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

"Kingdom of heaven" in Thomas

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    One of the most distinctive Matthean redactional phrases is kingdom of heaven , 32 times in the Gospel, never in Mark, never in Luke or Acts, often found in
    Message 1 of 19 , May 19 8:59 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      One of the most distinctive Matthean redactional phrases is "kingdom
      of heaven", 32 times in the Gospel, never in Mark, never in Luke or
      Acts, often found in Matthew's redaction of Mark (e.g. Matt. 4.17,
      13.11). The same phrase occurs three times in the Gospel of Thomas,
      twice in parallels to Matthew (Matt. 13.31 R // Thom. 20, Matt. 5.3 QD
      // Thom. 54)** and once on its own (114). One of the criteria usually
      applied in discussions of Thomas's familiarity with the Synoptics is
      the presence (or absence) of Synoptic redactional elements in Thomas.
      Here we seem to have something pretty striking. What I am wondering
      is why so little is made of this example in the literature. Do others
      think that it might be a useful indication of Thomas's familiarity
      with Matthew?

      Best wishes
      Mark

      ** For those unfamiliar with the symbols, R = wording is redactional
      addition to Mark (on the assumption of Marcan Priority); QD = double
      tradition material, wording different from Luke.
      --
      Mark Goodacre
      Duke University
      Department of Religion
      Gray Building / Box 90964
      Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
      Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

      http://www.markgoodacre.org
    • Jack Kilmon
      I think the Vox Iesu was malkutha d alaha Kingdom of God which occurs 5 times in Matthew while Matthew prefers KOH, yet KOG occurs 15 times in Mark, 32 times
      Message 2 of 19 , May 19 2:07 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        I think the Vox Iesu was malkutha d'alaha "Kingdom of God" which occurs 5
        times in Matthew while Matthew prefers KOH, yet KOG occurs 15 times in Mark,
        32 times in Luke (same number as KOH in Matt) and 1 time in John. When we
        compare the 32 KOH of Matthew to the 32 KOG of Luke we find them
        interchanged in the same logia such as at Mt 5:3 to Lk 6:20, Matt 11:11 to
        Lk 6:20.

        It has always been my position that the Matthean author spoke only Greek and
        sucked at Aramaic, which is why he screws up the cry from the cross. Luke
        shows evidence of being competent in Aramaic so Luke uses an Aramaic copy of
        Q (which I have also always maintained) and Matthew uses a Greek translation
        of Q of unknown translational accuracy.

        Jack

        Jack Kilmon
        San Antonio, TX



        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mark Goodacre
        Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 10:59 AM
        To: gthomas
        Subject: [GTh] "Kingdom of heaven" in Thomas

        One of the most distinctive Matthean redactional phrases is "kingdom
        of heaven", 32 times in the Gospel, never in Mark, never in Luke or
        Acts, often found in Matthew's redaction of Mark (e.g. Matt. 4.17,
        13.11). The same phrase occurs three times in the Gospel of Thomas,
        twice in parallels to Matthew (Matt. 13.31 R // Thom. 20, Matt. 5.3 QD
        // Thom. 54)** and once on its own (114). One of the criteria usually
        applied in discussions of Thomas's familiarity with the Synoptics is
        the presence (or absence) of Synoptic redactional elements in Thomas.
        Here we seem to have something pretty striking. What I am wondering
        is why so little is made of this example in the literature. Do others
        think that it might be a useful indication of Thomas's familiarity
        with Matthew?

        Best wishes
        Mark

        ** For those unfamiliar with the symbols, R = wording is redactional
        addition to Mark (on the assumption of Marcan Priority); QD = double
        tradition material, wording different from Luke.
        --
        Mark Goodacre
        Duke University
        Department of Religion
        Gray Building / Box 90964
        Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
        Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

        http://www.markgoodacre.org


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

        Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
        Coptic-English translation: http://www.gospel-thomas.net/x_transl.htm
        Related Biblioblogs:
        PEJE IESOUS (Chris Skinner) http://pejeiesous.com
        Judy's Research Blog (Judy Redman) http://judyredman.wordpress.com
        The Forbidden Gospels (April DeConick) http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com
        ------------------------------------
        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • Mark Goodacre
        ... Thanks, Jack. The latter ref. should be Luke 7.28. I think it s really striking just how dominant the phrase is in Matthew given its absence elsewhere.
        Message 3 of 19 , May 19 5:46 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          On 19 May 2011 17:07, Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:

          > I think the Vox Iesu was malkutha d'alaha "Kingdom of God" which occurs 5
          > times in Matthew while Matthew prefers KOH, yet KOG occurs 15 times in Mark,
          > 32 times in Luke (same number as KOH in Matt) and 1 time in John. When we
          > compare the 32 KOH of Matthew to the 32 KOG of Luke we find them
          > interchanged in the same logia such as at Mt 5:3 to Lk 6:20, Matt 11:11 to
          > Lk 6:20.

