archons 'n all - Paul first and then came the auxiliary History, written by people looking back 50 - 75 years.

3. That's why Jay's point about the early church practicing "Jewish Customs" for 30 years after "Jesus' death" means so much. It's not that the Jerusalem Church did these things, it's that Paul has to correct these errors because of the Vision that makes these things ALL WRONG. "But then...Why did Jesus do what he did?" It did not matter in the least what "Jesus" or "Jannaeus" or "Apollonius" did. Paul tells us that we will have Life...If you follow his version of it...and give him a little money. A "Jesus" in a "History" will never contradict the church because the church will never allow it.

4. The final step here is that if all of this didn't matter, then there is no reason to believe that what we have holds any relation to what we have been given, which appears to be, Jesus first, Paul second. We have seen this in the last 100+ years. Lenin, faced with a Marxist State, has to show that Russia actually did follow the Marxist Path through the Industrial State, through Capitalism, to arrive at the Vanguard of the Proletariat, led by Lenin, of course. The Soviet "Successes" ended with mass starvation and millions dead but it was as much a success in language as Paul's ever was, according to the Central Committee anyway.

There's a lesson there.

CW

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Jay,

"Fire, sword and war" unmistakably means fierce violence. The five in a house would refer to 1) a father, 2) a son, 3) a son, 4) a father, and 5) the person left over. The first father fights against his son, the second son fights against his father. The 3 against 2 and 2 against 3 and they stand alone, means that each of the groups of two (father and son) thinks that the fifth person is on their side (3 against 2), but they stand alone, meaning the fifth person (Jesus) isn't on either side. Jesus brings about the war in the household, but doesn't support either side.

I think you are over thinking the whole thing.
The author intended the father and a son being among the five fighting each others in the house, not a pair of each. It is obvious by looking at "three against two and two against three" in a house of five: both threesome are the same persons, and both twosome are the two others from the five house members.

Matthew has tried to soften the saying by just saying "sword" instead of "fire, sword and war." He doesn't get the solution to the mathematics in Thomas' saying, so he drops the mathematical puzzle and just trys to create some kind of balance with son and father and daughter and mother. He knows Thomas has more people in the household, so he adds daughter-in-law and mother-in-law. Matthew knows that daughter-in-laws generally fight with their mother-in-laws, so he thinks it is okay to add it. He doesn't understand the point of Thomas' saying, which is that people in a family will fight with each other, but Jesus won't take anybody's side.

According to your understanding, "Matthew" would feature six persons, all in a house of five according to gThomas (which you postulate "Matthew" knew about).

Luke as he habitually does when faced with two sources, combines them. He adds the mathematics from Thomas and the daughter/mother, and daughter-in-law/mother-in-law and to try and create some kind of balance he adds the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law. This adds up to 4 against 4 and not 3 against 2 or 2 against 3. He has botched the mathematics even worse.

"Luke" was not thinking about 2 fathers & 2 sons, plus 2 daughters & 2 mothers, plus 2 daughters-in-law & 2 mothers-in-law, but one of each. Again, it is obvious by looking at "three against two and two against three" in a house of five.
A against B and B against A is rather redundant and stated for dramatic effect (the same goes for the father & son in gThomas).
Bad math? 5 persons are not 6. The same goes also for gMatthew (if "Matthew" knew about gThomas!).

It seems to me gThomas (as did "Matthew" if 3/2 against 2/3 was in Q) avoided the bad math of gLuke, by featuring only one father and one son against each other among the five.

Note also that he has eliminated the violent "fire, sword and war" -- doesn't really fit in with Jesus' pacifist agenda.

These words were most likely not against any pacifist agenda, but rather suggesting persecutions against Thomassan sectarians (with possibly some exaggeration for dramatic effect). I do not think the small number of these sectarians were capable of going to war against the authorities. Rather these "Thomassans" were more likely to be on the receiving end and to be harmed physically by others ("sword"), have their home torched ("fire") and be harassed ("war"). Once again, the expected thinking was: if Jesus predicted it, it was in the divine plan, that plan did not go awry (if it did, a good reason for leaving the sect and enjoy life!).

Cordially, Bernard