Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [GTh] Thomas saying 64 and the synoptics

Expand Messages
  • Toli Bohonik
    This was also held up as spam. Judy Ron wrote... ... This is interesting because it is an anti big business message. Jesus says that businessmen and
    Message 1 of 23 , Feb 25, 2007
      This was also held up as spam.

      Judy

      Ron wrote...

      > ' The master said to his servant, 'Go outside to the
      > streets and bring back those whom you happen to meet, so that
      > they may dine.' Businessmen and merchants will not enter the
      > Places of My Father."

      This is interesting because it is an "anti big business" message.
      Jesus says that "businessmen and merchants" will not enter the
      "Places of My Father". By today's standards this seems harsh.

      But in ancient Israel and in the Judah of Jesus' day there were
      enormous economic problems... the business class of both
      houses had fallen into ripping off the common folk. That is the
      main condemnation we read in the prophet Hosea, the merchants
      did not know how to put limits on their greed. Hosea is scathing.

      I was just reading Crossan's "Who killed Jesus?" and he forcefully
      argues that there were major changes in the way business was
      in the early first century. Folks were loosing their land, which
      the Torah does not allow, but it was happening anyway.

      The common folk were being exploited by the business class.
      The businessmen and merchants were seeking new sources
      of revenue and increases in margins. Their exploitation; their
      unlawful taking of ancestral land was extremely troubling to
      the common folk; from which Jesus, his disciples, and the John
      the Baptist sprang.

      If you read the little that has been preserved of what John the
      Baptists preached you are struck with the fact his is almost
      100% an economics messgae.

      Luke 3:10-14 KJV "And the people asked him, saying,
      What shall we do then? He answereth and saith unto them,
      He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none;
      and he that hath meat, let him do likewise. Then came also
      publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what
      shall we do? And he said unto them, Exact no more than that
      which is appointed you. And the soldiers likewise demanded
      of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them,
      Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be
      content with your wages."

      I think what we see in GThomas is older and more closely matches
      the original words of Jesus. It more clearly reflects the sad
      economic realities of the times; the exploitation by the business
      class that helped push the nation to civil unrest.

      Jesus would have liked Sarbanes-Oxley.

      One final point, I've never seen "the Places of My Father" used
      in any other place. This is a beautiful and fascinating phrase,
      what and where are the Places of Jesus' Father?

      Toli Bohonik
      Seattle Washington




      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Ron McCann
      To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 11:56 AM
      Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas saying 64 and the synoptics


      Hello Andrew,
      I won't get into the sources issue in your post, but I wanted to
      point out another difference between the Thomas and the Synoptics
      that is quite striking,
      The excuses for not attending are *really* compelling, in Thomas, but
      elsewhere they are feeble and wishy-washy and could be set
      aside if the invitee really wanted to attend.
      What are we to make of this?

      Ron McCann
      Saskatoon Canada

      At 02:45 AM 24/02/07, Andrew wrote:

