Loading...In my previous post I cited the first eighteen sayings of the Gospel of Thomas. There are 114 altogether, but those first ones give the sense of the whole. I’ll spend a couple of posts explaining a bit further what this Gospel is all about, first with a basic overview of its most important aspects. This is taken from my textbook on the New Testament:
*****************************************************************************
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas is without question the most significant book discovered in the Nag Hammadi library. Unlike the Gospel of Peter, discovered sixty years earlier, this book is completely preserved. It has no narrative at all, no stories about anything that Jesus did, no references to his death and resurrection. The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of 114 sayings of Jesus.
The Sayings of the Collection. The sayings are not arranged in any recognizable order. Nor are they set within any context, except in a few instances in which Jesus is said to reply to a direct question of his disciples. Most of the sayings begin simply with the words “Jesus said.” In terms of genre, the book looks less like the New Testament Gospels and more like the Book of Proverbs in the Hebrew Bible. Like Proverbs, it is a collection of sayings that are meant to bring wisdom to the one who can understand it. In fact, the opening statement indicates that the correct understanding of these sayings will provide more than wisdom; it will bring eternal life: “These are the secret words which the living Jesus spoke, and Didymus Judas Thomas wrote them down. And he said, ‘He who finds the meaning of these words will not taste death’” (Gosp. Thom. 1).
The Jesus of this Gospel is not the Jewish messiah that we have seen in other Gospels, not the miracle-working Son of God, not the …
If you want to learn more, keep reading. If you aren’t a member, you won’t be able to do so. That would suggest that it would be a good idea to join! Doesn’t cost much, the entire fee goes to charity, and you’ll get to know so much that your friends and neighbors won’t be able to *stand* it….
I have a book published by Harper & Row that is translated by A.Guillaumont and others with a copyright date of 1959 titled “the Gospel According To Thomas” with 114 numbered verses with the Coptic text on the left and the English text on the right. I bought is a few years ago at a Unitarian Church book sale for a dollar.
It has been used and has reader comments in pencil around the text. I am guessing that is the same book you are reviewing now. I have not read it. I am starting to study it now as I read your comments. Thank you for your current blog post. This is very intetesting.
Yup, my parents (who were not into that kind of thing) had a copy when I was a kid in the 1960s….
You’re young! I was in seminary in the ’60, but never read Thomas. Actually I rather like some of his teachings, especially that the Kingdom is within us now. I hope you talk a bit more on him later on. Best to you. Todd
Some ot the more obscure sayings could be things made up by the Gnostics or others and put on the lips of Jesus, some could be the product of poor transmission from the original, like in the parlor game Telephone, but maybe some actually were said by Jesus, but they were too strange or unorthodox and therefore were excluded from more orthodox writings like the canonical gospels. Makes you wonder…or at least, makes me wonder…
Thank you Bart, that’s great. I’m perplexed by how Jesus could have had a twin brother. Jesus was miraculously conceived of the holy spirit so how did a twin get into Mary’s womb at the same time? Joseph decided to ‘put her away privily’, i.e. divorce her, because she was pregnant without his involvement. Apparently this means he hadn’t had sex with her. Or had he? If he had, that might explain the existence of his twin as a kind of separate but contemporaneous conception. But then why would he want to divorce her for being pregnant? it makes no sense! In Lost Christianities you mention that Judas Thomas might have been Jesus’ twin. He (Judas Thomas) is well accepted in NT sources. How does Christian doctrine square this with Jesus’ divine conception?
ha! I better post on that. It certainly doesn’t work if you are looking only at the NT gospels as the only absolute truth! Those who developed these ideas didn’t *have* the Gospels yet…
Dr. Ehrman,
Two questions: First, do you feel that the author of Thomas must have been familiar with the Gospel of Matthew, such as Mark Goodacre and Craig Evans have suggested, or could the similarities simply be from common oral stories?
