Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2023 3:25 pm**

.
Compared to the synoptic gospels, it seems unusual that Matthew is mentioned alongside Simon Peter in GThomas 13, who otherwise only plays a narrative role in the gospels as a tax collector.

Logion 13
Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like."
Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger."
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."
Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended." And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?" Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

However, this juxtaposition of Simon Peter and Matthew becomes understandable against the background of the proto-Catholic reception of GMark and GMatthew.

Papias on GMark and GMatthew (according to Eusebius)

The Elder used to say:
Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai, but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.

Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could.

In GThomas 13, "Simon Peter" represents the Gospel of Mark how the proto-Catholics saw it.

Gospels	proto-catholic reception	proto-catholic reception	GThomas 13
GMark	Teachings of Simon Peter	the things either said or done by the Lord	Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger."
GMatthew	Matthew’s ordered arrangement	the logia of the Lord	Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2023 10:45 pm**

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 3:25 pm .
Compared to the synoptic gospels, it seems unusual that Matthew is mentioned alongside Simon Peter in GThomas 13, who otherwise only plays a narrative role in the gospels as a tax collector.

That myopic, heavily lopsided and utterly biased sentence already demonstrates the circular reasoning

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2023 10:48 am**

mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 10:45 pmThat myopic, heavily lopsided and utterly biased sentence already demonstrates the circular reasoning

Really? It's neither circular nor reasoning. It's just the observation of a particular phenomenon in two different places and some probability that one occurrence explains the other.

But what about James the Just?

Logion 12
The disciples said to Jesus: We know that you will depart from us; who is it who will be great over us? Jesus said to them: Wherever you have come, you will go to James the Just (ⲒⲀⲔⲰⲂⲞⲤ Ⲡ.ⲆⲒⲔⲀⲒⲞⲤ), for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.

According to the majority opinion of scholars, this logion expresses a high devotion to James the Just. Our own Martijn, on the other hand, believes that the Jewish patriarch Jacob is meant and that the logion primarily expresses irony. Few modern scholars agree with Martijn on the last point (but not on the first !), because assuming an devotion for James the Just and an esteem of leadership goes against the overall tendency of GThomas. For this reason, other scholars have conjectured that Logion 12 must represent a part of the earliest recension of GThomas (in a Jewish-Christian setting).

However, I agree with all scholars against Martijn that Logion 12 refers to James the Just and not to the Jewish patriarch Jacob for the following reasons:

- While both persons share the same name Jacob (“James” is just a mistranslation in English), James the Just is invariably spelled "Jakobos" in all Greek and Coptic manuscripts of the NT and in extracanonical writings, and the patriarch Jacob is invariably spelled "Jakob" without the ending “-os”. In logion 12 (coptic ms) it is “ⲒⲀⲔⲰⲂⲞⲤ”.

- It is true that Martijn offers long explanations for ascribing the adjective "just" to the patriarch as well, but only James the Just is named "the Just" (Ⲡ.ⲆⲒⲔⲀⲒⲞⲤ) in other writings too.

- There are various Christian traditions, friend or foe, who affirm that James the Just was a “Great One” after Jesus' earthly departure. This does not apply to the patriarch Jacob.

What’s the problem?

Again the name “James the Just” is a particular phenomenon, not found in other Gospels but later in the proto-Catholic reception of the NT-writings.

Hegesippus on James the Just (according to Eusebius)

James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woollen garment, but fine linen only. He alone, I say, was wont to go into the temple: and he used to be found kneeling on his knees, begging forgiveness for the people-so that the skin of his knees became horny like that of a camel's, by reason of his constantly bending the knee in adoration to God, and begging forgiveness for the people. Therefore, in consequence of his pre-eminent justice, he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek Defence of the People, and Justice, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:12 am**

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 10:48 am
mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 10:45 pmThat myopic, heavily lopsided and utterly biased sentence already demonstrates the circular reasoning
Really? It's neither circular nor reasoning. It's just the observation of a particular phenomenon in two different places and some probability that one occurrence explains the other.

