Michael Grondin wrote:

>>From _The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions_, by Borg and Wright:
>
>"We are both committed to the vigorous practice of the Christian faith ...
>we both acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth as Lord ..." (p. viii)
>
>"For me, the historical ground of Easter is very simple: the followers of
>Jesus, both then and now, contrinued to experience Jesus as a living reality
>after his death. In the early Christian community, these experiences
>included visions or apparitions of Jesus. I think Paul and others ... had
>them. I think the community experienced the power of the Spirit they had
>known in Jesus continuing to be and operate" (Borg, p.135)
>
>The phrase "living Jesus" of GThom seems to point to a view very much like
>this. It's not J's death that matters (since his "mission" wasn't seen as
>sacrificial atonement for the sins of humankind), but rather what he said
>and (to their mind) continued to say. Some conservative Christians like
>Witherington (in debate with Crossan) will virtually read liberals out of
>Christianity, but Wright is a conservative (albeit somewhat unorthodox) and
>he hasn't. So if one argues that Thomas isn't Christian on the grounds that
>it displays no interest in more orthodox/conservative interpretations of
>"resurrection", one would have a hard go of it, I'd think.
>
>Mike Grondin
>Mt. Clemens, MI
>
>
>

Hello, Mike,

While I agree that a demand for orthodoxy even to the point of belief in
the resurrection is not an appropriate litmus test for what should be
considered a form of ancient Christianity, the name itself implies an
identification of Jesus as "Christ."  That is, it seems to me that there
were movements that followed Jesus and/or his attributed teachings that
would not properly fit the term "Christian."  Can we really consider the
Thomas community "Christian" in the absence of evidence that they
thought Jesus was Christ?

Ed Tyler

Ed writes:
>
> Hello, Mike,
>
> While I agree that a demand for orthodoxy even to the point
> of belief in
> the resurrection is not an appropriate litmus test for what should be
> considered a form of ancient Christianity, the name itself implies an
> identification of Jesus as "Christ."  That is, it seems to me
> that there
> were movements that followed Jesus and/or his attributed
> teachings that
> would not properly fit the term "Christian."  Can we really
> consider the
> Thomas community "Christian" in the absence of evidence that they
> thought Jesus was Christ?

Good point.  OTOH, can we consider them *not* Christian in the absence of
concrete evidence that they didn't?
Given that Thomas displays no interest in any other aspect of Jesus' life
than his teachings and is essentially a sayings source rather than a gospel
like the Christian canonicals, I think it is virtually impossible to know
what Thomas' take on the resurrection is.  What GThos says about
understanding Jesus' words being the key to eternal life (fairly radical
paraphrase, I know) would certainly move it outside the orthodox Protestant
formulation of Christianity where salvation comes by grace through faith
alone, although one might well argue that the role of the Spirit is to give
knowledge so that understanding Christ's teachings might well be the result
of the indwelling of the Spirit that comes with faith in Christ.  The
Catholic understanding gives, I think, more status to one's actions combined
with faith but obviously both these formulations are far newer than GThos.

However, the first ecumenical Council of the church, held in Nicaea in 325
CE, formulated orthodox Christian belief as follows:

"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and
invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father,
that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light
of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance
with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made
both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was
incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended
into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy
Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not
before He was begotten; and that He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton);
or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than
the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to
change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes."

(I got this from the Catholic Encyclopaedia and I think that it would be
equally or maybe even more legitimate to use lowercase and say "catholic
church")

Because I am fairly new to the study of GThos and I am investigating
something other than this, I don't wish to be dogmatic but my impression is
that GThos could not be definitively labelled "not Christian" on the basis
of this creed.  Or could it?

Judy

Judy Redman wrote:

>Ed writes:
>
>
>>Hello, Mike,
>>
>>While I agree that a demand for orthodoxy even to the point
>>of belief in
>>the resurrection is not an appropriate litmus test for what should be
>>considered a form of ancient Christianity, the name itself implies an
>>identification of Jesus as "Christ."  That is, it seems to me
>>that there
>>were movements that followed Jesus and/or his attributed
>>teachings that
>>would not properly fit the term "Christian."  Can we really
>>consider the
>>Thomas community "Christian" in the absence of evidence that they
>>thought Jesus was Christ?
>>
>>
>
>Good point.  OTOH, can we consider them *not* Christian in the absence of
>concrete evidence that they didn't?
>
>
That judgment would depend upon several things.  Could you really
*expect* a definitive statement in Thomas to the effect "Jesus said:  'I
am not a Christ'" the way Nixon said "I am not a crook"?  I don't think
so.  So we would have to decide what constitutes convincing evidence
that the Thomas community did not regard Jesus as the Christ.  Would a
complete absence of such an attribution in a text the length of Thomas
constitute such evidence?  While I'm inclined to think so, I wouldn't
bet the farm on it.

I am comfortable in asserting that given the present resources we have
no warrant to label the Thomas community "Christian," if we define the
term as a community that held Jesus to be the Christ.  There is no
problem that I can see in allowing for agnosticism on that point in our
methodology.  If next week another Mohammed Ali comes across another
Coptic library that reveals the Thomas community thought Jesus was the
Christ (whether they made his resurrection a dogma or not) then we'd
need to reevaluate our taxonomy.  But it seems to me to be at least
potentially misleading or confusing to term a community "Christian" if
we have no evidence that they believed in a Christ at all.

Ed Tyler


>Given that Thomas displays no interest in any other aspect of Jesus' life
>than his teachings and is essentially a sayings source rather than a gospel
>like the Christian canonicals, I think it is virtually impossible to know
>what Thomas' take on the resurrection is.  What GThos says about
>understanding Jesus' words being the key to eternal life (fairly radical
>paraphrase, I know) would certainly move it outside the orthodox Protestant
>formulation of Christianity where salvation comes by grace through faith
>alone, although one might well argue that the role of the Spirit is to give
>knowledge so that understanding Christ's teachings might well be the result
>of the indwelling of the Spirit that comes with faith in Christ.  The
>Catholic understanding gives, I think, more status to one's actions combined
>with faith but obviously both these formulations are far newer than GThos.
>
>However, the first ecumenical Council of the church, held in Nicaea in 325
>CE, formulated orthodox Christian belief as follows:
>
>"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and
>invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father,
>that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light
>of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance
>with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made
>both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was
>incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended
>into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy
>Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not
>before He was begotten; and that He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton);
>or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than
>the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to
>change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes."
>
>(I got this from the Catholic Encyclopaedia and I think that it would be
>equally or maybe even more legitimate to use lowercase and say "catholic
>church")
>
>Because I am fairly new to the study of GThos and I am investigating
>something other than this, I don't wish to be dogmatic but my impression is
>that GThos could not be definitively labelled "not Christian" on the basis
>of this creed.  Or could it?
>
>Judy
>
>