Second, a couple of weeks ago you posted about how you entered into the world of academia at Rutgers and you hinted there is more to the story worth mentioning. Maybe how you landed at UNC. Are you still planning on telling more about your professional academic journey?
Thanks, Jay
1. No, I don’t think so. He *may* have been, but I rather doubt it.
2. Yeah, I keep meaning to get back to that. soon!
On the form of this gospel: Sometime long ago when I first started reading books on real biblical scholarship, I remember reading that gospels in the early Christian communities were very much like Thomas’ in that there was no narrative. They were mostly collections of sayings of Jesus (like Q) and that later authors added the narrative elements from whatever sources- oral or written- they had access to. Is this actually what scholars believe to be true, or believed to be true 30 or so years ago?
No, that’s never been a common view. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone say it!
I agree, the perception of the Messiah is different, but this Messiah is still connected with the esoteric Jewish system (later established as Kabbalah, but was claimed to have a much earlier origin), to Jesus we find in the main branches of Gnosticism, but also in the Hebrew Bible, for example in Daniel chapter 7 and Isaiah from chapter 49 onwards as God’s (ancient of days days ) co-ruler when the Son of Man is restored/exhalted or function as a guiding “servant” back to the “New Jerusalem”.
Just talking about the Jewish view in our Hebrew Bible, and which the apostles also try to link Jesus to (servants in Isaiah 53 ,,, actually 49-66), this figure is described more as a guide/servant given by the spirit of God.
I’m not sure about the Son of Man’s role in Daniel 7, but at least this get figure is restored after the destruction of the 4 beasts (symbolized by earthly “kingdom”). The book I read is more a pattern where 4 friends from God’s people, from God’s land, and all with divine meaning names, are recruited to serve in the royal court in land of slavery ,,, tested in chapters 3 and 6, but prevails. Then give a few examples of what happens to earthly kingdoms that do not turn to the kingdom of God (chapters 4 and 5) and then the point ,,, what happens to the earthly kingdoms and the restoration of the kingdom of God (chapters 2 and 7).
This is (for me) more of a story about a pattern, but also divine involvement and guidance.
I have no problem seeing that this may confront the understanding of the “literalist” christian movement and their view of the Messiah, but if it fits in my mind into a broader perspective.
Dr. Ehrman:
Apologies, I wasn’t sure of the best place to ask this, but have you ever written about James Crossley’s dating of Mark, specifically from the 30s to mid 40s at latest, since it takes for granted that Jesus observed biblical law and that Mark could only assume this and write at a time when Christianity was law-observant? He states that this couldn’t have been later than the mid 40s, after which some Jews and gentile Christians were no longer observing laws like the Sabbath. He adds that the Jewish War isn’t necessarily the best context to evaluate the date, and that the gospel being written in response to the Caligula affair in the 30s is just as plausible.
What do you think about all this?
I looked at it a long time ago. I had forgotten: is this really his main argument? At least as you’ve summariazed it the argument doesn’t make any sense. There were Christian followers of Jesus who were law observant for centuries. In fact, some still are. And authors for a very very long time portrayed Jesus as just as law observant as Mark does. So why couldn’t he be writing in 70 CE?
What sources do you think the writer(s) of the GoT had access to? What’s the motivation in writing this gospel for their community? How were the Coptic Christians different from other Christian communities?
1. We don’t know 2. I assume it was to assure them that they had the secret knowledge that could bring salvation. 3. The Gospel was not composed in Coptic but Greek. The Coptic version we now have may have belonged to a monastic group, or at least one tht emphasized an ascetic lifestyle.
Looking for box 13.2
Help me out?
Ah sorry ’bout that. Should have taken the corss-reference out….
