(12 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5)
Loading...A number of blog members over the years have asked about Thomas’s relation to the Synoptic Gospels and the famous Q source — that is, the lost source that both Matthew and Luke used for many of their sayings of Jesus not found in Mark (called Q from the German word Quelle, which means “source”). Here is what I say about those issues in my textbook: The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford University Press).
******************************
Thomas and the Q Source. The Gospel of Thomas, with its list of the sayings of Jesus (but no narratives) reminds many scholars of the Q source. Some have maintained that Q was also composed entirely of the sayings of Jesus and that the community for whom it was written was not concerned about Jesus’ activities and experiences, including his death on the cross. If they are right, then something like Thomas’s community was already in existence prior to the writing of the New Testament Gospels.
Many other scholars, on the other hand, have their doubts. For one thing, it is not true that Q contained no narratives. As we have seen, two of them survive: the temptation of Jesus and the healing of the centurion’s son. How many others did Q narrate? Unfortunately, despite the extravagant claims of some scholars, we simply cannot know. Even more unfortunately, we cannot know whether the Q source contained a Passion narrative, even though scholars commonly claim that it did not. The reality is that our only access to Q is through the agreements of Matthew and Luke in stories not found in Mark. True, Matthew and Luke do not agree in their Passion narratives when they differ from Mark. Does this mean that Q did not have a Passion narrative? Not necessarily. It could mean that when either Matthew or Luke differs from Mark in the Passion narrative, one account was taken from Q and the other was drawn from Mark. Or it could mean that Matthew or Luke, or both, occasionally utilized their other traditions (M and L, respectively) for their account of Jesus’ Passion, rather than Q.
There is at least one stark difference between Q and Thomas,
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
What about possible Buddhist influence in the Gospel of Thomas?
Some people (scholars) have suggested it. My view is that it is much more difficult to explain historically than the most common view that there are elements of mystical, ascetic, middle-platonic thought behind it.
Hello Prof
I am a (very) new member of this illustrious group of well-informed people. I have a quick question (slightly off-topic) Paul suggested in 2 Tim 3v16 that …” All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” Given that this epistle was allegedly written circa 65-67 AD Wouldn’t this assertion exclude any and all other NT writings including Marks (the first) gospel written which was circa 70AD. Furthermore, ALL of his own offerings AFTER this date?
I will appreciate any comment you and others can offer as many (if not all) of my former church believe it refers to EVERY word between the pages of the published bible!
Yes, the author is clearly talking about the Hebrew scriptures, not the writings of the New Testament.
Would this be another passage that was “inserted” by scribes?
Sorry, I don’t know what comment you’re responding to, so I’m not sure which passage you mean. (I don’t see the comment you’re commenting on when I make replies.)
I take it that either i have posted in the wrong place OR the moderator is on holiday 0:))
The moderator is NOT the messiah; he’s a very naughty boy. (c’est moi)
Dr. Ehrman, I’ve seen it suggested that Thomas was a living collection which was added to over time and that some of the additions were probably relatively late. Is it feasible that Thomas and Q started out as the same or a similar collection of sayings? In this scenario there would have been a common collection of (written) sayings which in one location grew to become the Q of the gospels and in another continued to grow to become Thomas. Likewise, if we assume that Thomas was changed and added to over time, isn’t it likely to assume the same would have been true of Q?
That’s been bandied about a bit, but it almost certainly isn’t the case. They appear simply to have been different collections of Jesus’ teachings with different purposes and different slants. But it’s a very interesting question about how Thomas came together and through what stages. Thirty years ago or so scholars strarted arguing that Q had done the same, but there it’s an even trickier (impossible!) matter to demonstrate, since we don’t HAVE Q, and so even though we might have a good sense of what was in it, we have no idea what was not in it, if you see what I mean.
““Can a blind person guide a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit?””
I thought hard of this parable & felt bias. As 2 blind folks would benefit each other with their experiences.
Similarities with Buddhism aside, collectively the 114 sayings in Thomas clearly manifest a more transcendental, platonic eschatology than what eventually became orthodox doctrine — arguably leaving little place (or need) for the worldly intervention of a divine “Son of Man” figure. But doesn’t deducing that “Thomas *denies* the future coming of the Son of Man in judgment upon the earth” overstate the case?