      >Thomas 64
      >
      ><QUOTE>
      >Jesus said, "A man had received visitors. And when he had
      >prepared the dinner, he sent his servant to invite guests. He
      >went to the first one and said to him, "My master invites you.'
      >He said, 'I have claims against some merchants. They are coming
      >to me this evening. I must go and give them my orders. I ask to
      >be excused from the dinner.' He went to another and said, 'My
      >master has invited you.' He said to him, 'I have just bought a
      >house and am required for the day. I shall not have any spare
      >time.' He went to another and said to him, 'My master invites
      >you.' He said to him, 'My friend is going to get married, and I
      >am to prepare the banquet. I shall not be able to come. I ask to
      >be excused from the dinner.' He went to another and said to him,
      >'My master invites you.' He said to him, 'I have just bought a
      >farm, and I am on my way to collect the rent. I shall not be able
      >to come. I ask to be excused.' The servant returned and said to
      >his master, 'Those whom you invited to the dinner have asked to
      >be excused.' The master said to his servant, 'Go outside to the
      >streets and bring back those whom you happen to meet, so that
      >they may dine.' Businessmen and merchants will not enter the
      >Places of My Father."
      ></QUOTE>
      >
      >Is the longest and maybe most rambling of the sayings and clearly
      >has some relation to the parable of the Great Feast in Matthew
      >22:1-10 and Luke 14:15-24.
      >However in some ways it is longer than either. It has four separate
      >requests to the unwilling guests by the unfortunate servant compared
      >to three in Luke and a request repeated twice in Matthew.
      >
      >Thomas has clearly rewritten his earlier tradition to express his
      >own rejection of involvement in worldly affairs. However his
      >original source may have been a conflation of Matthew and Luke.
      >Tatian's Diatessaron has for the account of the excuses
      >
      ><QUOTE>
      >And they would not come, but began all of them with one voice to make
      >excuse. And the first said unto them, Say to him, I have bought a
      >field, and I
      >must needs go out to see it: I pray thee to release me, for I ask to
      >be excused.
      >And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to examine
      >them: I pray thee to release me, for I ask to be excused. And another said, I
      >have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. And the king sent
      >also other
      >servants, and said, Say to those that were invited, that my feast is
      >ready, and
      >my oxen and my fatlings are slain, and everything is ready: come to
      >the feast.
      >But they made light of it, and went, one to his field, and another to his
      >merchandise:
      ></QUOTE>
      >
      >Here combining together Matthew and Luke has resulted in a list of
      >four requests to the invited guests with at least limited
      >resemblance to the list in Thomas.
      >
      >Andrew Criddle.
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >

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





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • sarban
      (Resending with proper formatting) ... From: Michael Grondin To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 6:21 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas
      Message 2 of 23 , Feb 28, 2007
        (Resending with proper formatting)


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Michael Grondin
        To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 6:21 AM
        Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas saying 64 and the synoptics




        <SNIP>




        >There's evidence for this all over Matthew's version of the parable.
        >(1) The person giving the banquet is a king, not someone whose
        >status is uncertain (as in Lk and Th). For king, read 'God'.

        >(2) The banquet is for the king's son. Hello? Who could that be?
        >(not sure what the "wedding" represents, but it's not in Lk and Th)

        >(3) While Th speaks vaguely of the banquet being for some "visitors",
        >both Mt and Lk refer specifically to TOIS KEKLHMENOIS - 'those
        >who have been invited'. In Matthew's hand (and probably Luke's as
        >well), these are the Jews. As "the chosen people", they have been,
        >as it were, pre-invited to a Messianic banquet. Now the Christians
        >say "Dinner is served!" and the Jewish invitees turn them down.

        >(4) Unlike Lk and Th, Matthew gives no specific reasons for turning down
        >the invitation. They (the Jews) just don't care. But Matt adds something
        >else - some of the (Jewish) invitees assault and kill the slaves of the
        >King (the "slaves" being of course good Christian disciples).

        >(5) Alone in Matthew, the angry King sends "his" armies (in the form
        >of the armies of Rome) to destroy those (Jewish) murderers and set
        >their city (Jerusalem) on fire.

        Hi Mike

        In Matthew the parable is adjacent to the parable of the vineyard and tenants (Matthew 23 33-43) some themes such as assault on the servants and violent retribution may have been borrowed from one parable into the other. Possibly but more doubtfully the mention of the king's son may be a similar borrowing.

        (FWIW the two parables are adjacent in Thomas though in reverse order sayings 64 and 65)



        >(6) Matthew also has a little thingy at the very end about a man who
        >came to the dining hall not dressed in wedding clothes. Whatever
        >that means (my guess is that it's a Jew who converts to Christianity
        >but still keeps otherwise to Jewish traditions), the poor guy is cast
        >out into outer darkness (i.e., Hell). No softy, our boy Matthew.