          Thanks, Jack. The latter ref. should be Luke 7.28. I think it's
          really striking just how dominant the phrase is in Matthew given its
          absence elsewhere. And then here it is again in Thomas, twice in
          parallel to Matthew.

          > It has always been my position that the Matthean author spoke only Greek and
          > sucked at Aramaic, which is why he screws up the cry from the cross. Luke
          > shows evidence of being competent in Aramaic so Luke uses an Aramaic copy of
          > Q (which I have also always maintained) and Matthew uses a Greek translation
          > of Q of unknown translational accuracy.

          I think it is impossible for Luke to be working from an Aramaic copy
          of Q. The verbatim agreement between Matthew and Luke in double
          tradition requires, I think, a written Greek source or a direct link
          between Matthew and Luke.

          Best wishes
          Mark
          --
          Mark Goodacre
          Duke University
          Department of Religion
          Gray Building / Box 90964
          Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
          Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

          http://www.markgoodacre.org
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... From: Mark Goodacre Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 7:46 PM To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [GTh] Kingdom of heaven in Thomas ... Thanks, Jack.
          Message 4 of 19 , May 19 9:48 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Mark Goodacre
            Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 7:46 PM
            To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [GTh] "Kingdom of heaven" in Thomas

            On 19 May 2011 17:07, Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...> wrote:

            > I think the Vox Iesu was malkutha d'alaha "Kingdom of God" which occurs 5
            > times in Matthew while Matthew prefers KOH, yet KOG occurs 15 times in
            > Mark,
            > 32 times in Luke (same number as KOH in Matt) and 1 time in John. When we
            > compare the 32 KOH of Matthew to the 32 KOG of Luke we find them
            > interchanged in the same logia such as at Mt 5:3 to Lk 6:20, Matt 11:11 to
            > Lk 6:20.

            Thanks, Jack. The latter ref. should be Luke 7.28. I think it's
            really striking just how dominant the phrase is in Matthew given its
            absence elsewhere. And then here it is again in Thomas, twice in
            parallel to Matthew.

            JK] I agree, Mark, but I think its because KOH is Matthean redaction.

            > It has always been my position that the Matthean author spoke only Greek
            > and
            > sucked at Aramaic, which is why he screws up the cry from the cross. Luke
            > shows evidence of being competent in Aramaic so Luke uses an Aramaic copy
            > of
            > Q (which I have also always maintained) and Matthew uses a Greek
            > translation
            > of Q of unknown translational accuracy.

            I think it is impossible for Luke to be working from an Aramaic copy
            of Q. The verbatim agreement between Matthew and Luke in double
            tradition requires, I think, a written Greek source or a direct link
            between Matthew and Luke.

            JK] I forgot that we differ on our acceptance of Q but Luke had both
            Matthew and an Aramaic Q, perhaps even an additional Greek copy. Luke sees
            fit to explain the HOBAYN (debt) idiom for "sin" where Matthew did not. I
            think that is significant and again points to an Aramaic Q, IMO.

            wa'SHVAWK lan HOYabaNA hekh dee anakhNA
            and forgive us our sins/debts as we also

            SHVAWKan li'duh-HOYaBEEN lan
            forgive those who sin against us

            How are you liking North Carolina?

            Jack

            Jack Kilmon
            San Antonio, TX


            Best wishes
            Mark
            --
            Mark Goodacre
            Duke University
            Department of Religion
            Gray Building / Box 90964
            Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
            Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

