Origen, the gospel of Thomas, and James the Just.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
davidmartin
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Origen, the gospel of Thomas, and James the Just.

Post by davidmartin »

Why does James the Just receive such unequaled praise in saying 12 but Thomas receive such unequaled praise in saying 13? One hypothesis is that a collection of sayings originally circulated under the authority of James later came to be circulated under the authority of Thomas instead. Perhaps saying 82, the one which Origen cites and comments on, was part of the original Jacobian collection, thus explaining why Origen did not know it as a saying from the gospel of Thomas
Thomas doesn't start out praising Thomas (seems odd to write that but you know what i mean!)
It merely says he was the scribe who wrote down the sayings (FWIW the Pistis Sophia says "Hearken, Philip, blessed one, that I may discourse with
thee; for it is thou and Thomas and Matthew on whom it is enjoined by the First Mystery to write all the discourses which I shall speak and do")

I agree with what you wrote and think the James part is likely original, although it could still always have born the name Thomas because of a scribal attribution it could always been more associated with James as the authority

The part that praises Thomas seems like secondary layer to me because it's one of the stock scenarios to raise an apostle over another although Thomas also praises Mary in another stock scene (the praising of Mary over Peter). These are found in the NT gospels as well but in John Thomas gets demoted and Mary is praised (over Judas!). What can all this mean but arguments over who was following the right 'apostle' ie teaching. We are just seeing the faint literary remains of past battles that we're unlikely to know much about but the fact they occured is still welcome information. When did these battles occur in the name of apostles in texts like this? hmmm maybe late 1st to late 2nd century... i think it has to be before the times of Irenaeus when it became proper to stress the unity of all the apostles and of the four gospels, it represents an earlier phase when Irenaeus's teacher probably said 'I follow Matthew' or Peter and his opponents may say I follow Thomas or Phillip.

The odd thing about Thomas is the lack of references to anything Pauline unless it's obscured somehow. I've played with an idea that Paul's gospel may have faded away for a while until coming back strongly again later (say around Marcion's time). It got resurrected. That might explain why a text like Thomas and others appears not to know of Paul when he was so prominent at an early date and in our minds now with his prolific contribution to the NT and for so much of what came later. That's why the Shepherd of Hermas could be so non-Pauline yet post-date him?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Origen, the gospel of Thomas, and James the Just.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

davidmartin wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:06 amI agree with what you wrote and think the James part is likely original, although it could still always have born the name Thomas because of a scribal attribution it could always been more associated with James as the authority
I am not sure about the James part being primary or original in the absolute sense, but yes, more original than the Thomas part. What makes me suspect that both the James and the Thomas parts may be secondary, at least in some sense, is that both of them fall into that section of the text which seems to interrupt the questions and answers about fasting, prayer, and alms:

Thomas 0.1-14.5:

0[.1] These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke, and Didymus Judas Thomas wrote them down.

1[.1] And he said, “Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.”

2.1 Jesus said, “He who seeks should not stop seeking until he finds. 2 And when he finds, he will be troubled, 3 and when he is troubled, he will be astonished, 4 and he will reign over the all.”

3.1 Jesus said, “If those who lead you say to you, ‘Behold, the kingdom is in heaven,’ then the birds of heaven would precede you! 2 If they say to you that it is in the sea, then the fish would precede you! 3 But the kingdom is inside you and outside of you. 4 When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are sons of the living Father. 5 But if you do not know yourselves, you are in poverty and you are poverty.”

4.1 Jesus said, “The man old in his days will not hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live, 2 because many who are first will be last. 3 And they will become one.”

5.1 Jesus said, “Know the one who is before your face, and what is hidden from you will be revealed to you. 2 For there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed.”

6.1 His disciples asked him and said to him, “Do you want us to fast? And how shall we pray? Shall we give alms? And what diet shall we observe?” 2 Jesus said, “Do not lie, 3 and what you hate, do not do, 4 because all things are manifest in the presence of the truth. 5 For there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, 6 and nothing covered which will be left without being uncovered.”

7.1 Jesus said, “Blessed is the lion which the man eats, and the lion becomes man. 2 And cursed is the man whom the lion eats and the ⟨man⟩ becomes ⟨lion⟩.”