        The addition here about not being dressed in wedding clothes is I agree about belief in Christianity without what Matthew regards as proper behaviour (faith without works) However given passages such as Matthew 5:17-20 IMO the radical rejection of Torah is a more likely target here than continued Jewish observance.



        >(There's also a little thingy at the end of Luke which was later used
        >by Augustine to defend forced conversions - "compel people to
        >come in". Not having read the commentaries that I'm sure Andrew
        >has, I have no idea what Luke might have meant, since such a thought
        >seems meaningful only in a situation where Christians had the upper
        >hand, and where might that have been before 325? Where Luke was?)

        In the original context "compel them to come in" may be meant primarily to show that the Host's motive in inviting the down-and-outs is not compassion for the poor but avoiding his own dishonour. (He will have a party whatever obstacles are put in his way.) It may have verisimilitude, even the poor have their own honour and may be initially reluctant to accept the role of second choice guests. IMO this is not intended by Luke as a guide to Christian conversion strategy, although at least from Augustine onwards many would so interpret it.



        >Overall, the Banquet parable in Matthew is so different from Lk and
        >Th as to beggar comparison, and make it almost ludicrous to talk of
        >Lk and Mt in the same breath. Did Matthew get it from somewhere
        >else and pervert it beyond recognition, or was it his own invention in
        >the first place? Did Luke fix up Matt's version, or was he using a
        >tradition that preceded Matthew and which Matthew had perverted?
        >These questions are a little different from those asked so far, but
        >they seem to bear on the questions which have been asked.

        >Cheers,
        >Mike Grondin



        IMHO it is difficult to imagine Luke constructing his version on the basis of Matthew's. Both Matthew and Luke probably used independently a common source

        Andrew Criddle






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Michael Grondin
        Similarities and differences between my analysis of Matthew s version of the parable and that of the Jesus Seminar (in _The Five Gospels_, which I should have
        Message 3 of 23 , Mar 1, 2007
          Similarities and differences between my analysis of Matthew's version
          of the parable and that of the Jesus Seminar (in _The Five Gospels_,
          which I should have read beforehand, but didn't):

          (1-2) King = God, son = Jesus
          JSem agrees.

          (3) invitees = the Jews
          JSem says 'Israel'. Same difference.

          (4) servants of the King = Christian disciples
          JSem says 'the prophets'. OK, I'll buy that. But it's impossible to
          believe that Matthew didn't _also_ have in mind events involving
          Christians, such as the mob-execution of James the Righteous.
          He may also have had in mind the execution of Jesus, although
          strictly speaking that wouldn't fit the allegorical scheme. (Later
          Christians such as Origin blamed the destruction of Jerusalem
          on the execution of Jesus or James, or both.)

          (5) King's armies = Roman armies, "their city" = Jerusalem
          JSem basically agrees.

          (6) guest not in wedding clothes = converted Jew holding traditions.
          JSem says this guest represents any bad Christian. The goats, as
          opposed to the sheep - or the weeds that are allowed to grow up
          with the good seed, and then separated out at the day of the harvest
          (final judgment). Could very well be. Doesn't rule out what I suggested,
          but other considerations might.

          (6a) "outer darkness" = hell
          This accords with the JSem interpretation above, but I wonder. For
          a Christian, the place of "wailing and the gnashing of teeth" in this
          life would be outside the church. Furthermore, that the ejected guest
          should be "bound hand and foot" might be taken to suggest that he
          would be unable to save himself outside of the church. Nevertheless,
          the allusions are hellian.

          Luke's addendum (second call to non-Jews):
          JSem reads this as the call to the Gentiles. First call to the poor and
          physically disadvantaged among the Jews, then when banquet hall
          not filled up, second call to the Gentiles. (Some early Christians
          thought that the reason why the parousia was delayed was that "the
          banquet hall" wasn't yet filled.) Makes sense, but not yet clear why
          Gentiles had to be forced to come in.