            http://www.markgoodacre.org


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

            Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
            Coptic-English translation: http://www.gospel-thomas.net/x_transl.htm
            Related Biblioblogs:
            PEJE IESOUS (Chris Skinner) http://pejeiesous.com
            Judy's Research Blog (Judy Redman) http://judyredman.wordpress.com
            The Forbidden Gospels (April DeConick) http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com
            ------------------------------------
            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Mark Goodacre
            Thanks, Jack.  I agree that kingdom of heaven is Matthean redaction.  That rather focuses the question when it comes to its use in Thomas. On an Aramaic Q,
            Message 5 of 19 , May 20 12:36 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks, Jack.  I agree that "kingdom of heaven" is Matthean redaction.
               That rather focuses the question when it comes to its use in Thomas.
              On an Aramaic Q, I can see that Q could have been translated from
              Aramaic to Greek, but Matthew and Luke *must* have had access to it in
              Greek given the high verbatim agreement between them in Greek.
              Cheers, Mark
              --
              Mark Goodacre
              Duke University
              Department of Religion
              Gray Building / Box 90964
              Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
              Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

              http://www.markgoodacre.org
            • Jack Kilmon
              Could it have been that malkutha d alaha and malkutha d shemaya were used interchangeably in eschatological literature and exchange? Matthew 19:23 and 24 seem
              Message 6 of 19 , May 20 4:09 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Could it have been that malkutha d'alaha and malkutha d'shemaya were used
                interchangeably in eschatological literature and exchange? Matthew 19:23
                and 24 seem to indicate so. I have maintained that Jesus was steeped in the
                Danielic/Enochian subset given his bar nasha eschatology and Daniel 2:41;
                6:26 and Enoch 41:1 refers, IMO, to the Kingdom of God.

                Best

                Jack

                Jack Kilmon
                San Antonio, TX

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Mark Goodacre
                Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 2:36 PM
                To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [GTh] "Kingdom of heaven" in Thomas

                Thanks, Jack. I agree that "kingdom of heaven" is Matthean redaction.
                That rather focuses the question when it comes to its use in Thomas.
                On an Aramaic Q, I can see that Q could have been translated from
                Aramaic to Greek, but Matthew and Luke *must* have had access to it in
                Greek given the high verbatim agreement between them in Greek.
                Cheers, Mark
                --
                Mark Goodacre
                Duke University
                Department of Religion
                Gray Building / Box 90964
                Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
                Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

                http://www.markgoodacre.org


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

                Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
                Coptic-English translation: http://www.gospel-thomas.net/x_transl.htm
                Related Biblioblogs:
                PEJE IESOUS (Chris Skinner) http://pejeiesous.com
                Judy's Research Blog (Judy Redman) http://judyredman.wordpress.com
                The Forbidden Gospels (April DeConick) http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com
                ------------------------------------
                Yahoo! Groups Links
              • smithandp
                Hi Mark, I d say that more hasn t been made of Thomas use of kingdom of Heaven because Thomas 20 and 54 are in other ways closer to the Markan and Lukan
                Message 7 of 19 , May 23 3:45 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Mark,

                  I'd say that more hasn't been made of Thomas' use of "kingdom of Heaven" because Thomas 20 and 54 are in other ways closer to the Markan and Lukan versions respectively.

                  We might ask how Matthew has come up with his redactional tendency towards "kingdom of heaven". Matthew is unlikely to have invented the term himself as it occurs in rabbinical literature. Patterson suggests (The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, p.27-28) that "kingdom" of Heaven" merely indicates a common Jewish background to both Matt and Thomas. Matthew avoids "kingdom of God" while Thomas avoids "God" completely. GThomas is found of both "kingdom" (mostly commonly by itself) and "heaven/sky" separately and has "kingdon of Heaven" in 114 which has no parallels.

                  Thomas has made a dialogue of the saying, Jesus' response is actually closer to Mark's version, "It is like a mustard seed..."

                  Matthew's parable of the mustard seed is followed by the parable of the leaven, which also occurs in Thomas 96 which is widely separated from the mustard seed in Thomas 20 and uses "kingdom of the father" rather than Matthew's "kingdom of heaven". For Matt. 5.3 Thom. 54/Luke 6:20 apart from the "kingdom of Heaven" Thomas's version is much closer to Luke's. Thus a straightforward literary dependency of Thomas on Matthew, or vice versa, is unlikely.

                  Surely Thomas and Matthew may know of a "kingdom of Heaven" version of the parable of the mustard seed from oral tradition. It may even be Mark who is redacting it to "kingdom of God".

                  Matthew may be redacting other Mark/Q sayings to "kingdom of Heaven" because he knows the phrase is used in oral tradition in other Jesus sayings.

                  If you appeal to secondary orality then, as Steve Davies points out, it's just as likely that Matthew is getting "kingdom of Heaven" from Thomas as it is that Thomas is getting it from Matthew.

