Re: [GTh] Logion # 46
- Hi, Maurice -
> I am not familiar with the pseudo-Clementine RecognitionsThe pseudo-Clementines are early Jewish-Christian writings consisting of two works, the Recognitions and the Homilies, that were purportedly written by Clement, a disciple of Peter.
> One of the interesting points to add, of course, is thatYes, compared to the versions in Mt. & Lk., Thomas adds a mention of Adam. Beyond this, the qualification for becoming superior to John in Thomas is to become a child and be acquainted with the Kingdom instead of being the "least" in the Kingdom as in Mt. & Lk. There are also some smaller details of comparison, such as the fact that John is "the Baptist" in Mt. & Thomas but not in Lk. or in the passage I quoted from Recognitions, and so on.
> in The Matt (11:11) and the Luke (7:28) versions of this
> story, there are/is no mention of Adam or of "from Adam".
> Also, Thomas #46 seems to suggest that one "will"I am not one of those who believes that Thomas was dependent on the canonical gospels. That being said, the whole question of whether the eschatology of Thomas is future or "realized" in comparison to the synoptics and John is somewhat of a broad topic that extends beyond saying 46 (though 113 is very important in this regard). But your point here is well-taken.
> (future) "become superior to John", whereas in Matt
> and Luke it is those who are "presently" in the Kingdom
> who are "presently" greater than John. If the author
> of Thomas used Matt and Luke as a "guide" in his logion
> (and thus disagrees with them on the timeline), then
> one has to wonder why he would seem to later agree with
> the two evangilists on this point (in logion # 113)
> wherein he acknowledges that "The Kingdom of the Father"
> ... is "presently" (not in the future) spread out upon
> the earth.
> By the way, regarding your point on "lowering one's eyes",The meaning of the text here is uncertain. While I don't have Mike Grondin's interlinear version in front of me at the moment, I seem to recall that the literal Coptic text here reads: " ...that his eyes should not be broken." Lambdin's guess that "broken" means "lowered" (in deference to John) seems to be a good one, but I think it is only a guess. This passage has confused translators so I don't think it was a popular cliche or figure of speech or Rabbinic saying (as some other passages in Thomas are, such as "for whose sake heaven and earth came into being" in Thomas 12 or "Sabbatize the Sabbath" in Thomas 27). But it is always possible that a common phrase was somehow mistranslated here.
> do you think this is just a popular cliche or figure of
> speech of the times ... a Rabbinic saying perhaps, or do
> you read more into it ????
- Just to let you know I bought Uro's new book on Thomas. It is a slim volume
and completely outrageously priced (I paid £17.50 with a conference discount
- and even it is expensive for what it is).
For those interested I would recommend ILL but here are the details for
those with money to burn:
Risto Uro, Thomas: The Gospel of Thomas in Historical Context, T and T Clark
2003. Normal price $85 (USA) or £45 (UK).
I will probably not have opportunity to read it for a few weeks but if
anyone would like a brief report in due course, let me know.
With best wishes,