Also, while debating the inferred contents of a hypothetical source seems to me about as fruitful as attempting to quantify the number of angels who can dance on the head of a scholar 😉, I suspect that those who venture the “if Q was like Thomas,” premise are merely referring to the format of both as collections as disconnected pericopes of mostly individual sayings (with, perhaps, a smattering of brief anecdotes) that lack any larger, narrative structure. Wouldn’t this less sweeping supposition have no bearing on the presence or absence of apocalyptic elements?
I’d say saying 3 and 113 are directed against a future kingdom of God on earth (as to other sayings). And I’d say the form of the writing could indeed be significant theologically, less on teh apocalyptic character of the writing than on its soteriological views (sayings instead of deeds leading to death and resurrection)
What you state in your final paragraph about Jesus’ sayings in GofT going back to what Jesus actually said… are there any writers you’d recommend which elaborate on why they think this who have maybe also interpreted GofT and push this argument?
You might look at John Dominic Crossan’s work as a start (or just look it up online)
Confidence in the authenticity of the sayings in Thomas turns (IMHO, at least) not so much on its coincidence with the synoptics as in the independent attestation —and potential clarification — both sources provide one another.
WRT the pericopes you mention, we already had the Parable of the Mustard Seed in both Mark and Q. But prior to the fortuitous recovery of Thomas, the Parable of the Net was found only in Matthew, the Blind Leaders of the Blind aphorism only in Q. (Regrettably, nothing here advances our understanding.)
Should the anecdote about the exchange Jesus had with Pharisees on the “Coming of the Kingdom” — unique to Luke (Lk 17:20-21) in the canon — make the list of pericopes that are independently attested by Thomas?
Sayings 3 and 113 clearly teach the same lesson (the latter in essentially identical words!) about the futility of searching this physical realm for a spiritual kingdom. The saying “My kingdom is not of this world” in John, though not paralleled in Thomas, certainly fits within its gestalt.
Do you think the answer Jesus gave the Pharisees in the anecdote recounted in Luke 17 was also the source for Thomas sayings 3 and 113?
Yes, that would be an independent attestation. I don’t think Luke was a source for Thomas, but a similar idea was almost certainly in wide circulation (and became a dominant one!)
Unlike the Q/Mark parable or the M parable and aphorism, the “Coming of the Kingdom” anecdote that is unique to L cries out for clarification — specifically *because* it could reflect the Gnostic soteriology of Thomas.
As I understand it, the difficulty arises from the single word — ἐντὸς — that happens to be ambiguous in Greek (making it doubly, ‘lost in translation’ perilous, given that Luke is already once-removed from the original Aramaic. 😖)
I believe the word more typically means “within” or “inside,” though context can suggest “among” or “amidst” (if you’ll excuse the convenient, but archaic, English of the latter. 😎)
The orthodox preference for translating the word as the self-referential and self-aggrandizing “among/amidst,” rather than the inherently individual and personally responsible “within/inside,” is understandable. Church doctrine apologists would obviously wish to preempt any Gnostic implications in *where* Jesus said one should seek “the kingdom of God.” Indeed, the orthodox soteriology is reflected in *all* popular translations (with the notable exception of the KJV/NKJV — which actually inserted yet another link into the translation daisy chain! 😳.)
But as my go-to source for an *objective* analysis of scripture, why do you, professor, embrace this strained reading?
In large part because it makes no sense for Jesus to tell his arch-enemies that they themselves are the ones who experience God ruling within them.
Interpreting ἐντὸς to mean “among” or “in your midst” is obviously more commodious to orthodox, “Substitutionary Atonement” doctrine than the arguably incompatible “within” or “inside” reading.
However, deducing that Jesus was saying the Kingdom of God is to be found in himself only makes sense from a post hoc, Christian perspective. How would (or could) the Pharisees who actually heard him give this answer at the time, i.e., *during* his ministry, have been anything other than perplexed by it?
While “the kingdom of God is within you” would have been a perfectly comprehensible reply to Pharisees in 30 CE., does the claim that “the kingdom of God is in your midst” make any kind of sense to anyone *other* than retrospecting Christians?
It seems to me that this reach to the secondary meaning of an ambiguous word strains plausibility to the breaking point.
But that aside, and notwithstanding its greater popularity, doesn’t the “in your midst” translation run head-on into the criterion of contextual credibility?