                  Best Wishes,

                  Andrew



                  --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, Mark Goodacre <Goodacre@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > One of the most distinctive Matthean redactional phrases is "kingdom
                  > of heaven", 32 times in the Gospel, never in Mark, never in Luke or
                  > Acts, often found in Matthew's redaction of Mark (e.g. Matt. 4.17,
                  > 13.11). The same phrase occurs three times in the Gospel of Thomas,
                  > twice in parallels to Matthew (Matt. 13.31 R // Thom. 20, Matt. 5.3 QD
                  > // Thom. 54)** and once on its own (114). One of the criteria usually
                  > applied in discussions of Thomas's familiarity with the Synoptics is
                  > the presence (or absence) of Synoptic redactional elements in Thomas.
                  > Here we seem to have something pretty striking. What I am wondering
                  > is why so little is made of this example in the literature. Do others
                  > think that it might be a useful indication of Thomas's familiarity
                  > with Matthew?
                  >
                  > Best wishes
                  > Mark
                  >
                  > ** For those unfamiliar with the symbols, R = wording is redactional
                  > addition to Mark (on the assumption of Marcan Priority); QD = double
                  > tradition material, wording different from Luke.
                  > --
                  > Mark Goodacre
                  > Duke University
                  > Department of Religion
                  > Gray Building / Box 90964
                  > Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
                  > Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530
                  >
                  > http://www.markgoodacre.org
                  >
                • Mark Goodacre
                  Hi Andrew, Thanks for your helpful comments. I agree that Thom. 54 is a little closer to Luke in the main. I argued in Case Against Q that Thomas is
                  Message 8 of 19 , May 23 5:52 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Andrew,

                    Thanks for your helpful comments.   I agree that Thom. 54 is a little closer to Luke in the main.  I argued in Case Against Q that Thomas is familiar with the Lucan version.  I must admit that at that time I had not seen so clearly that Luke might also be influenced by the Matthean version too.  I also agree that there are elements with parallels to Luke and Mark in Thom. 20.  

                    I think there is a tendency, though, to play down "kingdom of heaven" as a Mattheanism.  It is in Matthew alone in the early Christian tradition -- not in Paul, not in Hebrews or Revelation.  In Christian works, it only starts to come in in the second century, in Justin Martyr and the Pseudo-Clementinesm perhaps under the influence of Matthew.  Although it is often stated that Matthew might have taken this over from Jewish tradition, the phrase is in fact absent from the Old Testament, the apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls and so on.  Our first known usage of it is in Matthew's Gospel, where it occurs 32 times, frequently in redactional changes to Mark.

                    Patterson's suggestion that Thomas avoids "kingdom of God" language is a symptom of what one might call the Coptic priority fallacy.  P.Oxy. 1 (Thom. 27) has kingdom of God, and P.Oxy. 654 (Thom. 3) may have it too.  And even if Thomas is trying to avoid "kingdom of God", there are plenty of other options that he uses elsewhere, kingdom, kingdom of the father etc.  

                    Cheers
                    Mark
                    --
                    Mark Goodacre           
                    Duke University
                    Department of Religion
                    Gray Building / Box 90964
                    Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
                    Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

                    http://www.markgoodacre.org


                  • Stephen Carlson
                    ... It s also not in Q. ;-) Stephen -- Stephen C. Carlson Graduate Program in Religion Duke University
                    Message 9 of 19 , May 23 6:11 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Mark Goodacre <Goodacre@...> wrote:
                      I think there is a tendency, though, to play down "kingdom of heaven" as a Mattheanism.  It is in Matthew alone in the early Christian tradition -- not in Paul, not in Hebrews or Revelation.  In Christian works, it only starts to come in in the second century, in Justin Martyr and the Pseudo-Clementinesm perhaps under the influence of Matthew.  Although it is often stated that Matthew might have taken this over from Jewish tradition, the phrase is in fact absent from the Old Testament, the apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls and so on.  Our first known usage of it is in Matthew's Gospel, where it occurs 32 times, frequently in redactional changes to Mark.