Dirk, I think Matthew 1: 25 states your some of your inquiry ,”but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus”. The Greek here,just like Gen. 4:1, says, Joseph did not know her until she gave birth to Jesus. So it sounds like they had sex after Jesus was born and possibly other children according to Scripture, Mark 6: 3,Matt. 13: 55. My question for Bart, did Dydimus and Thomas, both meaning twin, was/were literally applied to Judas’s name to mean that(truly a twin/physically to Jesus) or were the names given randomly not to reflect an actual meaning? I hope I am clear.
We don’t know. Many readers probably took them metaphorically, I would guess; but we know of some who took them literally.
I heard you mention “Thomas the twin” in a talk as well. Do you think it is likely that Jesus actually had a twin brother? If so, you MUST have had the thought that this twin brother had something to do, either consciously or accidentally, with the creation of the stories involving the resurrection of Jesus?
No, I don’t.
Prof Ehrman,
You explain in earlier places where the Greek text which is often translated in English as ‘ the kingdom is within you’ ought to rather portray something ‘the kingdom is among you’.
Q1. Please why do you repeat the earlier and not the latter in the version translated by you and your colleague in this gospel?
Q2. Kindly throw a bit more light on the twin issue (Jesus and Judas Thomas), its quite unclear in attempting to reconcile the divine conception and the possibility of another ‘undivine’ baby alongside.
1. Earlier I was talking about the statement in Greek found in Luke 17 not the Gospel of Thomas. They have different views.
2. I better repost on that! In fact, maybe today.
Other than “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” I can think of no issue of greater moment than the Pharisees’ request to know “when the Kingdom of God was coming.”
Instead of answering “when” Jesus talks about where — insinuating that the Kingdom of God was in fact already present! This is quite paradoxical coming from an apocalypticist who in all other instances posits the arrival of the kingdom as being imminent. Indeed, this was the very point that gave urgency to his message.
In any case all the more popular translations of Luke have Jesus stating that: “The Kingdom of God is in your midst” with the notable exception of the venerable KJV (and its successors) that says: “The Kingdom of God is WITHIN you.”
Clearly, the entire meaning here turns on how this final word in the passage is translated from the Greek. It is apparently somewhat ambiguous. But in other contexts it seems to also be translated as “within” (or “inside”), rather than the strained “in your midst” (or “among you.”)
Unfortunately, Luke is the only source in the canon that recounts this exchange. Which translation of the apposite word do you think should be preferred?
Given the context, it almost certainly means *among* you, not “within” you. Jesus certainly did not think his enemies the Pharisees had the kingdom inside of them. Instead, they were filled with rot.
Like everyone else, some were, some weren’t. Surely, none were beyond redemption. But the only hope for the rotten ones — also like everyone else — was to seek the Kingdom of God within themselves. Salvation can’t be found in some particular location. Even a unique one where you can sacrifice a goat to Yahweh.
The anomalous translation in KJV made me curious about other ones. So I did a quick canvas of the numerous versions available at Bible Gateway. While there is no question that popular opinion isn’t always correct (political quip deliberately omitted here), the box score is:
“among you” — 15
“in your midst” — 14
“within you” — 28
“with you” — 2
“inside you” — 2
“within your grasp” — 1
“within you and among you” — 1
Far more compelling evidence, however, can be found in the independent attestation in the very subject of this thread — the Gospel of Thomas. This saying may not appear anywhere else in the canon. But two sayings in Thomas (#3 and #113) certainly appear to trace back to the same source materiel spliced together in the version in Luke.
Isn’t Thomas entirely unambiguous that Jesus said the Kingdom of God is “within” you?
Yes, that is definitely Thomas’s view. In my view, it is not evidence of what Jesus actually said, since the saying is only in Luke and Luke himself means something definite by it, based on his view of the Kingdom expressed elsewhere in his Gospel. He means “among” “in your midst”
I have no doubt that the author of Luke — who was as you have frequently noted an apologist with an agenda, not a reporter or historian, professions that at least profess to bring a level of objectivity to their work — both interpreted his source and intended his own quotation from it to convey an “among” or “in your midst” meaning.
