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

Re: [GTh] But I have said - GTh46.2

Expand Messages
  • Paul Lanier
    ... Hi Ron, Mike: I think there are two other possibilities that explain, in general, why Thomas tends toward some flavor of realized eschatology, but Luke
    Message 1 of 11 , Apr 15, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, Ron McCann <ronmccann1@...> wrote:
      >
      > It's probably safe to assume that Luke saw it as some kind of an end-time saying and chucked it in > with the other ones he had on the subject in those several verses on the topic.

      Hi Ron, Mike:

      I think there are two other possibilities that explain, in general, why Thomas tends toward some flavor of realized eschatology, but Luke emphasizes future:
      1 - Luke follows Mark in reframing "kingdom" as future;
      2 - Luke follows Mark's amplification of "kingdom" as other than Roman kingdom. This seems like a natural way to avoid trouble!

      I think too there is partial dependence of later Thomas on the synoptics, just as there is partial dependence on early gnostic themes. Both introduced more developed themes not originally presented.

      I realize that is a very broad generalization. But I think that sort of development is to be expected among early competing Jesus communities. Early textual instability has long been recognized for Mark, and there seems to be decent support for it in Thomas as well. Of course it depends on analysis of technical terms and thematic parallels, both of which are less obvious than direct parallels.

      Regards, Paul
    • Michael Grondin
      Ron - I agree with you that the GTh logia that seem to refer to end-times are few and far between. In fact, I don t think L61.1 is the strongest example,
      Message 2 of 11 , Apr 17, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron -

        I agree with you that the GTh logia that seem to refer to end-times are
        few and far between. In fact, I don't think L61.1 is the strongest example,
        although DeConick takes it to refer to "the End" (TGOTT, p.200). To my
        mind, though, a stronger example is L57's "day of the harvest". I think
        it's stronger because it's not so easily susceptible to an interpretation
        in terms of individuals, rather than humanity as a whole.

        On the other hand, I recognize that some sayings indicate the opposite
        at least as strongly, perhaps even more so. A good example is L.51,
        wherein it's stated that the "new world" has already come. How can that
        be reconciled with the above? One possibility I'm attracted to is the
        DeConick model, which allows for eschatological emphasis to have been
        altered over time, such that what we find in CGTh is possibly the fading
        remnants of traditional end-time thinking, coupled with an emerging
        contrary view which had become ascendant. In particular, notice that
        L.51 is a disciples' question, which to DeConick indicates a later
        development, while L61.1 and L57 are simple Jesus-statements.

        Interestingly, one of the Q-and-A sayings has seemed to serve as one
        basis for the theory that (later?) GTh envisioned a different kind of
        end-times, viz., one in which "where the beginning is, there the end will
        be", i.e., a kind of rolling-back of history caused by (presumably) the
        adoption of an ascetic life-style by the masses, resulting in progressively
        fewer children until the world's population shrinks back to "the Garden".
        As I recall, this was a view expressed by Steve Davies, and I think it
        gets its plausibility actually more from other Thomasine writings (T. the
        Contender, and the Acts of T.) than from GTh, though again there's
        some stuff in GTh for that view. (A little something for everyone?)

        Now on this "realized eschatology" thingy, my sense is that lumping
        different things together and trying to reach a judgement on all of
        them at once is counter-productive. In particular, I don't see that
        much of a difference between the third century Thomas and the way
        the canonicals were developing on the question of when the kingdom
        would come, but I do see a big difference on the question of whether
        there would be a parousia. The Synoptics at least were stuck with the
        notion that Jesus was the messiah. Since he hadn't accomplished
        what a messiah was supposed to do, it was necessary that he come
        back "in power" to finish the job. The Thomasines don't seem to have
        ever had this problem, but even if they did, they had the advantage
        over the church in that their Jesus-gospel apparently continued to
        develop after the canonical gospels had been pretty much locked-in.

        Mike Grondin
        Mt. Clemens, MI
      • Michael Grondin
        ... Thanks for noting that important point about Greek Thomas, Paul, but Coptic Thomas occasionally has kingdom of the heavens also. ... Other than that, the
        Message 3 of 11 , Apr 17, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          > Mark and Luke use exclusively "kingdom of God," while Matthew
          > employs "kingdom of the heavens." In Coptic Thomas it is simply
          > "kingdom," however in Grk. GTh3 "kingdom of God" occurs.

          Thanks for noting that important point about Greek Thomas, Paul,
          but Coptic Thomas occasionally has "kingdom of the heavens" also.
          (See 114, e.g.) That contravenes your suggestion:

          > This suggests the original usage in Thomas, "kingdom," may have
          > caused difficulties after the Jewish War ...

          Other than that, the deluge of data kinda obscured the theses for me.

          Cheers,
          Mike
        • Paul Lanier
          ... Woops! You re right. L.114 is very late but there are other instances of kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God. I will need to rearrange my position!
          Message 4 of 11 , Apr 17, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
            > Coptic Thomas occasionally has "kingdom of the heavens" also.