                      It's also not in Q. ;-)

                      Stephen
                      --
                      Stephen C. Carlson
                      Graduate Program in Religion
                      Duke University
                    • Mark Goodacre
                      ... How could I have forgotten that? :-) That s quite right, of course. It never appears in the Critical Text. Where it occurs in the double tradition, the
                      Message 10 of 19 , May 23 6:15 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 23 May 2011 21:11, Stephen Carlson <stemmatic@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Mark Goodacre <Goodacre@...> wrote:
                        >>
                        >> I think there is a tendency, though, to play down "kingdom of heaven" as a Mattheanism.  It is in Matthew alone in the early Christian tradition -- not in Paul, not in Hebrews or Revelation.  In Christian works, it only starts to come in in the second century, in Justin Martyr and the Pseudo-Clementinesm perhaps under the influence of Matthew.  Although it is often stated that Matthew might have taken this over from Jewish tradition, the phrase is in fact absent from the Old Testament, the apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls and so on.  Our first known usage of it is in Matthew's Gospel, where it occurs 32 times, frequently in redactional changes to Mark.
                        >
                        > It's also not in Q. ;-)

                        How could I have forgotten that? :-)

                        That's quite right, of course. It never appears in the Critical Text.
                        Where it occurs in the double tradition, the IQP always give
                        preference to the Lucan parallel. (For Q sceptics, this is what is
                        known as the Matthean Vocabulary Fallacy, but that's a story for
                        another day).

                        Mark
                        --
                        Mark Goodacre
                        Duke University
                        Department of Religion
                        Gray Building / Box 90964
                        Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
                        Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

                        http://www.markgoodacre.org
                      • smithandp
                        Hi Mark, That s an excellent point about the Coptic priority fallacy. However the divergence between P.Oxy. 1 and Coptic Thomas 27 underlines that, whether
                        Message 11 of 19 , May 24 2:56 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Mark,

                          That's an excellent point about the Coptic priority fallacy. However the divergence between P.Oxy. 1 and Coptic Thomas 27 underlines that, whether "kingdom of Heaven" or "kingdom of the Father" was more original to Thomas 27, there's textual corruption in Thomas and hence we have the complication of knowledge of the synoptics, or other factors, influencing a scribe at the stage of translation or elsewhere in transmission. A "kingdom of Heaven" version of the parable of the mustard seed seems more memorable to me because of the birds of Heaven in the branches of the mustard tree, even if "Heaven" is plural in the former and singular in the latter in both Greek and Coptic.


                          I've always felt that Thomas is at a disadvantage as a Johnny-come-lately to the game. There's an awful lot of scholarship about synoptic relationships and dating, forming a relative consensus, but relatively little about Thomas, and no consensus. So Thomas scholarship has to fit itself around the synoptics. For instance, in commenting that "kingdom of Heaven" is "is in Matthew alone in the early Christian tradition" you've already ruled out the possibility of Thomas's use of it preceding Matthew's or even being more or less contemporaneous and independent.

                          "Kingdom of Heaven" occurs in the Mishnah, and is attributed to Gamaliel, a first century figure. Unless you want to propose that later rabbinical use of "kingdom of Heaven" derives from Christian usage, and hence from the Gospel of Matthew (which is obviously a possibility) or that later rabbis came up with it independently (which they may have) you have to allow that the phrase may have been circulating in pharisaic/rabbinical circles in the first century, from whence Matthew may have appropriated it, and Thomas too.

                          Best Wishes,

                          Andrew

                          --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, Mark Goodacre <Goodacre@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Hi Andrew,
                          >
                          > Thanks for your helpful comments. I agree that Thom. 54 is a little closer
                          > to Luke in the main. I argued in Case Against Q that Thomas is familiar
                          > with the Lucan version. I must admit that at that time I had not seen so
                          > clearly that Luke might also be influenced by the Matthean version too. I
                          > also agree that there are elements with parallels to Luke and Mark in Thom.
                          > 20.
                          >
                          > I think there is a tendency, though, to play down "kingdom of heaven" as a
                          > Mattheanism. It is in Matthew alone in the early Christian tradition -- not
                          > in Paul, not in Hebrews or Revelation. In Christian works, it only starts
                          > to come in in the second century, in Justin Martyr and the
                          > Pseudo-Clementinesm perhaps under the influence of Matthew. Although it is
                          > often stated that Matthew might have taken this over from Jewish tradition,
                          > the phrase is in fact absent from the Old Testament, the apocrypha, the
                          > Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls and so on. Our first known usage of it
                          > is in Matthew's Gospel, where it occurs 32 times, frequently in redactional
                          > changes to Mark.
                          >
                          > Patterson's suggestion that Thomas avoids "kingdom of God" language is a
                          > symptom of what one might call the Coptic priority fallacy. P.Oxy. 1 (Thom.
                          > 27) has kingdom of God, and P.Oxy. 654 (Thom. 3) may have it too. And even
                          > if Thomas is trying to avoid "kingdom of God", there are plenty of other
                          > options that he uses elsewhere, kingdom, kingdom of the father etc.
                          >
                          > Cheers
                          > Mark
                          > --
                          > Mark Goodacre
                          > Duke University
                          > Department of Religion
                          > Gray Building / Box 90964
                          > Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
                          > Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530
                          >
                          > http://www.markgoodacre.org
                          >
                        • M.W. Grondin
                          Hi Mark, Andrew, et al: I ve enjoyed reading this discussion. The only thing I would have to add is that to my mind the reference to Matthew in Th13 appears to
                          Message 12 of 19 , May 24 12:46 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Mark, Andrew, et al:
                            I've enjoyed reading this discussion. The only thing I would have to add is that to
                            my mind the reference to Matthew in Th13 appears to indicate that at some point in
                            its development, GTh became aware of GMt at some point in its development. Others
                            may wish to push the point further, but beyond that the evidence seems inconclusive.
                             