          As to a possible literary relationship to the Diatessaron, I've now read
          the entire parable as it stands there, and find it very difficult to believe
          that the Thomasines could have weeded out the Matthean stuff that
          infests it at every turn - including the very beginning (no wedding, but
          a King and his son involved, which would surely tie in with Thomas'
          end-reference to "the places of my Father".)

          Cheers,
          Mike Grondin
        • paul
          ... Hi Frank, A few months ago I reached the same conclusion on the other Thomas board. I ll repeat that post here. ============================= For those who
          Message 4 of 23 , Mar 1, 2007
            --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Frank McCoy" <FMMCCOY@...> wrote:

            > So, it appears, the scenario was: Th ---> Mt + Lk.

            Hi Frank,
            A few months ago I reached the same conclusion on the other Thomas
            board. I'll repeat that post here.

            =============================

            For those who are interested in the thesis that GThom preceeded both
            Mark and Q, Saying 64 offers some clues about that process.

            Saying 64 is distinctive for its length as well as its parallels
            with Matthew 22:1-14 and Luke 14:13-24. Since the parallels are
            nearly identical, the differences stand out. These differences
            perhaps suggest motives of the communities which produced the later
            versions.

            L. Michael White, in From Jesus To Christianity (2004:
            HarperCollinsSanFrancisco), offers an analysis of this saying, "The
            Great Dinner," which identifies the elements of this saying which
            are common to all three versions pp. 140-1). White believes the
            common elements represent the original Q version, however I think
            the GThom version can also be viewed as the original. In GThom this
            saying has an easily recognizable pattern to it. Except for the
            final sentence, "for buyers and merchants shall not enter the places
            of my Father," the GThom 64 is free of extraneous comment. As Funk
            and others have noted, the last sentence is likely a later addition.

            If GThom is the original then Matthew has altered it to say the Jews
            rejected Jesus and so the message was given to the Romans. In fact
            Matthew includes a clear reference to the Roman destruction of
            Jerusalem: "The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed
            those murderers and burned their city." This is the same reasoning
            employed by Josephus. Matthew's version is also vindictive. Those
            who decline to attend are not merely replaced, they are cast out.
            So the original GThom may not refer to the Jews as the ones who
            rejected the invitation. In GThom those who are replaced are those
            who prioritize physical rather than spiritual concerns.

            Finally, Luke's version is closer to GThom. In both versions there
            is one invited who has married; in Matthew the feast itself is a
            wedding feast. That supports the general idea that Luke has more
            faithfully reproduces Q than Matthew has.

            =============================

            But I also wonder how often the arrow goes in both directions, a
            result of later corrections to GTh from Matt or Luke. I think
            DeConick makes the same point. GTh appears earlier than the
            synoptics, but the degree of correction of our version of GTh from
            the synoptics has not been established.

            regards,

            Paul
          • sarban
            ... From: paul To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:12 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas saying 64 and the synoptics ... ...
            Message 5 of 23 , Mar 1, 2007
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: paul
              To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:12 AM
              Subject: Re: [GTh] Thomas saying 64 and the synoptics


              --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Frank McCoy" <FMMCCOY@...> wrote:

              >> So, it appears, the scenario was: Th ---> Mt + Lk.

              <SNIP>


              >L. Michael White, in From Jesus To Christianity (2004:
              >HarperCollinsSanFrancisco), offers an analysis of this saying, "The
              >Great Dinner," which identifies the elements of this saying which
              >are common to all three versions pp. 140-1). White believes the
              >common elements represent the original Q version, however I think
              >the GThom version can also be viewed as the original. In GThom this
              >saying has an easily recognizable pattern to it. Except for the
              >final sentence, "for buyers and merchants shall not enter the places
              >of my Father," the GThom 64 is free of extraneous comment. As Funk
              >and others have noted, the last sentence is likely a later addition.