But what about James the Just?

Logion 12
The disciples said to Jesus: We know that you will depart from us; who is it who will be great over us? Jesus said to them: Wherever you have come, you will go to James the Just (ⲒⲀⲔⲰⲂⲞⲤ Ⲡ.ⲆⲒⲔⲀⲒⲞⲤ), for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.

According to the majority opinion of scholars, this logion expresses a high devotion to James the Just. Our own Martijn, on the other hand, believes that the Jewish patriarch Jacob is meant and that the logion primarily expresses irony. Few modern scholars agree with Martijn on the last point (but not on the first !), because assuming an devotion for James the Just and an esteem of leadership goes against the overall tendency of GThomas. For this reason, other scholars have conjectured that Logion 12 must represent a part of the earliest recension of GThomas (in a Jewish-Christian setting).

However, I agree with all scholars against Martijn that Logion 12 refers to James the Just and not to the Jewish patriarch Jacob for the following reasons:

- While both persons share the same name Jacob (“James” is just a mistranslation in English), James the Just is invariably spelled "Jakobos" in all Greek and Coptic manuscripts of the NT and in extracanonical writings, and the patriarch Jacob is invariably spelled "Jakob" without the ending “-os”. In logion 12 (coptic ms) it is “ⲒⲀⲔⲰⲂⲞⲤ”.

- It is true that Martijn offers long explanations for ascribing the adjective "just" to the patriarch as well, but only James the Just is named "the Just" (Ⲡ.ⲆⲒⲔⲀⲒⲞⲤ) in other writings too.

- There are various Christian traditions, friend or foe, who affirm that James the Just was a “Great One” after Jesus' earthly departure. This does not apply to the patriarch Jacob.

What’s the problem?

Again the name “James the Just” is a particular phenomenon, not found in other Gospels but later in the proto-Catholic reception of the NT-writings.

Hegesippus on James the Just (according to Eusebius)

James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woollen garment, but fine linen only. He alone, I say, was wont to go into the temple: and he used to be found kneeling on his knees, begging forgiveness for the people-so that the skin of his knees became horny like that of a camel's, by reason of his constantly bending the knee in adoration to God, and begging forgiveness for the people. Therefore, in consequence of his pre-eminent justice, he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek Defence of the People, and Justice, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.

I'll have to concede to the name differences, that's a good find really. Problem is, there were no Coptic nor Greek MS of the NT (or OT, for that matter) at the time of Thomas' writing.
And you can chatter about "James the Just is invariably spelled "Jakobos"" but the fact is that the name appears not even once in all of those invariable spellings: there is no James the Just in any of them.
Only Galatians 1:19 mentions a "James, the brother of the lord" and that's the sum total.
DeConick has a helpful list as usual:

These traditions go a long way to explain that the title and its attributes were passed on to Jesus' brother James when he took over the leadership of the Jerusalem community.
Logion 12.2 is not alone in this attestation (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.23; Epiphanes, Panarion 78.7.7; 78.14.1-6; Gos. Hebrews 7; 1 Apocalypse of James 31.30; 32.1-3; 32.12; 43.19-21; 2 Apocalypse of James 44.13-14; 49.9; 59.22; 60.12-13; 61.14). Hegesippus records that James was known as the 'Righteous One' who continually prayed in the Temple for the forgiveness of the people. He was called the 'Oblias', a term which Hegesippus translates to mean 'Fortification of the People'. He states that this was for the fulfilment of a prophetic text. It is very likely that he had in mind Proverbs 10.25: 'the righteous is the foundation of the world'. Furthermore, it appears that James' prayers as a tsaddik were believed to have been successful in stemming God's judgement since it was not until immediately after his martyrdom that, Hegesippus says, Vespasian began to attack the Jews (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.23). The destruction of the Temple was soon to follow. This event was clearly interpreted by the Christian Jews to be the judgement of God meted upon Israel (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.5; 3.7; Origen, Contra. Celsus 1.47; Origen, Comm.
Matthew 10.17).