It would be the height of arrogance for an English/Poli-sci major and rank amateur on this subject to claim a better understanding of Luke than so estimable a lifelong, professional scholar on the texts — who can even read them in their original language! (BTW your 3-part “Shaffer Lectures” series on this gospel, which happens to be my own personal favorite, is IMHO ‘Must See TV.’)
But the issue here is not what Luke thought or meant, but what Jesus actually SAID. In this regard, unless we are to grant some special status/deference to canonical over non-canonical works, doesn’t the criterion of “multiple, independent attestation” provided by Thomas trump (political quip again omitted) assessing authenticity exclusively from within the context of a single — intentionally deifying — source?
I always approach the Gospels with (at least) two questions: what is this Gospel trying to tell us about the author’s own views of Jesus and how can this Gospel help us better understand what the historical Jesus himself actually said and did. I see these as two *very* different questions, one a matter of exegesis and the other of history.
Being merely a seeker and not a scholar, it is your second question that interests me — the exegetical extending only far enough to reach the historical. Certainly, recognizing the intent/agenda of an author is crucially important to determining how his filters (and there always are some) might color his account.
My purpose — one that owes a great deal to your lectures and books BTW — is to separate the wheat of the authentic teachings of Jesus from a fifteen centuries-deep pile of doctrinal chaff. (Jesus’ deeds, including any miraculous ones, are of far lesser importance; such “signs” are only demanded by an evil and adulterous generation.)
If believers are branches, I think it’s okay for me to go out on a limb here and deduce that since it is the “Word” that became Incarnate, the purpose will probably be found in the words. Those of us who don’t mind being disturbed if it leads to marvel, should be seeking there.
Is Lk 17: 21//Th 3//Th 113 attested anywhere else? If not, why favor an inferential “in our midst” in one source over the plain “within us” language of the other? Why give primacy to the ambiguous over the unequivocal?
My view is that you cannot interpret Luke 17:21 in light of what the author of the Gospel of Thomas believed decades later. That would be like interpreting what Pope John Paul said based on what Billy Graham believed. They are different thinkers, even if they talk about the same topics.
Thank you, professor, for your excellent and most useful response. I may have fallen victim to that most insidious of gremlins: Assumptions. (That’s a surname, actually, for the brothers Unwarranted, Unjustified and Unexamined. ????)
I assumed that the birth of the Christian varietal of Gnosticism was pretty much coincident with Paul’s transformation of the movement from a Jewish sect (led by Jesus’ brother, designated successor and beloved disciple) into a new religion comprised of former pagans who recast the Jewish Messiah from a divine (but human) champion as a demigod.
Since it was the accommodations Paul made in his pursuit of this alternative direction that led to the unpleasantness, I made the (apparently unwarranted) extrapolation that the controversy extended to the incorporation of Platonic/Gnostic concepts. The evidence, however, suggests that the issues the disciples had with Paul concerned his repudiation of some fundamentals of Judaism (prescriptions/proscriptions in the Law) rather than any embracing of pagan ones.
Both the success and theology of Christianity as it emerged at the end of the first century are surely owing to Paul. But these need not have been simultaneous — or even contemporaneous. An interim between them would, indeed, make consideration of Thomas anachronistic.
Good point.
The Jesus in Thomas is clearly more mystical (in fact bordering on inscrutable) than the one portrayed in the synoptics. The sayings as recorded by this author, including many with canonical parallels, appear to be expressions of a sophisticated, transcendent theology that is manifestly inconsistent with the primitive, animal-sacrifice cult of Yahweh retained by the synoptics.
While regressions certainly can happen (Exhibit A: the millennium-long “Dark Ages” precipitated by the unchecked power of the RCC), developments — cultural, scientific, even philosophical and theological — almost by definition cannot precede existing, less advanced conceptions.
The range of dates scholars ascribe to Thomas, however, (unhelpfully) spans an entire century! This is FAR greater than the ± 5-10 years usually given for the canonical gospels.