8.1 And he said, “The man is like a wise fisherman, who cast his net into the sea. He pulled it up from the sea full of small fish. 2 Among them the wise fisherman found a good, large fish. 3 He cast all the little fish out i[n]to the sea, and he chose the large fish without being troubled. 4 He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

9.1 Jesus said, “Behold, the sower went forth and filled his hand and sowed. 2 Some fell onto the path, and the birds came and gleaned them. 3 Others fell onto rock and did not take root in the ground and produce ears upwards. 4 And others fell onto thorns. They choked the seed, and worms ate them. 5 But others fell onto the good soil, and it yielded good fruit upwards. It brought sixty per measure and one hundred and twenty per measure.”

10[.1] Jesus said, “I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I am guarding it until it burns.”

11.1 Jesus said, “This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away. 2 But the dead will not live, and the living will not die. 3 In the days when you ate what is dead you made it live. When you come into the light, what will you do? 4 On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?”

12.1 The disciples said to Jesus, “We know that you will depart from us. Who will be leader over us?” 2 Jesus said to them, “Wherever you have come from, you shall go to James the Just, for the sake of whom heaven and earth came into being.”

13.1 Jesus said to his disciples, “Compare me and tell me whom I resemble.” 2 Simon Peter said to him, “You are like a righteous angel.” 3 Matthew said to him, “You are like a wise philosopher.” 4 Thomas said to him, “Master, my mouth is completely unable to say whom you are like.” 5 Jesus said, “I am not your master. When you drank, you became drunk with the bubbling spring which I have dug.” 6 And he took him and withdrew, and spoke three words to him. 7 When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, “What did Jesus say to you?” 8 Thomas said to them, “If I told you one of the words which he spoke to me, you would pick up stones and throw them at me. But fire would come forth from the stones, and burn you.”


14.1 Jesus said to them, “If you fast, you will give birth to sin in yourselves. 2 And if you pray, you will be condemned. 3 And if you give alms, you will do ill to your spirits. 4 And if you go into any region and you travel in the districts — if you are received, eat what is set before you. Those who are sick among them, heal. 5 For whatever goes into your mouth will not defile you. Rather, whatever comes out of your mouth — that is what defiles you.”

And, for example, Thomas 77.2 comes between 30.2 and 31.1 in papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1, so we know that some shifting around of materials has transpired somewhere along the line in this text (as seems to be the case for most early Christian gospel texts, to be sure).
The part that praises Thomas seems like secondary layer to me because it's one of the stock scenarios to raise an apostle over another although Thomas also praises Mary in another stock scene (the praising of Mary over Peter). These are found in the NT gospels as well but in John Thomas gets demoted and Mary is praised (over Judas!).
Yes, good points.
When did these battles occur in the name of apostles in texts like this? hmmm maybe late 1st to late 2nd century...
Maybe right from the start, or at least as far back as we can go?

1 Corinthians 1.11-12: 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” or “I of Apollos,” or “I of Cephas,” or “I of Christ.”

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Origen, the gospel of Thomas, and James the Just.

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:06 am The odd thing about Thomas is the lack of references to anything Pauline unless it's obscured somehow. I've played with an idea that Paul's gospel may have faded away for a while until coming back strongly again later (say around Marcion's time). It got resurrected. That might explain why a text like Thomas and others appears not to know of Paul when he was so prominent at an early date and in our minds now with his prolific contribution to the NT and for so much of what came later. That's why the Shepherd of Hermas could be so non-Pauline yet post-date him?
Gathercole is of the opinion that Thomas does have Paul stuff: https://www.academia.edu/35745929/The_I ... omas_2008_

It's quite a solid paper, I really like him. He makes good brothers in arms with Goodacre

But, David - if your theory is that Thomas copied at least some of the canonicals, do you care to comment on his deafening silence with regards to his own crucifixion, his own resurrection, and all the eschatological stuff that he doesn't have any of?

I mean really, wouldn't you comment on a story that had you in it and where someone would proclaim you a Messiah, put all kinds of dumb words in your mouth, and crucify and resurrect you?

I would
davidmartin
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Origen, the gospel of Thomas, and James the Just.