                            A couple of points in Andrew's notes:
                            > ... the divergence between P.Oxy. 1 and Coptic Thomas 27 underlines
                            that, whether
                            > "kingdom of Heaven" or "kingdom of the Father" was more original
                            to Thomas 27...
                             
                            I think you meant L20 (as immediately preceding remarks indicate). L27 has neither of
                            the phrases in question.
                             
                            > A "kingdom of Heaven" version of the parable of the mustard seed
                            seems more memorable
                            > to me because of the birds of Heaven in the branches of the
                            mustard tree, even if "Heaven"
                            > is plural in the former and singular in the latter in both Greek
                            and Coptic.
                             
                            Not sure what 'former' and 'latter' are in this context, but the Coptic text uses the plural
                            'kingdom of the heavens' in all three occurrences. I seem to recall someone saying that
                            GMt uses the plural also, but I can't locate that at the moment.
                             
                            Also: CGTh doesn't avoid 'god' completely. See http://www.gospel-thomas.net/htmfiles/god.htm
                            Best,
                            Mike G.
                          • smithandp
                            ... No, it was the right reference, pointed out originally by Mark, but I glanced at Valantasis translation which glosses it as the
                            Message 13 of 19 , May 24 1:22 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "M.W. Grondin" <mwgrondin@...> wrote:

                              >
                              > A couple of points in Andrew's notes:
                              > > ... the divergence between P.Oxy. 1 and Coptic Thomas 27 underlines that, whether
                              > > "kingdom of Heaven" or "kingdom of the Father" was more original to Thomas 27...
                              >
                              > I think you meant L20 (as immediately preceding remarks indicate). L27 has neither of
                              > the phrases in question.

                              No, it was the right reference, pointed out originally by Mark, but I glanced at Valantasis' translation which glosses it as "the <father's domain", and assumed that "<father>" was a lacuna, but as you point out isn't in Coptic Thomas 27. The pOxy 1 version has "kingdom of God".

                              >
                              > > A "kingdom of Heaven" version of the parable of the mustard seed seems more memorable
                              > > to me because of the birds of Heaven in the branches of the mustard tree, even if "Heaven"
                              > > is plural in the former and singular in the latter in both Greek and Coptic.
                              >
                              > Not sure what 'former' and 'latter' are in this context, but the Coptic text uses the plural
                              > 'kingdom of the heavens' in all three occurrences. I seem to recall someone saying that
                              > GMt uses the plural also, but I can't locate that at the moment.
                              > Ref: http://www.gospel-thomas.net/htmfiles/kingdom.htm
                              >

                              By latter I meant "heaven/sky" in "the birds of the sky/heaven". I was suggesting that the reference to Heaven in "birds of heaven/sky" might have prompted the "kingdom of Heaven" usage at the beginning.
                              > Also: CGTh doesn't avoid 'god' completely. See http://www.gospel-thomas.net/htmfiles/god.htm

                              Good point, particularly in Thom 100. These fellas are never consistent! I love the way that in the parable of the two sons, Matt 21:28–32, which is special Matthew, Matthew uses "kingdom of God" not "kingdom of Heaven".