So Thomas postdated these, or read at least one of them? Which one, how?

As usual, Gathercole has the sensible stuff:

12.2 The Just. The only other place in Thomas where the epithet ⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ appears is in GTh 13, so there may be a deliberate catchword link between the two sayings. Different views have been suggested for when James received the title ‘the Just’. Hegesippus said that it went back to the time of Jesus. DeConick has stated that it passed to James on the death of Jesus, when the former assumed the leadership of the Jerusalem church.17 Ward and Pokorný suggest that it was given to James after his martyrdom.18 The earliest references to the title ‘the Just’ appear in the Gospel of the Hebrews, Hegesippus and in Clement’s Hypotyposeis.19 As far as earlier sources are concerned, Paul calls James ‘the brother of the Lord’ (Gal. 1.19), and Josephus similarly designated him ‘the brother of Jesus’ (Ant. 20.197–203). This was the early way of distinguishing him from other Jameses, i.e. from James the son of Zebedee (‘James the brother of John’, in Acts 12.2), James the son of Alphaeus and James the Less. Hegesippus’s claim that James ‘has been called by everyone “the Just”, from the times of the Lord until now’ is—like much of Hegesippus on James—fanciful.20 The title ‘the Just’ is probably a later—perhaps second-century—development, another of the many later features (such as Nazirate and priesthood) read back into James’ own lifetime.21 Ward may be right in suggesting that the title ‘came to be affixed to James as a martyr title after his death’:22 the term is associated with the martyred in Wis. 2.17–20, those killed unjustly in Jas. 5.6, and Jesus specifically in his death in Lk. 23.47 and 1Jn 2.1–2 (cf. 1Pet. 3.18; Acts 3.14; 7.52, 22.14). This is probable, but must not be pressed, since in a parallel case, Simon the Just is according to Josephus so-named for ‘his piety to God and his benevolence to his countrymen’ (Ant. 12.43; 12.157);
Josephus is not clear about whether he thought this title was granted during Simon’s lifetime or not.23 James’ epithet may merely have this general sense, though the connotation of righteous and therefore unjustly killed is probably also important

The majority of scholars is very Christian of course, and they only see what they need to see: and they don't want to see that Thomas has a unique name here that can't be traced to anything but the Righteous Jacob of the Tanakh who dreamed about a ladder between heaven and earth, and subsequently bartered his way out with God

So tell me this, Crusader: how about

12. The Disciples said to IS: we know you will go from the hand of us; who is who that will make be great upward upon us? IS said to them: the place you have come therein, you will go toward Jacob the Righteous; this one has the heaven with the earth come to be because of him.

What do your beloved scholars make of that? Nothing of course, so they either ignore it or create the gossip that it was a common expression - for which they don't offer any evidence, as usual

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2023 1:33 am**

The account of Hegesippus is fiction only this James can go in the holy place? that's not how it worked, right?
This means everything he says is suspect. Yes there are multiple James' it seems to me 'the Just' is a way to distinguish him from the Lord's brother and Hegesippus is trying to combine them

Thomas, therefore, is talking about a disciple James

The expression 'for whose sake heaven and earth came into being' is a Jewish idiom. It just means 'definitely go to him' emphatically - it's parallel to the praise Thomas receives also 'I am not your teacher'. Same kind of dramatic idiom that is not meant 100% literally - what does it mean? Easy. The nickname 'twin' means Thomas is like Jesus from doing well in the Jesus school (not that he looked like him), so is this James, he is like Jesus too. If you're 'like Jesus' the 'heaven and earth' praise stuff assimilates to that person automatically. So this is a disciple James in the Jesus school of spiritual rock

The idea this means 'Jewish Christianity' is a separate question because if this is not the Lord's brother there is no connection to the 'James, Lord's brother' sect at all.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2023 4:32 am**

davidmartin wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 1:33 am The account of Hegesippus is fiction only this James can go in the holy place? that's not how it worked, right?
This means everything he says is suspect. Yes there are multiple James' it seems to me 'the Just' is a way to distinguish him from the Lord's brother and Hegesippus is trying to combine them