            Woops! You're right. L.114 is very late but there are other instances of "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God." I will need to rearrange my position!

            > Other than that, the deluge of data kinda obscured the theses for me.

            Me too. I am exploring the thesis that GMk and Q both depend on original GTh. I am looking for distinctive usages of technical terms (kingdom, child, small, and some others). This is, I think, made more complex by what appears to me to be insertion of later corrections into GTh to harmonize with the synoptics. Of course it may be that original GTh included all three usages of "kingdom." But the very distinctive usages by Mark and Luke ("kingdom of God") as opposed to Matthew ("Kingdom of the heavens") suggests polarization between the Mark-Luke trajectory and Matthew. That in turn would suggest an earlier shared usage, such as "kingdom" in original GTh. But I agree, in the case of "kingdom," the usage in Thomas is mixed.

            Thank you for attempting to hold me to the same very high standards of this board!

            regards, Paul
          • Ron McCann
            Hi Mike, Thanks for the thoughtful response, Mike. I agree [L.57] is a stronger example, and when first I encountered it, I designated it as a clear
            Message 5 of 11 , Apr 17, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Mike,

              Thanks for the thoughtful response, Mike.

              I agree [L.57] is a stronger example, and when first I encountered it, I
              designated it as a clear Apocalyptic Saying. It has a single attestation
              in Matthew's Gospel ( From Special Matthew) where it is unquestionably
              presented as such, and the only significant variation is that in Thomas
              no mention of the wheat being gathered into the barn, is made. I think
              the original parable was simply about why God allows evil men and good
              men to co-exist and why he does nothing about it right now- it would
              uproot the intended and desired growth and development of the good men.
              So wait until the desired crop is fully matured- harvest day. Matthew
              may have changed it to an end-time separation of the sheep from the
              goats, or the good fish from the bad on Judgment Day. That does not mean
              we should be reading it that way in Thomas or that it was intended to be
              read that way. I guess the question is what "the day of the harvest"
              meant to the Thomasines.

              I think the Thomas crowd also believed that a selection process for
              entry to the Kingdom was involved. But since the Kingdom was here, the
              sorting and selection for admission or entry to it was now going on. And
              just like in the Matthew examples some would be found acceptable, and
              some not. The spiritually mature or spiritually ready presumably get
              admitted. The Wise Fisherman who nets the fish, selects the Fine Big
              Fish ( mature, developed) and throws the smaller back. The Wise man of
              understanding comes quickly when the crop is ripe (mature) and plies the
              sickle. The Man who sowed good seed discards the weeds and gathers his
              wheat. For the Thomasines, the Day of the Harvest might have meant that
              day in which the individual is actually selected and taken into the
              Kingdom. It's hard to say. But your point is taken.

              I think Deconick's approach makes a lot of sense too. As expectations of
              Judgment Day and the Parousia faded, as well they might have by the end
              of the First Century and the beginning of the Second, thinking
              Christian's may have gravitated to the "Kingdom is already here" sayings
              of Jesus and focused their speculations on how to enter that kingdom in
              the here and now, whereas the groups of Christians adhering to the old
              Messianic/Parousia/Judgment Day scenario re-entrenched, stayed the
              course, eventually becoming the modern Church. My point is that late or
              early, there was a bifurcation with the Thomas crowd apparently on the
              leading edge of "Realized Eschatology" exploration, speculation and
              innovation, and going their own way.

              Davie's idea is indeed interesting, but my own view on this logion and
              others like it is that the Thomasines envisioned the process of entry to
              the Kingdom as a return to the Pre-Fall state of Adam and Eve and a
              consequent re-entry to Eden, and further, that they believed this was
              accomplished one by one, individually.
              In Thomas, individual, rather than collective "salvation" seems the
              focus, and it's up to the individual, him or herself, to win entry to
              the Kingdom.

              I take your point about lumping too many things together- and perhaps I
              have here- using Realized Eschatology to describe the Gospel of Thomas
              position on the Kingdom. You are right. It might be more useful to
              divide those elements up and look at each of them individually. My
              problem with Thomas, is that we can get so easily get lost in the
              minutia and the non-homogeneous and sometimes conflicting material that
              we miss spotting the common overarching themes. So from time to time, I
              try to stand back and try to view the sweep and thrust of Thomas and a
              whole to see if I can discover what, in at least broad and general
              terms, we can say about the beliefs the people this gospel served had in
              common, and how these might have differed from the emerging Church's- no
              easy task given the complexity of the material. So although my
              conclusion is a generality, and only operates in overview, the
              conclusion seems well grounded and useful- although, like any other
              proposal about Thomas, some specific sayings can be found that argue
              against it..

              Thanks Mike. You always get me thinking.

              Ron McCann
              Saskatoon, Canada
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.