If we are asking “did Jesus really say that,” then possibly. But since Jesus thought that the Kingdom of God was like a mustard seed with a small beginning, presumably in his ministry and the lives of those who began to implement its ideals, than no, not necessarly. I think “inside of you” would have more trouble with contextual credibility. But te question I thought we were asking though was what does the verse mean for Luke decades later — a completley different issue for which the criteria for teh historical Jesus do not directly apply.disabledupes{865cd159f6969959b7e3296ee7f6f446}disabledupes
The only thing I’m *ever* asking is: “Did Jesus really say that?”
His metaphorical mustard seed (surely authentic) is both powerfully insightful and IMHO actually reinforces ἐντὸς in Luke’s pericope as meaning: “within.”
If the Kingdom of God is something that has a small beginning, but grows to become the largest plant in the garden of one’s life, this tiny “seed” perforce won’t be found “over here” or “over there” or “in the sky” or “in the sea,” nor even in some “Holy of Holies” sanctuary in a temple or church — simply because it isn’t a physical place or thing “to be observed.”
Jesus was saying that the Kingdom of God is a *state of being* that each of us can only find “within” ourselves — a “pearl of great price” that brings joy, like that of a poor woman who finds her lost coin, and becomes the very purpose of a transformed life!
But we see (and hear) Jesus though very different filters. You see an Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. I see a divine emissary who brought the Word of God into this world “so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.” 😇
That’s fine. But it’s not your original question/conversation. We were talking about what Luke 17 meant.
I wasn’t abandoning the original question/conversation about what Luke 17 meant. I was merely answering your objection that reading it as “the Kingdom of God is within you” would be incompatible with the rest of Jesus’ teachings generally, and making the point that IMHO this translation is entirely consonant with his Parable of the Mustard Seed specifically — the particular example you cited.
Further, it seems to me that the alternative, “the Kingdom of God is in your midst” reading not only smacks of an orthodox corruption of scripture (🤗), but presupposes the self-aggrandizing, “I am” Jesus that we didn’t get until John.
Does Luke give us any other so deific a portrayal of Jesus (*during* his teaching ministry, that is, and aside from suspiciously retrofitting predictions of his execution and exaltation) elsewhere in his narrative?
Either way, how do you reconcile this appearance of John’s self-aware, “God Incarnate” Jesus in one of the synoptics?
By saying that the Kingdom is in your midst Jesus is not declaring that he is God incarnate. He is saying that those who have begun to implement his teachings have a foretaste of what the kingdom will be like when it coes in power.
Of course, every “Did Jesus really say that?” question begins with the reliability of the author who transcribed the last “telephone game” VM.
WRT where Jesus said we should look for the Kingdom of God, the only source in the canon is this two-verse pericope in Luke.
Even assuming the author had no distorting, theological agenda (a wont that spin-doctor Matthew did little to conceal), but earnestly strove for accuracy, his use of a word at so crucial a point that he must have known was ambiguous doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in his competence as a wordsmith.
So it seemed worth checking for other instances of ἐντὸς in the canon.
This is your wheelhouse, not mine. But I could find only one — Mt: 23:25 — a more testy exchange Jesus had with form-over-substance Pharisees (in this case concerning their obsession with ritual purity.)
Although ἐντὸς in Matthew’s pericope clearly means “within/inside” — in *every* translation — this is, of course, a different author. Further, the context in which it occurs eliminates any potential ambiguity. So it seems the only other time the word appears in the canonical gospels is unhelpful.
(But FWIW Jerome agrees with me. Got any saints on your side? 😉)
But wait! Jesus castigating Pharisees who are fastidiousness about ritually cleansing “the outside of the cup and of the plate, but ἐντὸς they are full of greed and self-indulgence” (Mt 23:25) also appears in Mark (Mk 7:1-9).
Unfortunately, Matthew recounts the apposite point about ritual ablutions as part of his recitation of Pharisaic “Woes” — *sans* the outside-versus-inside comparison/contrast — leaving Mark also unhelpful WRT translating ἐντὸς.
But wait, wait! 😵 It appears Matthew got this clever line from Q. So what does Luke’s version (Lk 11:39) say?