Thomas, therefore, is talking about a disciple James

The expression 'for whose sake heaven and earth came into being' is a Jewish idiom. It just means 'definitely go to him' emphatically - it's parallel to the praise Thomas receives also 'I am not your teacher'. Same kind of dramatic idiom that is not meant 100% literally - what does it mean? Easy. The nickname 'twin' means Thomas is like Jesus from doing well in the Jesus school (not that he looked like him), so is this James, he is like Jesus too. If you're 'like Jesus' the 'heaven and earth' praise stuff assimilates to that person automatically. So this is a disciple James in the Jesus school of spiritual rock

The idea this means 'Jewish Christianity' is a separate question because if this is not the Lord's brother there is no connection to the 'James, Lord's brother' sect at all.

None of these considerations have anything to do with my argument.

1. There is a Jesus literature in antiquity and many authors who tell a variety of stories about a Jesus. There are some characters named "James" in these stories. This Jesus literature continues to develop over a longer period of time with different dependencies and therefore has a literary history.

2. From a certain point in time, several different Jesus stories involve a character named "James the Just". However, the authors who use this figure in their stories may characterize their "James the Just" with different characteristics (as well as "their" Jesus).

3. The Jesus stories with "James the Just" are part of a reception of earlier Jesus-stories. GThomas has also a "James the Just" and should therefore belong to this layer or - imho - reacted to this layer.

(4. I could argue the same way in relation to the Robin Hood literature and the literary-historical development of characters in it like "Little John" or "Marian".)

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2023 5:07 am**

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 4:32 am
1. There is a Jesus literature in antiquity and many authors who tell a variety of stories about a Jesus. There are some characters named "James" in these stories. This Jesus literature continues to develop over a longer period of time with different dependencies and therefore has a literary history.

2. From a certain point in time, several different Jesus stories involve a character named "James the Just". However, the authors who use this figure in their stories may characterize their "James the Just" with different characteristics (as well as "their" Jesus).

3. The Jesus stories with "James the Just" are part of a reception of earlier Jesus-stories. GThomas has also a "James the Just" and should therefore belong to this layer or - imho - reacted to this layer.

Just an easy question then for you: is there a possibility, in your eyes, that Thomas was the first to develop this kind of "Jesus plus Jacob the Righteous" stories?

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2023 5:38 am**

davidmartin wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 1:33 am The expression 'for whose sake heaven and earth came into being' is a Jewish idiom. It just means 'definitely go to him' emphatically

Do you have any pointers there?

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2023 7:01 am**

ok, yeah alright. it's not a clearly Jewish idiom it could be a feature of any culture, i saw this as intentional hyperbole though
like John 12:19 See, the world is gone after Him.

unfortunately i couldn't find an actual, real Jewish website i just remembered reading it once
so sometimes Thomas there's some hidden detail meaning othertimes its hyperbole for effect this saying I think it's the latter and it's as simple as that

I believe one of the leading causes of stumbling is not being aware that the original language of the Bible (Hebrew) is a highly exaggerative language, sometimes even to the point of what would appear to be lying from a Western point of view

this is a Christian source so better say a hail mary before clicking haha https://tentmaker.org/Biblematters/hyperbole.htm

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2023 10:03 am**

davidmartin wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 7:01 am ok, yeah alright. it's not a clearly Jewish idiom it could be a feature of any culture, i saw this as intentional hyperbole though
like John 12:19 See, the world is gone after Him.

unfortunately i couldn't find an actual, real Jewish website i just remembered reading it once
so sometimes Thomas there's some hidden detail meaning othertimes its hyperbole for effect this saying I think it's the latter and it's as simple as that