              >If GThom is the original then Matthew has altered it to say the Jews
              >rejected Jesus and so the message was given to the Romans. In fact
              >Matthew includes a clear reference to the Roman destruction of
              >Jerusalem: "The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed
              >those murderers and burned their city." This is the same reasoning
              >employed by Josephus. Matthew's version is also vindictive. Those
              >who decline to attend are not merely replaced, they are cast out.
              >So the original GThom may not refer to the Jews as the ones who
              >rejected the invitation. In GThom those who are replaced are those
              >who prioritize physical rather than spiritual concerns.

              >Finally, Luke's version is closer to GThom. In both versions there
              >is one invited who has married; in Matthew the feast itself is a
              >wedding feast. That supports the general idea that Luke has more
              >faithfully reproduces Q than Matthew has.

              =============================
              Hi Paul

              Thanks for an interesting analysis.

              IIUC you are suggesting that

              a/ In stage 1 original Thomas 64 was like final Thomas 64 but without the sentence "for buyers and merchants shall not enter the places of my Father".

              b/ in stage 2 Luke and Matthew modified original Thomas to produce the versions of the parable found in their gospels.

              c/ in stage 3 the last sentence was added to original Thomas 64 to produce final Thomas 64.

              However, this last sentence is so similar in theme to the rest of Thomas 64, (the rejection of those who prioritize physical rather than spiritual concerns) as to make it unlikely IMO that it is an addition several stages later on to original Thomas.

              (If Thomas 64 is post-synoptic developed by successive redaction of the synoptic version then "for buyers and merchants shall not enter the places of my Father". may well be the last stage of the redaction trajectory, but this is a somewhat different idea)

              Andrew Criddle





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • William Arnal
              ... I just want to point out that this conclusion s validity has no bearing whether #64 is pre- or post- or simply non-synoptic. The conclusion of #64 is
              Message 6 of 23 , Mar 2, 2007
                Andrew Criddle wrote:

                > (If Thomas 64 is post-synoptic developed by successive redaction of the
                >synoptic version then >"for buyers and merchants shall not enter the places
                >of my Father". may well be the last stage of >the redaction trajectory, but
                >this is a somewhat different idea)

                I just want to point out that this conclusion's validity has no bearing
                whether #64 is pre- or post- or simply non-synoptic. The conclusion of #64
                is clearly a redactional application, regardless of the source of the
                parable.

                regards,
                Bill
                ______________________
                William Arnal
                University of Regina

                _________________________________________________________________
                Your Space. Your Friends. Your Stories. Share your world with Windows Live
                Spaces. http://spaces.live.com/?mkt=en-ca
              • Michael Grondin
                ... Not sure what you mean by this ... same reasoning , Paul. Josephus didn t blame the destruction of Jerusalem on the death of James, though I believe
                Message 7 of 23 , Mar 2, 2007
                  [Paul]:
                  > If GThom is the original then Matthew has altered it to say the Jews
                  > rejected Jesus and so the message was given to the Romans. In fact
                  > Matthew includes a clear reference to the Roman destruction of
                  > Jerusalem: "The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed
                  > those murderers and burned their city." This is the same reasoning
                  > employed by Josephus.

                  Not sure what you mean by "this ... same reasoning", Paul. Josephus
                  didn't blame the destruction of Jerusalem on the death of James,
                  though I believe Origen said he did. (The idea among some Christians
                  was that it was God's reprisal for the execution of Jesus, but that the
                  time of reprisal had been put off as long as James was alive.)

                  [Andrew]:
                  > (If Thomas 64 is post-synoptic developed by successive redaction
                  > of the synoptic version ...

                  The problem with finishing this sentence in any way whatsoever is that
                  there's really nothing that can be called "THE synoptic version".