That author uses a different, presumably less ambiguous, word here: ἔσωθεν. This prompts the intriguing (albeit unresolvable) question of which author was faithful to their Q source.
Since ἐντὸς and ἔσωθεν are, I assume, the Greek equivalent of what we call “synonyms,” and in view of a point you have made WRT other scribal alterations that require a choice between more and less difficult readings, it seems prudent to rely on Luke.
Although it’s hard to imagine what purpose Matthew thought was served by using an ambiguous word here, he is undeniably the author who elsewhere showed no qualms at all about rewriting his sources.
But I’m just a speculating amateur. What say you, professor? 🤔
I’m not sure you’re arguing. Are you saying that if Luke uses a word he will always mean the same thing by it?
No. I was merely looking for *other* instances of ἐντὸς to see how the word is used — hoping this might shed some light on how to correctly translate Lk 17:21.
But this is the *only* instance in which Luke used that word, making moot the question of whether he might elsewhere have clearly intended one meaning or the other.
In fact the only other occurrence of ἐντὸς I could find *anywhere* in the canonical gospels is Mt 23:25. In that instance the author unmistakably uses it in the “within/inside” sense.
This in turn got me wondering about other pericopes where the concept of “within/inside” is an essential element, and whether or not the original Greek word used is one that cannot be misconstrued.
The first candidate that occurred was Mark’s anecdote about the contentious exchange Jesus had with Pharisees on this ritual ablution issue in Mark 7, assuming (incorrectly, as it turns out) that had been Matthew’s source for the pointed shot Jesus took at Pharisees for their form-over-substance fastidiousness about what is “outside” while ignoring what is “within/inside.”
[To avoid running afoul of blog rules and not (yet again! 😕) become confusingly cryptic, this must, regrettably, be: cont.]
I think we probably should just drop this here. A detailed exegeticql discussion that would probalby go on for another month between the two of us may not be the best use of the comments’ back-and-forths. Have you read the scholarly discussions of the matter? My sense is that different scholars take one view or the other.
It turns out that if Matthew copied Mark, he eliminated the context and simply made this Pharisee obliviousness into one of his litany of their many “Woes.” But it appears he actually “borrowed” (🙄) the clever outside/inside jibe from Q.
The good news is that it provides independent attestation for a kerfuffle between Jesus and Pharisees on the ritual ablution issue. The bad news is that since the specific quip wasn’t mentioned by Mark, that author didn’t have occasion to use ἐντὸς — or any other Greek word — to convey “within/inside.” No help on that. The additional good news, however, is that since Matthew got the line from Q, we can look to see how his fellow plagiarist rendered the line in Greek.
It turns out, Luke didn’t use ἐντὸς here, but instead, the word: ἔσωθεν. 🤔 (Experience suggests that it was probably Luke who simply preserved Q — but I assume we’ll never know which, if either, accurately plagiarized his source.)
Now I must, once again, call on your expertise, professor. Does the word ἔσωθεν *unambiguously* convey a “within/inside” meaning?
If so, what purpose could Matthew have thought served by replacing it with the (at least potentially) ambiguous word: ἐντὸς?
’Tis the season to deck the halls with sturm und drang over Matthew’s ill-advised reliance on the septuagint in his quest for Jewish prophecy to validate Jesus’ messianic bona fides.
But it seems to me that translation obstacles to being definitive about the preconception condition of Mary’s hymen is much ado about nothing — at least, when compared with the importance of whether or not Jesus told the Pharisees (and by extension the rest of us) to seek the Kingdom of God “within” themselves.
If he, instead, told his interlocutors that they were failing to recognize that it was HE — the itinerant rabbi who was standing “in your midst” — who was the living manifestation of the Kingdom of God, wouldn’t that be a bit more momentous a distinction than whether or not Joseph had a disappointing wedding night?
In any event, best wishes to you and yours, professor, for a happy Christmas and a merry New Year! 😇
My guess is that most Christians are more interested in the Virgin birth than the interpretation of a preposition. 🙂
As someone who doesn’t know the difference between ἐντὸς and ἔσωθεν, I am clearly wading into scholarly waters that are well out of my depth. I certainly don’t want to waste your limited time on an effort to pull me to higher ground that has already been well-trodden by you and your colleagues. So I will happily honor your request to drop the question here — with my gratitude (once again) for your patient sufferance. 🙂