I believe one of the leading causes of stumbling is not being aware that the original language of the Bible (Hebrew) is a highly exaggerative language, sometimes even to the point of what would appear to be lying from a Western point of view
this is a Christian source so better say a hail mary before clicking haha https://tentmaker.org/Biblematters/hyperbole.htm

From my Commentary, selective pieces:

'Who?', ⲛⲓⲙ, is a pronoun of interrogation, and the Disciples ask who will be made 'great', ⲛⲟϭ.
That is the exact same word as in logion 8 and it aided in turning into a hyperbole the imaginary and very non-existent Great Fish when it was first sighted - but this word is used "solo" in all other places, and denotes superb nouns, such as e.g. the 'branch' in logion 20, the 'Power' in logion 21 and 85, but especially the 'sheep' of logion 107.
ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϫⲛ- ⲁⲛⲟⲛ, 'upward upon us' is what follows this hyperbole, and next to just meaning 'upward', ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ is also used for 'Reinforcing following preposition': ⲉϫⲛ-, 'upon, over (and many other meanings)'. Apparently, it is not enough to just use the hyperbole but it even has to be reinforced at that; and to leave all that intact the translation has just left the words in their place: 'who will make be great upward upon us?'. The usual translations say "who will be our leader". Leader?

ⲁⲛϫⲱϫ - leader, commander
ⲁⲣⲭⲏⲅⲟⲥ - originator, founder, chief, ruler, sovereign
ⲁⲣⲭⲱⲛ - ruler, nobleman, notable
ⲣⲉϥϫⲓⲙⲟⲉⲓⲧ - leader, guide
ϩⲏⲅⲉⲙⲱⲛ - ruler, leader
ϩⲏⲅⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲟⲥ - (political / church) leader, ruler, guide, instructor
ϫⲁⲩⲙⲟⲉⲓⲧ - leader, guide
TABLE 5 LEADER IN COPTIC

Those are the choices for the word "leader", and it's 50-50 Coptic-Greek: plenty to pick from, and although it is very understandable to try and find a legible English way to express this Coptic construction, there again is a hyperbole in Thomas (which has gone unnoticed like most everything else) with the word 'great' in combination with the very visible Coptic hyperbole of ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̉ that reinforces ⲉϫⲱ. The typical Yeshua-type translations use "Rabbi", but that equates to the same understatement as "leader", and "Guru" with a capital G should have been the least modest translation to aim for. "Who will make be superb, towering over us?" is the nearest literal translation that conveys the very strong implication of both words used; ⲛⲟϭ and ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ, and the resulting image is one of lazy, ignorant and passive "Disciples" who seek a permanent leader to guide them in all things possible for the remainder of their life, possibly also when it comes to the choice of food, haircut and what clothes to wear.
As before, the Disciples make a total mockery of themselves by showing a complete absence of any initiative at all whatsoever - and IS lashes out, vehemently.
IS said to them: the place you have come therein, you will go toward Jacob the Righteous; this one has the heaven with the earth come to be because of him.
The place. ⲙⲁ; the Disciples inquire after a moment in time, and IS responds with a location - that is the first sign of complete disagreement.
The Past Perfect of ⲛⲧⲁ-, 'have', is the next sign, as it asserts a very finite moment in the past, while they were asking about the future, ⲛⲁ-.
The word ⲙⲙⲁⲩ ('therein') is the third disagreement as it is the adverbial use of ⲙⲁⲩ, 'the place there', and its French translation of 'là-bas' as well as the German translation of 'dort' also attests to its connotation of distance, exactly like the ⲛⲏ ⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓⲟⲥ of logion 43: 'those Judeans', a pejorative comment effected by putting them at a remote distance via use of the demonstrative pronoun 'those' instead of "these".
Thomas picks up the future after that: ⲧⲉⲧⲛ- ⲛⲁ- ⲃⲱⲕ ϣⲁ- ⲓ̉ⲁⲕⲱⲃⲟⲥ ⲡ- ⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ,'you will go toward Jacob the Righteous'. ⲛⲁ- is the verbal prefix for the Future I and II, and combines with ⲃⲱⲕ. ϣⲁ- is a preposition for 'toward', ϣⲁⲣⲟ⸗ in its pronominal form, but it is Jacob the Righteous, Greek loanword there, that deserves all attention: Righteous, ⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ - δίκαιος:
'observant of custom and social rule, well-ordered, civilised / observant of right, righteous (Homer)'. What is the awkward property that is attributed to him?
ⲡⲁⲓ, 'this-one', 'has the heaven with the earth come to be because of him'. And whereas the use of 'therein' implied distance, the demonstrative pronoun 'this' is supposed to connotate intimacy, emotional closeness - unless it is used as substantive in combination with an extraordinary feat, then the effect is to put the spotlights on someone to criticise or even ridicule him: "this guy thinks the whole universe evolves around him" would the contemporary (and very free) English translation be. All translations interpret this as "high praise for James, the brother of..." - but the irony of the hyperbolic question of the utterly passive, servile Disciples evoking bitter and biting sarcasm of IS must have eluded them