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "benedictlo1" <benedictlo1@...>
> To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 11:48 PM
> Subject: [GTh] Re: A preliminarily work in GHoly12 associated with GThomas
> (parallels?)
>
>
>
> [ I use " xxxx " to indicate correlected text. ]
> =========================================
> GH12 - 88:5
> "And Jesus said, I stood in the midst of the world, and in
> the flesh was I seen and heard, and I found all men glutted with their
> own pleasures, and drunk with their own follies, and none found I
> hungry or athirst for the wisdom which is of God. My soul grieveth
> over the sons and daughters of men because they are blind in their
> heart, and in their soul are they deaf and hear not my voice."
>
> GTh - 28 (Greek)
> "Jesus saith: I stood in the midst of the world, and in the flesh was
> I seen of them, and I found and men drunken, and none found I athirst
> among them, and my soul grieveth over the sons of men because they are
> blind in their heart."
>
> ==========================
> GH12 - 27:12
> .. But a city which is built foursquare, enclosed in a circle or on
> the top of a hill, and "established on a rock, can neither fall" nor
> be hidden.
>
> GH12 - 39:6
> Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like unto a City "built foursquare on
> the top of a high hill, and established on a rock, and strong in its
> surrounding wall", and its towers and its gates, which lie to the
> north, and to the south, and to the east, and to the west.  Such a
> city falleth not, neither can it be hidden,.
>
> GTh - 32
> A city built upon the top of a hill "and fortified, can neither fall"
> nor be hidden.
>
> ============================
> GH12 - 13:5
> And he said: Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own
> home or in his own country, "neither doth a physician work cures upon
> them that know him."
>
> GTh - 31
> Jesus said, A prophet is not . . "Nor does a physican perform healings
> for those who know him."
>
> ============================
> GH12 - 39:5
> Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like unto a woman who taketh of the
> incorruptible leaven and hideth it in three measures of meal, till the
> whole is leavened, and being baked by fire, "becometh one loaf." .
>
> GTh - 96
> Jesus said, The Father's kingdom is like a woman. She took a ..., and
> "made it into large loaves of bread"...
>
> ============================
> GH12 - 19:6
> "Raise the Stone, and there thou shall find me. Cleave the wood, and
> there am I." For in the fire and in the water even as in every living
> form, God is manifest as it's Life and it's Substance.
>
> GTh - 30 (Greek)
> Jesus said, ., I say, I am with him. "Lift the stone and there you
> will find me. Split the wood and I am there."
>
> ============================
Hi Benedict

All the above examples, (except for GH12 - 39:5 //GTh - 96 which
is IMO weak), are found in P Oxyrhynchus 1 this was first published
in 1897 (the other Greek Thomas papyri were published some years
later in 1904

Now from
http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/Memoriam_Rev_Ouseley.html
we learn of the GHoly12 that

  "It was first published by instalments in the columns of The Lindsey &
Lincolnshire Star. These were concluded in the early part of 1900,
and at the close of the following year, the First Edition was published,
and further Editions followed. In 1903 a "revised and enlarged"
Edition appears to have been published, and in 1904 a "New and
Complete Edition" was published, the last during Rev. Ouseley's lifetime. "

If this information is accurate then influence of P. Oxy 1 on GHoly12
would seem non-problematic.

Andrew Criddle

(Resend; first message lost in cyber space)

----- Original Message -----
From: "benedictlo1" <benedictlo1@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 11:48 PM
Subject: [GTh] Re: A preliminarily work in GHoly12 associated with GThomas
(parallels?)



[ I use " xxxx " to indicate correlected text. ]
=========================================
GH12 - 88:5
"And Jesus said, I stood in the midst of the world, and in
the flesh was I seen and heard, and I found all men glutted with their
own pleasures, and drunk with their own follies, and none found I
hungry or athirst for the wisdom which is of God. My soul grieveth
over the sons and daughters of men because they are blind in their
heart, and in their soul are they deaf and hear not my voice."

GTh - 28 (Greek)
"Jesus saith: I stood in the midst of the world, and in the flesh was
I seen of them, and I found and men drunken, and none found I athirst
among them, and my soul grieveth over the sons of men because they are
blind in their heart."

==========================
GH12 - 27:12
.. But a city which is built foursquare, enclosed in a circle or on
the top of a hill, and "established on a rock, can neither fall" nor
be hidden.

GH12 - 39:6
Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like unto a City "built foursquare on
the top of a high hill, and established on a rock, and strong in its
surrounding wall", and its towers and its gates, which lie to the
north, and to the south, and to the east, and to the west.  Such a
city falleth not, neither can it be hidden,.

GTh - 32
A city built upon the top of a hill "and fortified, can neither fall"
nor be hidden.

============================
GH12 - 13:5
And he said: Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own
home or in his own country, "neither doth a physician work cures upon
them that know him."

GTh - 31
Jesus said, A prophet is not . . "Nor does a physican perform healings
for those who know him."

============================
GH12 - 39:5
Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like unto a woman who taketh of the
incorruptible leaven and hideth it in three measures of meal, till the
whole is leavened, and being baked by fire, "becometh one loaf." .

GTh - 96
Jesus said, The Father's kingdom is like a woman. She took a ..., and
"made it into large loaves of bread"...

============================
GH12 - 19:6
"Raise the Stone, and there thou shall find me. Cleave the wood, and
there am I." For in the fire and in the water even as in every living
form, God is manifest as it's Life and it's Substance.

GTh - 30 (Greek)
Jesus said, ., I say, I am with him. "Lift the stone and there you
will find me. Split the wood and I am there."

============================
Hi Benedict

All the above examples, (except for GH12 - 39:5 //GTh - 96 which
is IMO weak), are found in P Oxyrhynchus 1 this was first published
in 1897 (the other Greek Thomas papyri were published some years
later in 1904

Now from
http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/Memoriam_Rev_Ouseley.html
we learn of the GHoly12 that

"It was first published by instalments in the columns of The Lindsey &
Lincolnshire Star. These were concluded in the early part of 1900, and at
the close of the following year, the First Edition was published, and
further Editions followed. In 1903 a "revised and enlarged" Edition appears
to have been published, and in 1904 a "New and Complete Edition" was
published, the last during Rev. Ouseley's lifetime. "

If this information is accurate then influence of P. Oxy 1 on GHoly12
would seem non-problematic.

Andrew Criddle

Ed writes:

>  But it seems to me to be at least
> potentially misleading or confusing to term a community
> "Christian" if
> we have no evidence that they believed in a Christ at all.

I agree.  In the case of the Thomas community, I don't think we have
sufficient information to make a definitive statement either way.  On the
basis of the evidence before us the Thomas may or may not have believed in a
Christ and if they did, may or may not have believed that Jesus was the
Christ.  I guess this means that, if we are being careful about our
labelling, we should refer to it as "a document of the early Christian era".

Judy

--
"One can easily understand a child who is afraid of the dark. The real
tragedy of life is when grown men and women are afraid of the light." -
Plato