                              Best Wishes,

                              Andrew

                              > Best,
                              > Mike G.
                              >
                            • Mark Goodacre
                              ... Thanks, Andrew. On Logion 27, the choice we have is Kingdom vs. Kingdom of God, but I take the general point about being aware of issue of textual
                              Message 14 of 19 , May 24 8:59 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 24 May 2011 05:56, smithandp <andrew@...> wrote:

                                > That's an excellent point about the Coptic priority fallacy. However the divergence between P.Oxy. 1 and Coptic Thomas 27 underlines that, whether "kingdom of Heaven" or "kingdom of the Father" was more original to Thomas 27, there's textual corruption in Thomas and hence we have the complication of knowledge of the synoptics, or other factors, influencing a scribe at the stage of translation or elsewhere in transmission. A "kingdom of Heaven" version of the parable of the mustard seed seems more memorable to me because of the birds of Heaven in the branches of the mustard tree, even if "Heaven" is plural in the former and singular in the latter in both Greek and Coptic.

                                Thanks, Andrew. On Logion 27, the choice we have is Kingdom vs.
                                Kingdom of God, but I take the general point about being aware of
                                issue of textual corruption. Of course textual corruption could occur
                                in both away from as well as towards the Synoptic texts, though, so it
                                does not help us a great deal in speculating about what may have been
                                present in the now non-extant witnesses. You make a good point about
                                the Kingdom of the heavens / birds of the sky, a link also present in
                                Matthew.

                                > I've always felt that Thomas is at a disadvantage as a Johnny-come-lately to the game. There's an awful lot of scholarship about synoptic relationships and dating, forming a relative consensus, but relatively little about Thomas, and no consensus. So Thomas scholarship has to fit itself around the synoptics. For instance, in commenting that "kingdom of Heaven" is "is in Matthew alone in the early Christian tradition" you've already ruled out the possibility of Thomas's use of it preceding Matthew's or even being more or less contemporaneous and independent.

                                The point you make is an extension of the general point about
                                canonical bias and it is well taken. However, I think it's easy to
                                underestimate just how pervasive a concept kingdom of heaven is in
                                Matthew -- it's driven all the way through Matthew and seems to be a
                                key element in the evangelist's thought. Given the absence of the
                                term in other early Christian texts, it seems more likely, on balance,
                                that the flow is from Matthew to Thomas and not vice versa.

                                > "Kingdom of Heaven" occurs in the Mishnah, and is attributed to Gamaliel, a first century figure. Unless you want to propose that later rabbinical use of "kingdom of Heaven" derives from Christian usage, and hence from the Gospel of Matthew (which is obviously a possibility) or that later rabbis came up with it independently (which they may have) you have to allow that the phrase may have been circulating in pharisaic/rabbinical circles in the first century, from whence Matthew may have appropriated it, and Thomas too.

                                Good points. Few creations are truly ex nihilo, though, and even if
                                the Mishnah witnesses to precedents for the usage of the term, we
                                still have to reckon with the theme as a pervasive Matthean
                                redactional interest.

                                All best
                                Mark
                                --
                                Mark Goodacre
                                Duke University
                                Department of Religion
                                Gray Building / Box 90964
                                Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
                                Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

                                http://www.markgoodacre.org
                              • Mark Goodacre
                                Thanks, Mike. Yes, Matthew s usage is always plural -- kingdom of the heavens. The fact that he does often have God in his gospel urges caution about the
                                Message 15 of 19 , May 24 9:02 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Thanks, Mike.  Yes, Matthew's usage is always plural -- kingdom of the heavens.  The fact that he does often have "God" in his gospel urges caution about the traditional argument that Matthew uses "kingdom of the heavens" as a reverential circumlocution for "kingdom of God".  There's an excellent study of the issue in Matthew by Jonathan Pennington, _Heaven and Earth_, which I found informative.  All best, Mark
                                  --
                                  Mark Goodacre           
                                  Duke University
                                  Department of Religion
                                  Gray Building / Box 90964
                                  Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
                                  Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

                                  http://www.markgoodacre.org


                                • M.W. Grondin
                                  ... I see that Valantasis used the so-called Scholar s Version , which of course was the creation of Meyer and Patterson within the Jesus Seminar. Valantasis
                                  Message 16 of 19 , May 24 9:35 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    [Andrew S.]:
                                    > ... I glanced at Valantasis' translation which glosses it as "the
                                    <father's> domain",
                                    > and assumed that "<father>" was a lacuna, but as you point
                                    out [it] isn't in Coptic
                                    > Thomas 27. The pOxy 1 version has "kingdom of God".
                                     