(...)

Meaning

The Disciples pose another question to Thomas, and again it is an open one, attesting to their complete lack of prior thought about any of it - and not only that, Thomas portrays their complete inaction as their only intent expressed is one of being "mastered"; if not by IS, then who does he have in mind as his successor? IS lashes out with full force, highly likely at the entire Israeli dream, by dismissing them to the Jacob of Isaac and Rebecca, also known as Israel: that Jacob who is considered so very righteous yet who lied to and betrayed his father, his brother, his uncle, and likely some others as well

Relation to previous logia

The first time that the Disciples get told off occurred in logion 6, and Thomas will have them ask "dumb questions" until the bitter end. Time and again IS demonstrates that their questions are completely wrong, and the only function of the Disciples is to serve as a pretext for refuting and rejecting religion in general and Judaism in particular, and to redirect their strongly eschatological questions by repeating his own answers, the epitome of which is the penultimate logion, 113, which contains a question by them about something that got unequivocally stated in logion 3 already: have they learned nothing at all, between beginning and end of this text?

What is not in the commentary is the fact that 'good' is the pivotal word in Thomas:

Good ⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲥ Noun 45 good
ⲉⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩϥ Adjective m. 8, 9, 57 good
ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩϥ Adjective m. 9, 57

The fisherman, the sower, the anti-sower: these 3 are the core parables, and the hint in the fisherman is that the great fish is good upon discovery, but no longer that when "chosen" - because only the earth is good, and the seed that demonstrates that is the good seed, and those two are all that matters

Great?

great ⲛⲟϭ Adjective 8, 12, 20, 21, 29, 85, 96, 107

The fish, Jacob, the branch, the Power, the reign of rich man (twice in a row), the loaves, and the sheep - all of them truly great or renowned, prizes.
Jacob?
ⲉⲧ ⲛⲁ ⲣ̆ ⲛⲟϭ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̉ ⲉϫⲱ ⲛ - "who will be made great upward upon us". An extreme hyperbole indeed, and it really does not serve any mundane purpose at all - all attention is focused on the person in the answer

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

GThomas as reaction to the proto-catholic reception of GMark and GMatthew

GThomas as reaction to the proto-catholic reception of GMark and GMatthew

Re: GThomas as reaction to the proto-catholic reception of GMark and GMatthew

Re: GThomas as reaction to the proto-catholic reception of GMark and GMatthew

Re: GThomas as reaction to the proto-catholic reception of GMark and GMatthew

Re: GThomas as reaction to the proto-catholic reception of GMark and GMatthew

Re: GThomas as reaction to the proto-catholic reception of GMark and GMatthew

Re: GThomas as reaction to the proto-catholic reception of GMark and GMatthew

Re: GThomas as reaction to the proto-catholic reception of GMark and GMatthew

Re: GThomas as reaction to the proto-catholic reception of GMark and GMatthew

Re: GThomas as reaction to the proto-catholic reception of GMark and GMatthew