Rev Judy Redman
Uniting Church Chaplain
University of New England
Armidale 2351
ph:  +61 2 6773 3739
fax: +61 2 6773 3749
web:  http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
email:  jredman@...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:gthomas@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lee Edgar Tyler
> Sent: Saturday, 21 January 2006 1:26 PM
> To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [GTh] Is Thomas Christian?
>
>
> Judy Redman wrote:
>
> >Ed writes:
> >
> >
> >>Hello, Mike,
> >>
> >>While I agree that a demand for orthodoxy even to the point
> >>of belief in
> >>the resurrection is not an appropriate litmus test for what
> should be
> >>considered a form of ancient Christianity, the name itself
> implies an
> >>identification of Jesus as "Christ."  That is, it seems to me
> >>that there
> >>were movements that followed Jesus and/or his attributed
> >>teachings that
> >>would not properly fit the term "Christian."  Can we really
> >>consider the
> >>Thomas community "Christian" in the absence of evidence that they
> >>thought Jesus was Christ?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Good point.  OTOH, can we consider them *not* Christian in
> the absence
> >of concrete evidence that they didn't?
> >
> >
> That judgment would depend upon several things.  Could you really
> *expect* a definitive statement in Thomas to the effect
> "Jesus said:  'I
> am not a Christ'" the way Nixon said "I am not a crook"?  I
> don't think
> so.  So we would have to decide what constitutes convincing evidence
> that the Thomas community did not regard Jesus as the Christ.
>  Would a
> complete absence of such an attribution in a text the length
> of Thomas
> constitute such evidence?  While I'm inclined to think so, I wouldn't
> bet the farm on it.
>
> I am comfortable in asserting that given the present
> resources we have
> no warrant to label the Thomas community "Christian," if we
> define the
> term as a community that held Jesus to be the Christ.  There is no
> problem that I can see in allowing for agnosticism on that
> point in our
> methodology.  If next week another Mohammed Ali comes across another
> Coptic library that reveals the Thomas community thought
> Jesus was the
> Christ (whether they made his resurrection a dogma or not) then we'd
> need to reevaluate our taxonomy.
> Ed Tyler
>
>
> >Given that Thomas displays no interest in any other aspect of Jesus'
> >life than his teachings and is essentially a sayings source
> rather than
> >a gospel like the Christian canonicals, I think it is virtually
> >impossible to know what Thomas' take on the resurrection is.  What
> >GThos says about understanding Jesus' words being the key to eternal
> >life (fairly radical paraphrase, I know) would certainly move it
> >outside the orthodox Protestant formulation of Christianity where
> >salvation comes by grace through faith alone, although one
> might well
> >argue that the role of the Spirit is to give knowledge so that
> >understanding Christ's teachings might well be the result of the
> >indwelling of the Spirit that comes with faith in Christ.
> The Catholic
> >understanding gives, I think, more status to one's actions combined
> >with faith but obviously both these formulations are far newer than
> >GThos.
> >
> >However, the first ecumenical Council of the church, held in
> Nicaea in
> >325 CE, formulated orthodox Christian belief as follows:
> >
> >"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all
> things visible
> >and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only
> begotten of the
> >Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the
> Father, God of
> >God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the
> >same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri],
> through whom all
> >things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our
> >salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man,
> suffered and rose
> >again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the
> >living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say:
> There was a
> >time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten;
> and that
> >He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain
> that He is
> >of another hypostasis or another substance [than the
> Father], or that
> >the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change,
> [them] the
> >Catholic Church anathematizes."
> >
> >(I got this from the Catholic Encyclopaedia and I think that
> it would
> >be equally or maybe even more legitimate to use lowercase and say
> >"catholic
> >church")
> >
> >Because I am fairly new to the study of GThos and I am investigating
> >something other than this, I don't wish to be dogmatic but my
> >impression is that GThos could not be definitively labelled "not
> >Christian" on the basis of this creed.  Or could it?
> >
> >Judy
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
> To unsubscribe from this group,
> send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[Ed]:
>  But it seems to me to be at least potentially misleading or confusing to
> term a community "Christian" if we have no evidence that they believed in
> a Christ at all.

[Judy]:
> I agree.  In the case of the Thomas community, I don't think we have
> sufficient information to make a definitive statement either way.  On the
> basis of the evidence before us the Thomas may or may not have believed
> in a Christ and if they did, may or may not have believed that Jesus was
> the Christ.  I guess this means that, if we are being careful about our
> labelling, we should refer to it as "a document of the early Christian
> era".

Let me push this a little further, if I may, and see if I can formulate a
proposal for purposes of discussion. Although there's no titles given for
Jesus in GThom, there is in the Book of Thomas the Contender. If this text
belongs to the same community, then it's significant that therein he's
referred to with two titles - 'Lord' (the Coptic word, not the Greek) and
'Savior' (SWTHR abbreviated and overstroked as SWR - indicating a
"sacred name"). But he's not called 'Christ' there either. Why not?

One explanation that strikes me as plausible is that the Thomas community
had rejected the notion of defining Jesus in terms of the Hebrew concept of
Messiahship - hence avoided the title 'Christ' - even though it used other
titles that were every bit as exalted - if not more so. The chief piece of
supporting evidence for this view is saying 52, which I take as rejecting
the process of proof-texting from the Hebrew scriptures. As Valantasis
remarks about this saying:

"The narrator portrays Jesus as rejecting the textualized prophecies of the
Israelite Scriptures - these are dead writings - in favor of the narrator's
own constructed 'living' voice from the 'living one' who speaks the sayings
of Jesus." (_The Gospel of Thomas_, p.130)

But the concept of Messiahship is contained in those scriptures and
prophecies. To embrace Messiahship then, may have been seen as treating
those scriptures and prophecies as 'living', not 'dead', and that was
something that the Thomas community seems to have been unwilling to do,
for whatever reasons (which I won't get into here.)

Aside from whether the proposal is felt to have merit, let's think of it
this way:: suppose that I'm a person whose notion of Jesus is
every bit as elevated as any Christian, but for whatever reason, I don't
want to associate him with messiahship. Maybe I think that concept is too
limited or too provincial, for example (my reasons don't have to be good
ones). Am I a Christian? Apparently not, strictly speaking. But should we
speak strictly in this case? Because to say that I'm non-Christian
doesn't sound right either - since that seems to imply that I don't share
the Christian's view of Jesus as divine, which I do (in this hypothetical
example). Is there any term that we could use so as to avoid lengthy
circumlocutions? 'Yeshuine', perhaps? Or is this a problem for which there
is no good solution?

Regards,
Mike Grondin

If we use terms like "Early Christian",  "proto-Christian", "Thomasine
Christian", don't we prejudice our discussion with a suggestion that somehow,
someway, the GThom is Christian.
       Dave R.

> [Ed]:
> >  But it seems to me to be at least potentially misleading
> or confusing
> > to term a community "Christian" if we have no evidence that they
> > believed in a Christ at all.
>
> [Judy]:
> > I agree.  In the case of the Thomas community, I don't
> think we have
> > sufficient information to make a definitive statement
> either way.  On
> > the basis of the evidence before us the Thomas may or may not have
> > believed in a Christ and if they did, may or may not have believed
> > that Jesus was the Christ.  I guess this means that, if we
> are being
> > careful about our labelling, we should refer to it as "a
> document of
> > the early Christian era".

[Mike]
> Let me push this a little further, if I may, and see if I can
> formulate a proposal for purposes of discussion. Although
> there's no titles given for Jesus in GThom, there is in the
> Book of Thomas the Contender. If this text belongs to the
> same community, then it's significant that therein he's
> referred to with two titles - 'Lord' (the Coptic word, not
> the Greek) and 'Savior' (SWTHR abbreviated and overstroked as
> SWR - indicating a "sacred name"). But he's not called
> 'Christ' there either. Why not?
>
> One explanation that strikes me as plausible is that the
> Thomas community had rejected the notion of defining Jesus in
> terms of the Hebrew concept of Messiahship - hence avoided
> the title 'Christ' - even though it used other titles that
> were every bit as exalted - if not more so.

Where I come from, the conservative Christians would be quite happy to
include someone who names Jesus as Lord and Saviour as one of them - it's
one of their tests for orthodoxy.  I am not sure that using the *title*
Messiah is essential if the understanding of the messianic *work* is there.
This would be especially true if the Thomas community were largely not
Hebrew or Aramaic speakers and largely non-Jewish in background.  There
might be seen to be little point in insisting that people learned a new word
if they already had one that would work quite well in their own language.
So another explanation would be that the leaders of the community had simply
decided not to use a title that they would have to define to a group of
non-Jewish, non-Hebrew/Aramaic speakers.  To a certain extent, this hinges
on what you understand to be the provenance and original language of GThos
(and Thomas the Contender) and there is still contraversy over this.