                  Regards,
                  Mike
                • paul
                  ... Hi Mike, I m thinking Matthew s allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem reads like a summary of Josephus statement that the Jews brought this on
                  Message 8 of 23 , Mar 2, 2007
                    --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...> wrote:

                    > Not sure what you mean by "this ... same reasoning", Paul. Josephus
                    > didn't blame the destruction of Jerusalem on the death of James,
                    > though I believe Origen said he did. (The idea among some Christians
                    > was that it was God's reprisal for the execution of Jesus, but that the
                    > time of reprisal had been put off as long as James was alive.)

                    Hi Mike,

                    I'm thinking Matthew's allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem reads
                    like a summary of Josephus' statement that the Jews brought this on
                    themselves by rebelling against Rome:

                    Yet I shall suit my language to the passions I am under, as to the
                    affairs I describe, and must be allowed to indulge some lamentation
                    upon the miseries undergone by my own country; for that it was a
                    seditious temper of our own that destroyed it; and that they were the
                    tyrants among the Jews who brought the Roman power upon us , who
                    unwillingly attacked us, and occasioned the burning of our holy
                    temple; Titus Caesar, who destroyed it, is himself a witness, who,
                    during the entire war, pitied the people who were kept under by the
                    seditious, and did often voluntarily delay the taking of the city, and
                    allowed time to the siege, in order to let the authors have
                    opportunity for repentance. (Josephus, Wars, Preface, Section 4).

                    regards, Paul
                  • David Arbuckle
                    supposedly, in the Syriac versions of Josephus it says that The Revolt was brought on by the death of James the Just. dave ...
                    Message 9 of 23 , Mar 2, 2007
                      supposedly, in the Syriac versions of Josephus it says
                      that The Revolt was brought on by the death of James
                      the Just.


                      dave
                      --- paul <jpaullanier@...> wrote:

                      > --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Grondin"
                      > <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > Not sure what you mean by "this ... same
                      > reasoning", Paul. Josephus
                      > > didn't blame the destruction of Jerusalem on the
                      > death of James,
                      > > though I believe Origen said he did. (The idea
                      > among some Christians
                      > > was that it was God's reprisal for the execution
                      > of Jesus, but that the
                      > > time of reprisal had been put off as long as James
                      > was alive.)
                      >
                      > Hi Mike,
                      >
                      > I'm thinking Matthew's allusion to the destruction
                      > of Jerusalem reads
                      > like a summary of Josephus' statement that the Jews
                      > brought this on
                      > themselves by rebelling against Rome:
                      >
                      > Yet I shall suit my language to the passions I am
                      > under, as to the
                      > affairs I describe, and must be allowed to indulge
                      > some lamentation
                      > upon the miseries undergone by my own country; for
                      > that it was a
                      > seditious temper of our own that destroyed it; and
                      > that they were the
                      > tyrants among the Jews who brought the Roman power
                      > upon us , who
                      > unwillingly attacked us, and occasioned the burning
                      > of our holy
                      > temple; Titus Caesar, who destroyed it, is himself a
                      > witness, who,
                      > during the entire war, pitied the people who were
                      > kept under by the
                      > seditious, and did often voluntarily delay the
                      > taking of the city, and
                      > allowed time to the siege, in order to let the
                      > authors have
                      > opportunity for repentance. (Josephus, Wars,
                      > Preface, Section 4).
                      >
                      > regards, Paul
                      >
                      >




                      ____________________________________________________________________________________
                      Have a burning question?
                      Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
                    • David Arbuckle
                      Mike, supposedly (according to Robert Eisenman, )there are references to James the Just s death as THE reason for the revolt. I have always thought that if
                      Message 10 of 23 , Mar 2, 2007
                        Mike,

                        supposedly (according to Robert Eisenman, )there are
                        references to James the Just's death as THE reason for
                        the revolt.

                        I have always thought that if this is true, that one
                        has to wonder who was better known Jesus or James ?
                        and if so, maybe Jesus and his brother thought that
                        the whole messianic thing was sort of something that
                        got passed down through the family ?