Post by davidmartin »

Gathercole is of the opinion that Thomas does have Paul stuff: https://www.academia.edu/35745929/The_I ... omas_2008_

It's quite a solid paper, I really like him. He makes good brothers in arms with Goodacre

But, David - if your theory is that Thomas copied at least some of the canonicals, do you care to comment on his deafening silence with regards to his own crucifixion, his own resurrection, and all the eschatological stuff that he doesn't have any of?

I mean really, wouldn't you comment on a story that had you in it and where someone would proclaim you a Messiah, put all kinds of dumb words in your mouth, and crucify and resurrect you?

I would
Thanks for the Gathercole piece i like what he's doing here! i think it's fair to say the connection is very conjectural i'm still most unsure there's any direct response to Pauline theology to be found there, except i guess you could say both seem to have a 'pneumatic' base and some similar themes and so on

No i don't think Thomas drew from the canonicals, it's independent and either pre-dates Paul (most likely) or dates from a time Paul's gospel had fallen out of fashion temporarily in the later 1st century maybe. The jab at Peter at the end refers to proto-orthodox Christianity i recon that is emerging when our edition of Thomas is released and it's either non-Pauline or only lightly influenced by him, the resurrection isn't central yet.... just like is found in the Shepard of Hermas. Paul is far in the past at this point and hasn't made his Marcion comeback? Instead the prophets are being used as the base for this proto-orthadoxy and Thomas isn't so keen on it.

I'm attracted to the idea that the Jesus in Thomas was always quite anti-establishment and yet a handful of the more anti-Judaic sayings were possibly less original eg '24 prophets spoke in Israel'. The reason why i think this is I want to harmonise Thomas with the Odes of Solomon. It mostly is harmonious but sometimes Thomas appears more anti-Judaic than the Odes here and there from passing through 'gnostic' groups during transmission. This could be significant. It could be the other way around and the Odes is being more pro-Judaic than Thomas always was. In that case one might suggest Thomas represents one apostles views and the Odes another and they differed on their approach to orthodoxy with Thomas being more oppositional and the Odes more conciliatory. I am of course completely guessing in all this and just throwing ideas out there!!
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Origen, the gospel of Thomas, and James the Just.

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:15 am I'm attracted to the idea that the Jesus in Thomas was always quite anti-establishment and yet a handful of the more anti-Judaic sayings were possibly less original eg '24 prophets spoke in Israel'. The reason why i think this is I want to harmonise Thomas with the Odes of Solomon. It mostly is harmonious but sometimes Thomas appears more anti-Judaic than the Odes here and there from passing through 'gnostic' groups during transmission. This could be significant. It could be the other way around and the Odes is being more pro-Judaic than Thomas always was. In that case one might suggest Thomas represents one apostles views and the Odes another and they differed on their approach to orthodoxy with Thomas being more oppositional and the Odes more conciliatory. I am of course completely guessing in all this and just throwing ideas out there!!
That indeed is the only logion really bothering me - nothing of what Thomas says can be linked to any kind of religion, certainly not Christianity, except for this

52. say(s) they to he viz. his(PL) Disciple : twenty four the(PL) Prophet did they speak in the Israel and did they speak all they upper-part of heart/mind you say(s) he behold : did you(PL) place he-who live within your(PL.) presence outward and did you(PL) speak toward they-who dead

My latest series is 'Thomas Miscellaneous' where I dump the odd logion that's just kicked in, like logion 13 and the three words spoken. Even Ben is in the session :notworthy: but still shy, alas

Logion 52 - the end is clear, where IS criticises the disciples for rejecting him, and speaking about spiritually dead people (which must be the 24 books of the Tanakh (Masoretic)).
They spoke in the Israel, the article goes with the noun. Yet they speak "upper-part of your heart/mind (ϩⲏⲧ)", and I haven't come across a solution for that yet. None of the commentaries are helpful of course, although Gathercole once again is very elaborate and balanced.
They all translate the word as adjective and wrongfully translate it on top of that; it means before (location), in front of - not in or about

Anyway - no solution on my part, sorry. I'm rather depleted of insights these last days, time for a break perhaps
davidmartin
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Origen, the gospel of Thomas, and James the Just.