I don't know if this takes us any further forward, but I find it
interesting. :-)

Judy

--- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Judy Redman" <jredman@p...> wrote:

<<Where I come from, the conservative Christians would be quite happy
to include someone who names Jesus as Lord and Saviour as one of
them - it's one of their tests for orthodoxy.  I am not sure that
using the *title* Messiah is essential if the understanding of the
messianic *work* is there. This would be especially true if the
Thomas community were largely not Hebrew or Aramaic speakers and
largely non-Jewish in background.  There might be seen to be little
point in insisting that people learned a new word if they already had
one that would work quite well in their own language. So another
explanation would be that the leaders of the community had simply
decided not to use a title that they would have to define to a group
of non-Jewish, non-Hebrew/Aramaic speakers.  To a certain extent,
this hinges on what you understand to be the provenance and original
language of GThos (and Thomas the Contender) and there is still
contraversy over this.>>

Maybe I'm not paying sufficient attention, but hasn't this discussion
been glossing over the difference between a Jewish messiah
("Christos" in Greek) and the LATER title applied to Jesus that
indicated he is a *divine redeemer* figure?

In the former case "christian" (small "c") would mean
essentially "messianist," and cannot necessarily be restricted to
followers of Jesus alone. Others may also have claimed to be, or had
been ascribed, the mantle of Jewish messiahship, and they would have
had followers too. This concept can be applied to any formally
anointed ruler figure, including the Jewish High Priest or perhaps
one of the Herodian client kings. This has significance when
considering what kind of people an author like Tacitus means when he
speaks of "christians". In Roman eyes, "messianism" is tantamount
to "rebellion against the Roman order" (except perhaps in the case of
an officially recognized client king or High Priest). This is
apparently what folks are referring to as "low" christology. While
there is difference of modern opinion about how "high"
the "christology" of early Jewish followers of Jesus was, I'd be
inclined to think that the earliest followers, both Jewish and
gentile, would have been strictly messianists, and thus best
described as "christians" (small "c").

The later use of the term "christos" seems to be associated with
followers of Jesus *as some form of redeemer*. This is apparently
what folks are referring to as "high" christology. Followers of Jesus
the divine redeemer would thus be "Christians" (big "C"). When WE
think of "Christian", we are thinking of the latter use. Those
followers of Jesus who re-thought the concept of messiahship and
transformed it from a distinctly Jewish title of earthly authority to
a title of divine redeemership, would be "Christians". Probably also
Gnostics (big "G") would belong in this latter class. Even after
Jesus' death, many of his followers probably did not immediately
elevate him to divine redeemer status, and some may never have. Maybe
we could tuck Ebionites into this last category and treat them
as "christians" (small "c").

The author of Gospel of Thomas does not seem to put itself into
either camp. Jesus is someone who they believed said profound things.
Mikes' suggestion of something like "Yeshuan" (or simply a "follower"
of Jesus, or collectively a "Jesus movement") seems good. If the
term "gnostic" (small "g") is taken to be those who love profound
truths (in writings) not readily seen on the surface, as opposed to
Gnostics (big "G") who believe in (a) divine redeemer figure(s), then
the Thomas community would be "gnostics" and not "christians"
or "Christians."

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio USA

> Hi Benedict
>
> All the above examples, (except for GH12 - 39:5 //GTh - 96 which
> is IMO weak), are found in P Oxyrhynchus 1 this was first published
> in 1897 (the other Greek Thomas papyri were published some years
> later in 1904
>
> Now from
> http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/Memoriam_Rev_Ouseley.html
> we learn of the GHoly12 that
>
> "It was first published by instalments in the columns of The Lindsey &
> Lincolnshire Star. These were concluded in the early part of 1900,
and at
> the close of the following year, ... "New and Complete Edition" was
> published, the last during Rev. Ouseley's lifetime. "
>
> If this information is accurate then influence of P. Oxy 1 on GHoly12
> would seem non-problematic.
>
> Andrew Criddle
>

Dear Andrew Criddle:

I am not so sure that we can completely trust websites.  I scanned
through many of them including the one you cited.  Some claimed that
the 1st edition of GH12 was published in 1892. We only need 90% - 99%
confidence to convince ourselves.  However, academically speaking we
need provide 100% evidence, if we can, to convince everybody including
those not yet born to close the case.


Benedict

Hello all,


    I have not posted on this list much as I have been
busy on other yahoo groups, but have followed this
thread with great interest.

   I have always thought that the sayings in Thomas
that have parallels in the NT seem to the laymen (me)
to be more primitive then their counterparts in the
NT. I have always filed that in my brain as proof that
Thomas was earlier at least in part then the NT. It
seems that if I am right, and the fact that Acts is
quite late, and that it is generally regarded as the
the source that most use as the origin of that term
(christian) that maybe the term 'christian' had not
even been coined as yet when Thomas was first penned.

  It would seem to make sense that the followers of
Yeshua of the Thomasine community and the author(s) of
Thomas may not have been even aquainted with the term.


  At any rate, I personally like the term Yeshuines,
Yeshuaism over christian or christianity as it brings
the focus back to the man instead of the deity that
would appear to be a late invention.

  my two cents.

dave

--- Lee Edgar Tyler <leeedgartyler@...> wrote:

> Judy Redman wrote:
>
> >Ed writes:
> >
> >
> >>Hello, Mike,
> >>
> >>While I agree that a demand for orthodoxy even to
> the point
> >>of belief in
> >>the resurrection is not an appropriate litmus test
> for what should be
> >>considered a form of ancient Christianity, the
> name itself implies an
> >>identification of Jesus as "Christ."  That is, it
> seems to me
> >>that there
> >>were movements that followed Jesus and/or his
> attributed
> >>teachings that
> >>would not properly fit the term "Christian."  Can
> we really
> >>consider the
> >>Thomas community "Christian" in the absence of
> evidence that they
> >>thought Jesus was Christ?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Good point.  OTOH, can we consider them *not*
> Christian in the absence of
> >concrete evidence that they didn't?
> >
> >
> That judgment would depend upon several things.
> Could you really
> *expect* a definitive statement in Thomas to the
> effect "Jesus said:  'I
> am not a Christ'" the way Nixon said "I am not a
> crook"?  I don't think
> so.  So we would have to decide what constitutes
> convincing evidence
> that the Thomas community did not regard Jesus as
> the Christ.  Would a
> complete absence of such an attribution in a text
> the length of Thomas
> constitute such evidence?  While I'm inclined to
> think so, I wouldn't
> bet the farm on it.
>
> I am comfortable in asserting that given the present
> resources we have
> no warrant to label the Thomas community
> "Christian," if we define the
> term as a community that held Jesus to be the
> Christ.  There is no
> problem that I can see in allowing for agnosticism
> on that point in our
> methodology.  If next week another Mohammed Ali
> comes across another
> Coptic library that reveals the Thomas community
> thought Jesus was the
> Christ (whether they made his resurrection a dogma
> or not) then we'd
> need to reevaluate our taxonomy.  But it seems to me
> to be at least
> potentially misleading or confusing to term a
> community "Christian" if
> we have no evidence that they believed in a Christ
> at all.
>
> Ed Tyler
>
>
> >Given that Thomas displays no interest in any other
> aspect of Jesus' life
> >than his teachings and is essentially a sayings
> source rather than a gospel
> >like the Christian canonicals, I think it is
> virtually impossible to know
> >what Thomas' take on the resurrection is.  What
> GThos says about
> >understanding Jesus' words being the key to eternal
> life (fairly radical
> >paraphrase, I know) would certainly move it outside
> the orthodox Protestant
> >formulation of Christianity where salvation comes
> by grace through faith
> >alone, although one might well argue that the role
> of the Spirit is to give
> >knowledge so that understanding Christ's teachings
> might well be the result
> >of the indwelling of the Spirit that comes with
> faith in Christ.  The
> >Catholic understanding gives, I think, more status
> to one's actions combined
> >with faith but obviously both these formulations
> are far newer than GThos.
> >
> >However, the first ecumenical Council of the
> church, held in Nicaea in 325
> >CE, formulated orthodox Christian belief as
> follows:
> >
> >"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker
> of all things visible and
> >invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only
> begotten of the Father,
> >that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the
> Father, God of God, light
> >of light, true God of true God, begotten not made,
> of the same substance
> >with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom
> all things were made
> >both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our
> salvation descended, was
> >incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose
> again the third day, ascended
> >into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the
> dead. And in the Holy
> >Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was
> not, and He was not
> >before He was begotten; and that He was made our of
> nothing (ex ouk onton);
> >or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or
> another substance [than
> >the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or
> mutable, or subject to
> >change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes."
> >
> >(I got this from the Catholic Encyclopaedia and I
> think that it would be
> >equally or maybe even more legitimate to use
> lowercase and say "catholic
> >church")
> >
> >Because I am fairly new to the study of GThos and I
> am investigating
> >something other than this, I don't wish to be
> dogmatic but my impression is
> >that GThos could not be definitively labelled "not
> Christian" on the basis
> >of this creed.  Or could it?
> >
> >Judy
> >
> >
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gospel of Thomas Homepage:
> http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
> To unsubscribe from this group,
> send a blank email to
> gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Mike writes:
   Is there any term that we could use so as to avoid lengthy
circumlocutions? 'Yeshuine', perhaps? Or is this a problem for
which there is no good solution?