                        dave arbuckle

                        sarasota florida
                        --- Michael Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:

                        > [Paul]:
                        > > If GThom is the original then Matthew has altered
                        > it to say the Jews
                        > > rejected Jesus and so the message was given to
                        > the Romans. In fact
                        > > Matthew includes a clear reference to the Roman
                        > destruction of
                        > > Jerusalem: "The king was angry, and he sent his
                        > troops and destroyed
                        > > those murderers and burned their city." This is
                        > the same reasoning
                        > > employed by Josephus.
                        >
                        > Not sure what you mean by "this ... same reasoning",
                        > Paul. Josephus
                        > didn't blame the destruction of Jerusalem on the
                        > death of James,
                        > though I believe Origen said he did. (The idea among
                        > some Christians
                        > was that it was God's reprisal for the execution of
                        > Jesus, but that the
                        > time of reprisal had been put off as long as James
                        > was alive.)
                        >
                        > [Andrew]:
                        > > (If Thomas 64 is post-synoptic developed by
                        > successive redaction
                        > > of the synoptic version ...
                        >
                        > The problem with finishing this sentence in any way
                        > whatsoever is that
                        > there's really nothing that can be called "THE
                        > synoptic version".
                        >
                        > Regards,
                        > Mike
                        >
                        >
                        >




                        ____________________________________________________________________________________
                        No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
                        with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
                        http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
                      • David Arbuckle
                        Mike, In Robert Eisenman s book James the Just, he claims that Origen says this because in the original versions of Josephus that is exactly what it says. He
                        Message 11 of 23 , Mar 2, 2007
                          Mike,

                          In Robert Eisenman's book James the Just, he claims
                          that Origen says this because in the original versions
                          of Josephus that is exactly what it says.

                          He claims the Church redacted it because they had the
                          copies of Josephus, but apparently a syriac version of
                          it conflicts with it....


                          David Arbuckle

                          sarasota florida
                          --- Michael Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:

                          > [Paul]:
                          > > If GThom is the original then Matthew has altered
                          > it to say the Jews
                          > > rejected Jesus and so the message was given to
                          > the Romans. In fact
                          > > Matthew includes a clear reference to the Roman
                          > destruction of
                          > > Jerusalem: "The king was angry, and he sent his
                          > troops and destroyed
                          > > those murderers and burned their city." This is
                          > the same reasoning
                          > > employed by Josephus.
                          >
                          > Not sure what you mean by "this ... same reasoning",
                          > Paul. Josephus
                          > didn't blame the destruction of Jerusalem on the
                          > death of James,
                          > though I believe Origen said he did. (The idea among
                          > some Christians
                          > was that it was God's reprisal for the execution of
                          > Jesus, but that the
                          > time of reprisal had been put off as long as James
                          > was alive.)
                          >
                          > [Andrew]:
                          > > (If Thomas 64 is post-synoptic developed by
                          > successive redaction
                          > > of the synoptic version ...
                          >
                          > The problem with finishing this sentence in any way
                          > whatsoever is that
                          > there's really nothing that can be called "THE
                          > synoptic version".
                          >
                          > Regards,
                          > Mike
                          >
                          >
                          >




                          ____________________________________________________________________________________
                          Have a burning question?
                          Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
                        • paul
                          ... without the sentence for buyers and merchants shall not enter the places of my Father . ... the versions of the parable found in their gospels. ...
                          Message 12 of 23 , Mar 3, 2007
                            --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "sarban" <sarban@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > IIUC you are suggesting that
                            >
                            > a/ In stage 1 original Thomas 64 was like final Thomas 64 but
                            without the sentence "for buyers and merchants shall not enter the
                            places of my Father".
                            >
                            > b/ in stage 2 Luke and Matthew modified original Thomas to produce
                            the versions of the parable found in their gospels.
                            >
                            > c/ in stage 3 the last sentence was added to original Thomas 64 to
                            produce final Thomas 64.
                            >
                            > However, this last sentence is so similar in theme to the rest of
                            Thomas 64, (the rejection of those who prioritize physical rather than
                            spiritual concerns) as to make it unlikely IMO that it is an addition
                            several stages later on to original Thomas.
                            >
                            > (If Thomas 64 is post-synoptic developed by successive redaction
                            of the synoptic version then "for buyers and merchants shall not enter
                            the places of my Father". may well be the last stage of the redaction
                            trajectory, but this is a somewhat different idea)