Post by davidmartin »

very interesting.
to me saying 52 must be a reference to Christianity of the orthodox kind. We know the early fathers were quite obsessed with linking Jesus to any prophecy they could. Paul on the other hand doesn't, fascinating isn't it?? His quotes of the Hebrew scripture are in support of his gospel only rather than to prove Jesus is the messiah, which he never says he was! So the fathers are mining the prophets quite differently than Paul does
See
https://www.freewebs.com/thywordis/PAUL ... E%20OT.htm

So, the saying 52 is not about Paul's gospel, but about the later Christian orthodoxy which was saying this

The one unusual thing is why '24 prophets'. How well known was that number? I find that a bit curious but it might not be important

So Thomas makes sense as a pre-Paul production with a gloss that's in opposition to orthodox Christianity that was emerging, say late 1st to early 2nd century. However influential Paul was in his day, it didn't manage to impact Thomas in the same way

Thomas does include a familiar theme from the canonicals - the disbelieving/ignorant disciples
It's surely is reflective of later disagreements. That's another reason to date 52 as later

There's plenty of other interesting curiosities as well
Thomas gets called gnostic, but how often do the gnostic writings quote Thomas? Very rarely and mostly not at all
The greatest quoters of Jesus are the new testament gospels
The gnostic approach is the same as Paul. 'Expound on but don't quote'
Why is that?

hey once i tried to learn Coptic. wish i had more time to carry on with that
davidmartin
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Origen, the gospel of Thomas, and James the Just.

Post by davidmartin »

2. say(s) they to he viz. his(PL) Disciple : twenty four the(PL) Prophet did they speak in the Israel and did they speak all they upper-part of heart/mind you say(s) he behold : did you(PL) place he-who live within your(PL.) presence outward and did you(PL) speak toward they-who dead

Logion 52 - the end is clear, where IS criticises the disciples for rejecting him, and speaking about spiritually dead people (which must be the 24 books of the Tanakh (Masoretic)).
They spoke in the Israel, the article goes with the noun. Yet they speak "upper-part of your heart/mind (ϩⲏⲧ)", and I haven't come across a solution for that yet. None of the commentaries are helpful of course, although Gathercole once again is very elaborate and balanced.
They all translate the word as adjective and wrongfully translate it on top of that; it means before (location), in front of - not in or about
Dug out some Coptic books ML, don't know if this helps. I never got too far with it

It seems to go 'they-spoke-all' then HRAI (up/down) EN (of) HEHT-K (belly/front-you)
The book says HEHT means belly or womb literally but front otherwise, a forward position
So for what it's worth I see it meaning something like:
... they all spoke up and down in front of you
or
... 24 prophets spoke in Isreal and they all spoke up and down the land before you

In other words the 24 prophets are speaking up and down Isreal (since HRAI means both up and down) the image is of movement up and down
and they are speaking 'in-front' ie prior to Jesus. Whether this is possible grammatically i don't know but Coptic seems pretty loose about that

So maybe it doesn't say the prophets spoke in Jesus but they spoke before him, making Jesus another in the line strictly speaking (if it doesn't mean they announced him). Being literal about this, the only group that claimed Jesus was a prophet following the traditional prophets is found in the Clementine literature, that is the Ebionites.
The final logion where Peter claims women are not worthy, is possibly more suggestive of Ebionite than Pauline or orthodox Christian views
That would explain the lack you noticed of resurrection topics and other such Pauline things the Ebionites were not known for?

do you think this is possible?
If you fancy another explanation maybe the disciples are saying these 24 prophets spoke and now you are speaking, as if to say why should we listen to you? but that would be a strange thing for his own disciples to say. maybe that was the context of the original saying but it was 'some people said not his disciples said' but its been tweaked polemically a little...
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Origen, the gospel of Thomas, and James the Just.