      Mike,
        As you know, I've been using the term "Yeshuaism" for a while now.
        Before we can define what "Yeshuaism" is, we must decide what the
      parameters of Christianity are. And if there is merit in coining a new
      word that makes that distinction.
        Christianity, as a term, has become a broad brush with which all
      "Jesus Worship" is painted. This taints any "Thomasine Jesus Worship":
      with a "Hellenized" prejudice.
        I've been avoiding using "Yeshuaism" "Yeshuine" "Yeshuite" on this
      forum until the soft edges of "Christianity" could be defined. As this
      topic is under debate, I hope I'm not premature in suggesting,
        Yeshuaism: Non-Christian worship of Yeshua Ben Yosef.
          Dave R.
          Sanford Fl.














---------------------------------

  What are the most popular cars?  Find out at Yahoo! Autos

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A couple of things:

(i) low/high christology: one of the problems with the evolutionary
christology hypothesis is that as far back as you go, we have a very "high"
christology. Virtually the earliest confession we have evidence for is the
Aramaic 'marana ta', "come, our lord". Calling Jesus "our Lord" is not a
confession of a merely human messianic figure.

(ii) on Thomas' orthodoxy or unorthodoxy: in addition to the christological
factor, which I won't labour here, there are a number of really problematic
features in Thomas which raise questions over whether it can be regarded as
a document that should be used by Christians. First example: it rejects the
practice of prayer - something so outlandish that it hasn't even occurred
to most theologians to discuss. Second, it rejects the authority of the OT
as scripture. The prophets are dead (saying 52) in contrast to the "living
one" (Jesus does have some titles in G.Th.). Severing the tie with Judaism
and the OT is something that it is neither attractive nor possible for
Christianity (cf. the same with fasting and almsgiving).

cheers,
Simon


------------
Dr Simon Gathercole
Senior Lecturer in New Testament
University of Aberdeen

01224 272374

At 02:42 AM 23/01/06, Dr Simon Gather wrote:
>A couple of things:

(i) ... deleted


>(ii) on Thomas' orthodoxy or unorthodoxy: in addition to the christological
>factor, which I won't labour here, there are a number of really problematic
>features in Thomas which raise questions over whether it can be regarded as
>a document that should be used by Christians. First example: it rejects the
>practice of prayer - something so outlandish that it hasn't even occurred
>to most theologians to discuss. Second, it rejects the authority of the OT
>as scripture. The prophets are dead (saying 52) in contrast to the "living
>one" (Jesus does have some titles in G.Th.). Severing the tie with Judaism
>and the OT is something that it is neither attractive nor possible for
>Christianity (cf. the same with fasting and almsgiving).

Now that depends. It depends on whether or not Christianity is a one-tier
or two tier system. Practices relating to the attainment of "salvation" for
one tier need not be useful or applicable to the attainment of another
level or tier of "salvation". I think we have to seriously consider
whether Jesus
actually gave an "open" teaching for "the many" and a "secret" teaching
for the "few". As with Buddhism, there may be "big" and "little" baskets, the
latter for those who wanted to press the Christian experince farther and
deeper- who wanted a Realized Kingdom now, rather than wait for the
"Kingdom to come". It is the contention of the Thomas author, that
he did. Thomas, which seems to focus on that second tier and
which, IMO, contains a higher density of the alleged "secret teachings" than
do the Canonicals, may actually belong in modern Christianity, even though it
may fail the tests of "Orthodoxy" by both modern and historical yardsticks.
I cannot help believing, as apparently does Professor Jacob Needleman
of San Francisco State University (author of "Lost Christianity") that
we have only a partial transmission of  the teachings of Jesus, and whereas
the Churches may be delivering the essential grains of first-tier "salvation",
something powerful has been lost. Historically. it may have occurred when
the Church sought to purge itself of Gnostic "Secret-teaching" material. The
baby was cast out with the dirty bath water.

Put simply, I see Thomas as strong evidence (As I do the Clement Letter
on Secret Mark) that Jesus left a non-gnostic- I emphasize "non-gnostic"-,
upper level or "senior" teaching for those interested in its' pursuit.

So my view is that it +is+ a document that should be used by Christians
who seek a deeper Christian experience. Modern Christianity, IMHO,
knows virtually nothing about this level, and Thomas is as good a
place as any to start recovering it.

Personally, I would like to see a scholarly effort to recover it too, but
all I ever seem to see is a lot of tiptoeing around or an avoidance of
any discussion of Thomas's "doctrines". The "cup" gets explored  ad
nauseum, but rarely the doctrinal "contents". And when they are, all
we seem to get is "gnostic" interpretations. A "non-gnostic" secret
teaching of Jesus, one deeply linked to Jewish thought and beliefs
of that day, seems a subject not even on the radar.

Thomas is deeply, almost inextricably, locked into the earliest roots of the
"orthodox" Christian stream, IMO, and grew along with it and from it. One
tends to forget or overlook that more than 50% of its' sayings have
recognizable parallels in the Synoptics. Surely we should view the
open teachings and the secret teachings as brother and sister in the
same family.

Ron McCann
Saskatoon, Canada

--- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, Dr Simon Gathercole wrote:
> A couple of things:
> (i) low/high christology: ....
> (ii) on Thomas' orthodoxy or unorthodoxy: ..., there are a number
> of really problematic features in Thomas which raise questions
> over whether it can be regarded as a document that should be used
> by Christians. First example: it rejects the practice of prayer -
> something so outlandish that it hasn't even occurred to most
> theologians to discuss. ... that it is neither attractive
> nor possible for Christianity (cf. the same with fasting and
> almsgiving).

Hi Simon:

I agree with you that in some aspects Christianity is different from GThomas.

In Buddhism/Zen development, fasting and almsgiving etc. are good work to
practice, particular in "the jingtu zong". But later, Zen' masters advise people
that one must completely forget what is called good work in order to return to
"reality" – the high spirit.  Once one returns to ones original stage, one will
be with SELF unified with the highest spirit, and one will not use the world's
form to think to practice.

It seems that GThomas preached similar things but much earlier. Only
very few people with some background in the old day would understand
what "The Master" was talking about.


Benedict

[Ron McCann]:
> A "non-gnostic" secret teaching of Jesus, one deeply
> linked to Jewish thought and beliefs of that day ...