                            Hi Andrew,

                            I'll go along with that. Thanks for the observation.

                            regards, Paul
                          • Michael Grondin
                            ... Eisenman speculates way too much to be considered a reputable authority, and James isn t such a major figure in Josephus that this possibility can be
                            Message 13 of 23 , Mar 4, 2007
                              David Arbuckle wrote:
                              > In Robert Eisenman's book James the Just, he claims
                              > that Origen says this because in the original versions
                              > of Josephus that is exactly what it says.

                              Eisenman speculates way too much to be considered a
                              reputable authority, and James isn't such a major figure in
                              Josephus that this possibility can be seriously maintained.
                              There's more on this subject in my note of 9/22/06:

                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/message/7240

                              > He claims the Church redacted it because they had the
                              > copies of Josephus, but apparently a syriac version of
                              > it conflicts with it....

                              This makes no sense. If the church altered Josephus,
                              why didn't they make it say what Origen claimed it said?
                              (You may be mixing this up with Josephus' Jesus
                              passage - the "Testimonium". That was altered, for sure.)

                              Mike Grondin
                            • David Arbuckle
                              What Eisenman claims is both. He claims the piece in wars concerning Jesus being the Christ and a man of wonders, and such is a definite redaction as it
                              Message 14 of 23 , Mar 5, 2007
                                What Eisenman claims is both.

                                He claims the piece in wars concerning Jesus being
                                the Christ and a man of wonders, and such is a
                                definite redaction as it didn't appear in the version
                                that Origen had ( or at least he never mentioned it)
                                but he also claims that originally in wars, that the
                                revolt was blamed on the death of James, and that the
                                version that Origen had makes this claim, he adds that
                                the Church gained possesion of these texts and altered
                                them, but that a syriac version shows the discrepency.

                                James is not a major figure in Josephus, but
                                certainly more important in the scheme of things if
                                one compares the press he received in comparison to
                                Jesus. ( at least in Josephus) Josephus mentions
                                dozens of Messiah types, and gives many of them quite
                                a bit of press, it seems odd that Jesus being the
                                wildly important person christianity has made him that
                                Josephus didn't cover his life more. The fact that his
                                brother and his cousin John the Baptist are given so
                                much more is well, odd.

                                David Arbuckle

                                Sarasota, Florida

                                --- Michael Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:

                                > David Arbuckle wrote:
                                > > In Robert Eisenman's book James the Just, he
                                > claims
                                > > that Origen says this because in the original
                                > versions
                                > > of Josephus that is exactly what it says.
                                >
                                > Eisenman speculates way too much to be considered a
                                > reputable authority, and James isn't such a major
                                > figure in
                                > Josephus that this possibility can be seriously
                                > maintained.
                                > There's more on this subject in my note of 9/22/06:
                                >
                                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/message/7240
                                >
                                > > He claims the Church redacted it because they had
                                > the
                                > > copies of Josephus, but apparently a syriac
                                > version of
                                > > it conflicts with it....
                                >
                                > This makes no sense. If the church altered Josephus,
                                > why didn't they make it say what Origen claimed it
                                > said?
                                > (You may be mixing this up with Josephus' Jesus
                                > passage - the "Testimonium". That was altered, for
                                > sure.)
                                >
                                > Mike Grondin
                                >
                                >




                                ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                Get your own web address.
                                Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
                                http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.