                                    I see that Valantasis used the so-called "Scholar's Version", which of course
                                    was the creation of Meyer and Patterson within the Jesus Seminar. Valantasis
                                    explains the pointed brackets as indicating "a word implied in the original language
                                    and supplied by the translators of the Scholars Version".
                                     
                                    Of course, if the JSem had used the word 'kingdom', there would have been no need
                                    for adding "<Father's>". But since they used the unfamilar language of 'domain' (or
                                    'imperial rule') instead of 'kingdom', they then had to add something to the unfamiliar
                                    locutions to make sense of them when they appear in the subject texts without a qualifier. 
                                    So in all 12 cases where the Coptic text has simply 'kingdom', the SV (and hence Valantasis)
                                    has either '<Father's> domain' or '<Father's> imperial rule'. Pretty ugly, IMO - and in
                                    this case (where we're interested in the exact wording), downright misleading.
                                     
                                    Best wishes,
                                    Mike G.
                                  • sarban
                                    ... From: M.W. Grondin To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Kingdom of heaven in Thomas Hi Mark, Andrew, et
                                    Message 17 of 19 , May 25 12:32 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                       
                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:46 PM
                                      Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: "Kingdom of heaven" in Thomas

                                       

                                      Hi Mark, Andrew, et al:
                                      I've enjoyed reading this discussion.
                                       
                                      <SNIP>
                                       
                                       
                                      Also: CGTh doesn't avoid 'god' completely. See http://www.gospel-thomas.net/htmfiles/god.htm
                                      Best,
                                      Mike G.

                                       

                                      Hi Mike

                                      The references in CGTh are rather ambiguous.

                                      It is not clear (at least to me) whether God in CGTh refers to the Heavenly Father of Jesus or to some other being eg the demiurge.

                                       

                                      Andrew Criddle 

                                    • Mike Grondin
                                      ... Yes, I agree that this is an open question. In L30.1, the definite article isn t used, and for that and other reasons, I don t know what to make of it. On
                                      Message 18 of 19 , May 25 11:52 PM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        [Andrew C.]:
                                        > The references in CGTh are rather ambiguous. It is not clear (at least to me) whether God
                                        > in CGTh refers to the Heavenly Father of Jesus or to some other being eg the demiurge.
                                         
                                        Yes, I agree that this is an open question. In L30.1, the definite article isn't used, and for
                                        that and other reasons, I don't know what to make of it. On the interpretation you suggest,
                                        though, it would appear to be good to be "one or two" but not good to be "three", which
                                        seems a mite odd, but perhaps that could be worked out. As to L100.3, the definite
                                        article is used there (thus big-G 'God'), and the suggested interpretation would make sense
                                        of the addition of the non-canonical "give me what's mine" clause (100.4), which is in its
                                        favor, but I'm rather intrigued with the fact that if the clause is removed, it leaves a
                                        symmetrical structure of 4 lines totalling 100 letters. Of course, it could be just a coincidence
                                        that L100 would be reducible to a 100-letter structure with the removal of the non-canonical
                                        portion, but given the design of the prologue and other features, I have to wonder if it was.
                                         
                                        Be that as it may, I should point out for our readers, that you aren't the Andrew who has so far
                                        contributed to this thread. We have in fact three prominent Andrews on our list: yourself and
                                        Andrew Bernhard are moderators and bloggers (in your case, a contributor to Stephen Carlson's
                                        blog), while Andrew Phillip Smith (the "Andrew" who has participated up to this point) is also
                                        well-known here as a publisher and blogger widely-versed in gnosticism.
                                         
                                        I should also mention that I've changed a folder name at my site. The sublogia-display  for
                                        the word 'god', e.g., is now http://www.gospel-thomas.net/keywords/god.htm
                                        (It was previously 'htmfiles' instead of 'keywords'). The main directory (which is slowly
                                        nearing completion) is still http://www.gospel-thomas.net/keywords.htm
                                         
                                        Best wishes,
                                        Mike Grondin
                                      • steve
                                        I had always interpreted this extra bit [in L100] over and above the other versions as a request for the reader s support in his opposition to the romans and
                                        Message 19 of 19 , May 26 12:07 AM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I had always interpreted this "extra" bit [in L100] over and above the other versions as a request for the reader's support in his opposition to the romans and the Sanhedrin. Remember, Jesus was regarded as a heretic of the Jewish faith.

                                          [Steve Oxbrow]
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.