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 3:36 pm
2. say(s) they to he viz. his(PL) Disciple : twenty four the(PL) Prophet did they speak in the Israel and did they speak all they upper-part of heart/mind you say(s) he behold : did you(PL) place he-who live within your(PL.) presence outward and did you(PL) speak toward they-who dead

Logion 52 - the end is clear, where IS criticises the disciples for rejecting him, and speaking about spiritually dead people (which must be the 24 books of the Tanakh (Masoretic)).
They spoke in the Israel, the article goes with the noun. Yet they speak "upper-part of your heart/mind (ϩⲏⲧ)", and I haven't come across a solution for that yet. None of the commentaries are helpful of course, although Gathercole once again is very elaborate and balanced.
They all translate the word as adjective and wrongfully translate it on top of that; it means before (location), in front of - not in or about
Dug out some Coptic books ML, don't know if this helps. I never got too far with it

It seems to go 'they-spoke-all' then HRAI (up/down) EN (of) HEHT-K (belly/front-you)
The book says HEHT means belly or womb literally but front otherwise, a forward position
So for what it's worth I see it meaning something like:
... they all spoke up and down in front of you
or
... 24 prophets spoke in Isreal and they all spoke up and down the land before you

In other words the 24 prophets are speaking up and down Isreal (since HRAI means both up and down) the image is of movement up and down
and they are speaking 'in-front' ie prior to Jesus. Whether this is possible grammatically i don't know but Coptic seems pretty loose about that

So maybe it doesn't say the prophets spoke in Jesus but they spoke before him, making Jesus another in the line strictly speaking (if it doesn't mean they announced him). Being literal about this, the only group that claimed Jesus was a prophet following the traditional prophets is found in the Clementine literature, that is the Ebionites.
The final logion where Peter claims women are not worthy, is possibly more suggestive of Ebionite than Pauline or orthodox Christian views
That would explain the lack you noticed of resurrection topics and other such Pauline things the Ebionites were not known for?

do you think this is possible?
If you fancy another explanation maybe the disciples are saying these 24 prophets spoke and now you are speaking, as if to say why should we listen to you? but that would be a strange thing for his own disciples to say. maybe that was the context of the original saying but it was 'some people said not his disciples said' but its been tweaked polemically a little...
Good research! Easier to do if you just click in my translation https://www.academia.edu/42110001/Inter ... ranslation perhaps

Yes, HRAI means up or down, yet I've translated all occurrences with up, EPECHT is used for downward.
HET is an adjective of location or time so your explanation is quite feasible

And I like your second as well, very well possible indeed that the ignorants finally lash out LOL, after all the abuse

Above and before you the spoke, all of them, so WTF are you?
I like it. They don't speak about him of course, but prior to. HRAI is a stinker, but it must act as an offensive word, it must indicate something that they prevail over IS indeed. Thank you!
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Origen, the gospel of Thomas, and James the Just.

Post by mlinssen »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Dec 03, 2020 1:59 am Good research! Easier to do if you just click in my translation https://www.academia.edu/42110001/Inter ... ranslation perhaps

Yes, HRAI means up or down, yet I've translated all occurrences with up, EPECHT is used for downward.
HET is an adjective of location or time so your explanation is quite feasible

And I like your second as well, very well possible indeed that the ignorants finally lash out LOL, after all the abuse

Above and before you the spoke, all of them, so WTF are you?
I like it. They don't speak about him of course, but prior to. HRAI is a stinker, but it must act as an offensive word, it must indicate something that they prevail over IS indeed. Thank you!
Come to think of it...

ϩⲣⲁÏ ⲛ̄ ϩⲏⲧ ⲕ`

Upper-part of heart/mind your

Your "belly" would leave us with ⲧ ⲕ to resolve, while that same word also translates to beginning.
One of the many puzzles David!
davidmartin
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Origen, the gospel of Thomas, and James the Just.

Post by davidmartin »

maybe HRAI means something like 'all over the place' here. The prophets are just everywhere, up and down all over the place dominating the landscape
this is what worries me and made me want to learn Coptic in the first place, these translations don't seem that knowledgeable of Egyptian idioms
To say 'they all spoke in you' is wild, it doesn't say that.

if I had more time i'd be interested in the usage of HRAI in the Kellis manichean coptic letters which preserve colloquial Egyptian so i've read because these letters have stuff like 'im going to the town to buy the barley when i get back sell my horse and i'll pay you back what i owe you'
https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2016/2016.07.24/
Post Reply