I think this needs clarification, Ron. It seems that you're contradicting
what Simon had said about the relationship of GThom to "Jewish thought and
beliefs", but you failed to discuss the apparent disagreement. What strand
of Jewish thought do you see GThom as being linked to? Essene? Mystical?
(Either of which would be a distinct minority, I think you'll agree.) And on
what grounds?

Mike G.

Simon writes:

> (ii) on Thomas' orthodoxy or unorthodoxy: in addition to the
> christological
> factor, which I won't labour here, there are a number of
> really problematic
> features in Thomas which raise questions over whether it can
> be regarded as
> a document that should be used by Christians. First example:
> it rejects the
> practice of prayer - something so outlandish that it hasn't
> even occurred
> to most theologians to discuss.

I am not sure that this is what he does.  GThos talks about prayer in 3
places.  L6, where the disciples ask if they should pray, fast, give to
charity and they are told instead not to lie or do what they hate.  in L14
where he says with no context given "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." and in in L104 "They said to Jesus,
"Come, let us pray today, and let us fast."  Jesus said, "What sin have I
committed, or how have I been undone? Rather, when the groom leaves the
bridal suite, then let people fast and pray."  So certainly in 104 he seems
to be saying pray, but not now, there are more important things to do now.
There are certainly contexts in which L14 would make sense without
necessarily being rejection of prayer.  If we look at the canonical gospels,
the seems to have been an attempt to get Jesus to give them a nice simple
recipe for getting into heaven - "What nice, religious rituals can we
undertake that will get us into God's good graces".  L6 & L14 could well
both be responses to this kind of thing.  I am not necessarily trying to
argue that GThos is the quintessential Christian document, mind you, just
that I don't see that we have definitive evidence that the Jesus of GThos
rejected prayer.

> Second, it rejects the
> authority of the OT
> as scripture. The prophets are dead (saying 52) in contrast
> to the "living
> one" (Jesus does have some titles in G.Th.). Severing the tie
> with Judaism
> and the OT is something that it is neither attractive nor
> possible for
> Christianity (cf. the same with fasting and almsgiving).

Likewise L 52 says:
52. His disciples said to him, "Twenty-four prophets have spoken in Israel,
and they all spoke of you."
He said to them, "You have disregarded the living one who is in your
presence, and have spoken of the dead."  I don't see this as rejecting the
Hebrew Scriptures outright, but simply saying that they should listen to
him.  We have plenty of evidence that Jesus (or at least his followers)
believed that the Jews were not at that time doing a particularly stunning
job of living as God wanted them to.  There were certainly times where Jesus
taught things that were in contradiction to either common interpretation of
Hebrew Scripture or even what it said.  There his teaching had primacy.
This comes across in the canonical material as well, but there we are given
a context which makes it clearer what exactly is intended.

Judy

(PS for those wondering, I've use the Patterson and Meyer translation
because that's the first electronic version I found that I could cut and
paste.  Lambdin may vary slightly.
>
> cheers,
> Simon
>
>
> ------------
> Dr Simon Gathercole
> Senior Lecturer in New Testament
> University of Aberdeen
>
> 01224 272374
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
> To unsubscribe from this group,
> send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

> ...
> Likewise L52 says:
> 52. His disciples said to him, "Twenty-four prophets have spoken
> in Israel,and they all spoke of you."
> He said to them, "You have disregarded the living one who is in
> your presence, and have spoken of the dead."  I don't see this as
> rejecting the Hebrew Scriptures outright, but simply saying that
> they should listen to him.  ...
>
> Judy

Hi Judy:

I agree with your comments of L52 -> OT.
Coptic "atetN kw Mpet onx MpetN Mto ebol", currently English
translation is "You have disregarded the living one who is in your
presence".  Here, I am not so sure that Yasuha was pointing to
himself. I did study a bit about the meaning of "MpetN Mto ebol (in
your presence out)" with care in Coptic and checked with Hebrew
speakers about the expression.

Totally, 6 places in GThomas show this important term "Mto ebol". I
think we must carefully examine this non-specific but very special
term in order to understand the true meanings of J's sayings at the
  6 occations and the implications on the GThomas as a whole.


Benedict
(PS: The 6 places - L5, L6, L21, L52, L91, L111)

[Judy]:
> GThos talks about prayer in 3
> places.  L6, where the disciples ask if they should pray, fast, give to
> charity and they are told instead not to lie or do what they hate.  in L14
> where he says with no context given "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."

There's a syntactical connection between L14 and L6a that indicates as a
distinct possibility that they are two parts of a whole which have been
separated, either intentionally or unintentionally. L14 begins "Jesus said
TO THEM...", but unlike any other saying which contains 'to them', there's
no "them" in sight asking a question. On the other hand, L6b is complete in
itself, without any 'to them', so L6a is separable from it, syntactically as
well as semantically.

> ... and in in L104 "They said to Jesus,
> "Come, let us pray today, and let us fast."  Jesus said, "What sin have I
> committed, or how have I been undone? Rather, when the groom leaves the
> bridal suite, then let people fast and pray."  So certainly in 104 he
> seems to be saying pray, but not now, there are more important things
> to do now.

Yes, but when is "now"? In the canonicals, the context provided indicates
that Jesus (the bridegroom) will leave the bridal chamber (the world) upon
his physical death, and at that point the disciples should start fasting and
praying. But for Thomas, Jesus is the ever-living one. It's always "now",
and J's physical death is inconsequential. If he himself needn't fast and
pray, according to L104 (and as opposed to his praying in the canonicals),
then neither need his disciples - even after his physical death - as long as
he (and/or the HS) is in the "bridal chamber" of their souls. But if it
should happen that he becomes "dead" to them - i.e., no longer a living
presence inside them - then and only then should they fast and pray, because
at that point they had been "defeated" and were in need of external help. By
implication, those who do fast and pray (e.g., orthodox Christians) may be
seen as either misunderstanding the nature of sin, or as evidencing a lack
of "the living Jesus" in their hearts.

Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI

At 01:12 AM 24/01/06, you wrote:
>[Ron McCann]:
> > A "non-gnostic" secret teaching of Jesus, one deeply
> > linked to Jewish thought and beliefs of that day ...
>
>I think this needs clarification, Ron. It seems that you're contradicting
>what Simon had said about the relationship of GThom to "Jewish thought and
>beliefs", but you failed to discuss the apparent disagreement.

Yes, you're right. I wasn't very clear. Sorry.


>On the matter of prayer, almsgiving, dieting, fasting (most of which are
mandated by the Law) , with all due respect to Judy Redman's approach, this
logion (which in my view is the Answer to the question posed in
logion 6, and which
was accidentally displaced) clearly repudiates prayer, along with the rest.
IMO there is no "wiggle room" on that, no matter how "horrific" to
religious sensibilities
or injurious to the credibility of Thomas this is. Those religious
practices are being given
the boot. I don't think those other logions redeem that.
But that demands some explanation.

Similarly, I consider that Logion 52, (although there is greater room
for debate here)
repudiates the OT Scriptures (And note- these 24 Prophets, by count, include
not only the minor 17, but also Moses himself, and by implication,
his writings
(eg The Law)). On this reading, and I think it's the correct one,
this logion is
offensive  to to the religious beliefs of Jews and Christian's alike.
What's going
on here?
Some explanation is also demanded.

So, on the surface, I think Dr. Gathercole is reading them right.

As to the religious practices- eg prayer, I was trying to tell him that these
practices (including, one suspects- circumcision) are completely
useless and not productive +in+ +pursuing+ the +Second-Tier+ +"salvation"+
Benedicto seems to grasp this point as it relates to Zen-Buddhism.

As to the practice of reading, studying, searching and venerating the Old
Testament Scriptures and/or Prophets, something similar obtains. These
do not contain and are useless as sources or for guidance +in+pursing+
the +Second-Tier+ "salvation". It' like circumcision "is not beneficial".

These practices divert the Thomas student and send him down the wrong road as
they are of no benefit  to +him+ on the road +he+ is travelling or about
to travel.

This is not a universal repudiation. I don't think Thomas intended it to be.
Others may, can and/or should pursue them, if they wish..
For a Christian or Jew heading for Tier-One salvation the practices, including
reading scripture are supposedly beneficial, and in some cases may be
de-rigeur.
I don't read this as a call to +all+ Christians to abandon those practices.

That's my take.

Logion 52 actually has and "ideational" but still recognizable parallel in
John's Gospel- which, I'm sure will surprise Dr. Gathercole.
John 5 39 reads:-

       "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you
have Life; and it is they that testify of me. Yet you refuse
to come to me for that Life."

This is, IMHO, part of the Second Tier Teaching concerning the
individual's this-lifetime entry of the Realized (for him) Kingdom of
Heaven, and the consequent obtaining of an immediate grant of
eternal Life-which seems to be the object of pursuit on the Second
level.

I'm sure you can see the parallel without me drawing it out.

I hope this clarifies. Please let me address the rest of your post in
another e-mail.

Best Wishes,

Ron McCann
Saskatoon, Canada





>  What strand
>of Jewish thought do you see GThom as being linked to? Essene? Mystical?
>(Either of which would be a distinct minority, I think you'll agree.) And on
>what grounds?
>
>Mike G.
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
>To unsubscribe from this group,
>send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Mike,

I totally agree. Loader, who has written one of the major studies on the
Law in Thomas, relates the rejection of prayer to the radically immanentist
nature of Thomas: if you're completely at one with the Living One, why
bother to pray?

Simon


At 14:02 24/01/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>[Judy]:
> > GThos talks about prayer in 3
> > places.  L6, where the disciples ask if they should pray, fast, give to
> > charity and they are told instead not to lie or do what they hate.  in L14
> > where he says with no context given "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."
>
>There's a syntactical connection between L14 and L6a that indicates as a
>distinct possibility that they are two parts of a whole which have been
>separated, either intentionally or unintentionally. L14 begins "Jesus said
>TO THEM...", but unlike any other saying which contains 'to them', there's
>no "them" in sight asking a question. On the other hand, L6b is complete in
>itself, without any 'to them', so L6a is separable from it, syntactically as
>well as semantically.
>
> > ... and in in L104 "They said to Jesus,
> > "Come, let us pray today, and let us fast."  Jesus said, "What sin have I
> > committed, or how have I been undone? Rather, when the groom leaves the
> > bridal suite, then let people fast and pray."  So certainly in 104 he
> > seems to be saying pray, but not now, there are more important things
> > to do now.
>
>Yes, but when is "now"? In the canonicals, the context provided indicates
>that Jesus (the bridegroom) will leave the bridal chamber (the world) upon
>his physical death, and at that point the disciples should start fasting and
>praying. But for Thomas, Jesus is the ever-living one. It's always "now",
>and J's physical death is inconsequential. If he himself needn't fast and
>pray, according to L104 (and as opposed to his praying in the canonicals),
>then neither need his disciples - even after his physical death - as long as
>he (and/or the HS) is in the "bridal chamber" of their souls. But if it
>should happen that he becomes "dead" to them - i.e., no longer a living
>presence inside them - then and only then should they fast and pray, because
>at that point they had been "defeated" and were in need of external help. By
>implication, those who do fast and pray (e.g., orthodox Christians) may be
>seen as either misunderstanding the nature of sin, or as evidencing a lack
>of "the living Jesus" in their hearts.
>
>Mike Grondin
>Mt. Clemens, MI
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
>To unsubscribe from this group,
>send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


------------
Dr Simon Gathercole
Senior Lecturer in New Testament
University of Aberdeen

01224 272374

I'm a bit confused by the posting below. mpemto ebol is not a "very special
term" - it's a standard Coptic idiom used all the time in Sahidic texts.
(And it's no help consulting Hebrew speakers - Coptic is a very different
language.)

It seems to me that if Jesus is talking about the one in their midst, or
the one in front of them, he's a prime suspect!

SG

>I agree with your comments of L52 -> OT.
>Coptic "atetN kw Mpet onx MpetN Mto ebol", currently English
>translation is "You have disregarded the living one who is in your
>presence".  Here, I am not so sure that Yasuha was pointing to
>himself. I did study a bit about the meaning of "MpetN Mto ebol (in
>your presence out)" with care in Coptic and checked with Hebrew
>speakers about the expression.
>
>Totally, 6 places in GThomas show this important term "Mto ebol". I
>think we must carefully examine this non-specific but very special
>term in order to understand the true meanings of J's sayings at the
>  6 occations and the implications on the GThomas as a whole.
>
>
>Benedict
>(PS: The 6 places - L5, L6, L21, L52, L91, L111)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
>To unsubscribe from this group,
>send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


------------
Dr Simon Gathercole
Senior Lecturer in New Testament
University of Aberdeen

01224 272374

Considering L52, Simon noted [GTh 7054] "It seems to me that if Jesus is talking
about the one in their midst, or the one in front of them, he's a prime
suspect!"

I guess that Simon's analysis is a typical way of understanding the
expression based on European language translation and Pauline
Christian background.  With a different background, I see two suspects here: (1)
yourselves at 7 days old, (2) Yashua.  (But they can be the same one from the
eternal sense.)

Indeed, Thomas called Living Yashua [L0] Master [L13].  However,
Yashua denied the title [L13].  In addition, in many occasions of
gThomas, Yashua indicates that yourselves is the son of the living Father [L3];
ask the baby-selves at 7 days old about the true living place [L4]; you must
bring forth within yourselves to save you [L70];the living ones will not die
[L11]; the Son of living One will not afraid[L37]; we are chosen ones of the
Living Father[L50]; The heavens and the earth will roll up in your presence, and
he who is living from the living one will not see death[L111].  Because of
these, I tend to interpret that "the living one" indicated in L52 and L59 is the
BIG ONE include "yourselves in your presence (out)".

Since gThomas uses the term "Mpemto ebol" in such peculiar ways which are not
easy to interpret, I suggest investigate potential
interpretation with related Hebrew/Aramaic expression. It may or may not help. 
In the OT however, we are familiar with "In the presence of God" which is an
expression in Hebrew in a profound
manner.

Let's keep searching. (I do not mean the suspect(s) :-))


Benedict

Contemporary to Jesus' ministry; Yeshuine lore flowed into the
hinterlands as a refined, memorable, oral commentary. These traditions, some as
pithy pastoral parables, others as arcane allegories were disseminated as
traders, travelers and ministers spread the "The Way" across the Middle-East.
     Perhaps colored by exotic influences, but largely intact, by 60 c.e. the
"Yeshuine Oral Tradition" had arrived in Rome, Alexandria, Edessa and smaller
communities throughout the Eastern Mediterranean.
     The "Gospel of Thomas" is our most complete surviving record of this
tradition; although the Yeshuine oral material would have been available to any
writer visiting, and trusted by, dwindling Yeshuine Communities for the next one
hundred years.
     As the Yeshuites are proselytized by Christians ( many would have received
the "Good News" with enthusiasm) Yeshuaism is edited, assimilated and disappears
into obscurity, with the exception of the Gospel of Thomas.
     Under the crush of spreading Christianity the Thomasinians, a sect of the
Yeshuaistic Tradition, are bottle necked and isolated along with other heretical
religions. In an act of desperation the written remnants of the original oral
tradition are salvaged for posterity in a jar buried the desert.
        Speculatively,
         David Renfro

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Benedict]:
> Since gThomas uses the term "Mpemto ebol" in such peculiar ways which are
> not easy to interpret, I suggest investigate potential interpretation with
> related Hebrew/Aramaic expression. It may or may not help.  In the OT
> however, we are familiar with "In the presence of God" which is an
> expression in Hebrew in a profound manner.

Sure, but if one takes, say, Strong's 6440 as the word in question, we also
find "in the presence of the people" (Josh 4:11), "in the presence of Saul",
"in the presence of David", etc. As Strong's says with respect to that
Hebrew word, "used in a great variety of applications (literal and
figurative)." I don't think one has to go any further than that to realize
that this particular theory has no chance of being right.

Simon is quite correct to say that 'Mto ebol' is a common Coptic idiom.
Contrary to what you say, it's not used in unusual or peculiar ways in
GThom. What's confusing is the apparently-superfluous 'ebol'. It was a very
common preposition, and not always used where it would make sense in
English. But consider some expressions we ourselves use, such as 'finish
off' or 'empty out'. There, too, the preposition is superfluous, yet we say
such things (at least in this part of the world), maybe because they sound
better, who knows? Crum notes that although 'ebol' was always used with
'Mto' in Sahidic and Achmimic Coptic, it was generally dropped in Boharic -
which may be taken as indication that native speakers increasingly
recognized it as unncessary.

That one can find _some_ contexts wherein 'Mto ebol' was used in connection
with God or the divine isn't suprising and proves nothing - any more than
pointing to one example of the use of Strong's Hebrew word #6440 means
anything - unless you can show that it was _only_ used in such contexts -
which can't be done because it wasn't.

Whew, I'm glad this letter is finally finished off. Now I can send it out.
(;-)

Mike Grondin

The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm
The Coptic Gospel of Thomas in Context
http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/index.htm

Good discussion, Mike. But we need to consider limitation of a
language and translation barriers. Does anybody have comments on
whether "The Living One in your presence (out)" in L52, L59, & L111
includes "the baby-selves (7 days old)" or only Yashua by considering the 114
GThomas sayings as a whole?

Benedict

[Benedict]:
> Does anybody have comments on whether "The Living One in your presence
> (out)" in L52, L59, & L111 includes "the baby-selves (7 days old)" or only
> Yashua by considering the 114 GThomas sayings as a whole?

For starters, the expression you quote occurs only in L52. 'In your
presence' (I would definitely leave out the word 'out') doesn't occur in
L59, and in L111 it doesn't apply to 'the Living One' (lit., 'he who
lives') - it's the heavens and earth being "rolled up in your presence".

In answer to the question as modified to mean who "he-who-lives" refers to
in these three sayings, I'd say that only L111 has much of a chance of
referring to anyone other than Yeshua or God - and that's because in L111,
the one who won't see death is "he-who-lives FROM he-who-lives", i.e., not
the Living One himself. (It presumably going without saying that the Living
One himself won't see death.)

L59 talks about seeking the Living One while the reader is himself living. I
think it's clear that this implies that the seeker (the potential or actual
"babe of 7 days") isn't himself the Living One - nor that the Living One
whom he seeks is other than Yeshua or God.

In L52, the context clearly indicates that the Living One "in your presence"
is Yeshua. Which gives me an opportunity to say something a little more
about "dead prophets". Just as "living" almost always (if not always) means
'spiritually living' rather than 'physically living' in GThom, so also does
'dead' almost always mean 'spiritually dead'. Whatever the original
contextual meaning of the L52 exchange between Yeshua and his disciples, it
seems to me that within the context of GThom, L52 was understood as
asserting that the prophets were spiritually dead - and that's a serious
indictment of the Hebrew scriptures, as well as anything they might
contain - such as prophecies about a Jewish messiah.

Mike Grondin

At 12:56 PM 26/01/06,  Mike wrote:

(material snipped)

>For starters, the expression you quote occurs only in L52. 'In your
>presence' (I would definitely leave out the word 'out') doesn't occur in
>L59, and in L111 it doesn't apply to 'the Living One' (lit., 'he who
>lives') - it's the heavens and earth being "rolled up in your presence".

Just a quick question on the leaving out of "out". I take it you are not
amending your own translation of L52 which includes it, but I wanted
to ask you whether your translation doesn't lend itself to the notion
that Jesus is complaining that he has been left "out" of the mention
of "prophets"- which turns around the notion of  absolute repudiation
and resembles the John "parallel" meaning. My copy
of your translated logion reads You have left he who lives in Your
presence out, ..."


more material snipped. Mike continued:-


>In L52, the context clearly indicates that the Living One "in your presence"
>is Yeshua.

I agree wholeheartedly that here it is so used, although elsewhere in Thomas
the Living One may also mean God- such as "... see the son of the Living One
and you will not fear."

>  Which gives me an opportunity to say something a little more
>about "dead prophets". Just as "living" almost always (if not always) means
>'spiritually living' rather than 'physically living' in GThom, so also does
>'dead' almost always mean 'spiritually dead'. Whatever the original
>contextual meaning of the L52 exchange between Yeshua and his disciples, it
>seems to me that within the context of GThom, L52 was understood as
>asserting that the prophets were spiritually dead - and that's a serious
>indictment of the Hebrew scriptures, as well as anything they might
>contain - such as prophecies about a Jewish messiah.

Yes, the "dead" and "living", spiritually-dead, spiritually-alive wordplay is
is operating in this Logion, as it does in other parts of Thomas and indeed,
does in Matthew  8:22 and Luke 9:60 in the "Leave the dead to bury their
dead." saying.
Putting the Johnannine take, aside, it's hard to escape the notion that
what Jesus is saying here is "Why go to and /or consult the writings of
those who are and were spiritually dead for information about the acquisition
of Life? Look to one who is spiritually alive. Look to me and my words."

I think I mispoke when I used the word "repudiate", earlier. Do we have a
blank condemnatory indictment of all they said- or is it more- There's
no point in looking there, because they didn't have, and those scriptures
don't contain, "the Words of Life"?". Is he really saying it's all bunk? Is
he really repudiating all prophecy, including the Messianic? I just wonder
if we can go that far based on this wording- which is why I thought there
was still some "wiggle room" here.

Ron McCann
Saskatoon, Canada



>Mike Grondin

Mike:

I really appreciate your effort in explaining all these in such a
detail. Academically, it makes a lot of sense to carefully analyze
them so that we can compare them and understand the potential
indications of these words. In L52, I have already discussed my point
which is based on the other related sayings and treat the gThomas
message as a whole. I agree that
> in L111,
> the one who won't see death is "he-who-lives FROM he-who-lives",
> i.e., notthe Living One himself. (It presumably going without saying
> that the Living One himself won't see death.)

I particularly favor your discussion on "the dead"
> Just as "living" almost always (if not always) means 'spiritually
> living' rather than 'physically living' in GThom, so also does
> 'dead' almost always mean 'spiritually dead'. Whatever the original
> contextual meaning of the L52 exchange between Yeshua and his
> disciples, it seems to me that within the context of GThom, L52
> was understood as asserting that the prophets were spiritually dead
> - and that's a serious indictment of the Hebrew scriptures, as well
> as anything they might contain - such as prophecies about a Jewish
> messiah.
One potential question is what about Paul and Paul's letters
(considering this first)?

I grew up in a dual culture environment. One of them is the Pauline
Christian. For now, I would speak more from another prospective in the
forums. So next time, when you discuss the gThomas with Dalai Lama,
D.T. Suzuki, or Thin-min Tach, et al, you gays can communicate a bit
with them (just joking).

During the past three weeks, I learned a lot from the both forums.
However, I need to be excused for a while (hopefully not a few months).

Ta Ta for now.

Benedict