Thought Experiment. A team of researchers discovers the actual autograph of Thomas in the original Greek and have definitively dated the manuscript to the exact year it was produced. There is, of course, a pool going at the big, Show and Tell conference where you can put a Benjamin down on any year between, say, 50 and 150. Okay. For the $10,000, winner-take-all, Scholarly Smartitude prize… What year would you put your money on?
120 CE.
120 CE would make the gap between the last of the canonical gospels and Thomas two to three times the one between it and the synoptics.
It appears that both Matthew and Luke accommodated pagan expectations for a putative demi-god by providing a progenitor backstory (the latter in a pretty clear retrofit) — a concern of no moment to Mark and a flirtation with blasphemy for Jews in general.
John pulls out all the stops. Almost entirely the author’s own exposition, this gospel all but abandons the words of the historical Jesus to remake him according to the strictures of the Greek Academy.
Jewish theology has now been reduced to mere stage-setting for a new, thoroughly pagan deity so disconnected from the authentic Jesus that his signature teaching style — pithy aphorisms and compelling parables — has been entirely supplanted by a Platonic monologue/dialogue pedagogy. This recasting undoubtedly helped facilitate a “mission to the gentiles.” But the author so profoundly transformed Jesus in the process (from peasant rabbi into socratic discourser) that John’s gospel can scarcely be theologically aligned, much less “seen together,” with any of its canonical predecessors.
(“But wait… there’s more!”)
If the difference in style between John and the synoptics is striking, the difference in content is downright staggering.
John’s speechifying Jesus is a transcendent emissary from the divine realm whose pronouncements and self-proclamations could hardly be more grandiose. This Jesus is the actual Son of God in the flesh — who has no qualms about saying so! The Jewish, apocalyptic Messiah has become a mystical deity on a pre-ordained mission to rescue mankind from a misfortunate existence in this vale of tears and transport us to heavenly realms.
If the author is not gnostic, his Jesus certainly is tailor-made for a gnostic congregation. Esoteric shades of gnosticism — from the mythology of a prior incarnation of the Word in the Garden of Eden (as alarm-sounding serpent) to the eschatology of dangerous passages up through heavenly realms (beset by obstructionist archons) — pale!
So if Thomas was still decades away, were there other gnostic and/or gnostic-friendly works that contributed to the emergence of this (ultimately heretical) theology? If not Thomas, perhaps other predecessors to John? What about a lost “Signs” gospel? Or were there no gnostic roots at all prior to the last, church-blessed gospel?
I don’t think there were any gnostic roots to John, no — I don’t think Gnosticism as we know it started to emerge until after John was in circulation. But I do think that there was a Signs source behind John, giving an account of Jesus miracles as indications of his divine nature.
Gnostic Christianity may not have emerged until after John was in circulation. But surely it must have become established, even if off-the-radar (and we have only RCC archivists to rely on here), much earlier. Could so elaborate and sophisticated a theology have gone from non-existence to the exalted, ethereal Jesus we find in Thomas in a mere two decades?
In any case whichever way we read the ambiguous, payoff word in “the Kingdom of God is among/within you,” the saying is independently attested in both Luke and Thomas — compelling evidence for its authenticity. At the very least enough early Christians believed so for it to survive (orally and/or by L) for a half-century before being recorded by Luke; and assuming your 120 CE date for Thomas is correct, nearly as long again to be independently preserved by that author.
So cutting to the chase (before the flying saucer crashes)…
Do you think the historical Jesus advised his hearers to seek the Kingdom of God “within” themselves, or to look no further because by his very presence “among” them the Kingdom of God had already arrived and was in fact standing “in their midst”?
Sure it could. Why not? It didn’t come out of nowhere. It represents an intriguing amalgam of Middle-Platonic and ealry Christian thought — all well entrenched. In any event, these days Thomas is not normally labeled Gnostic.
I absotlutely do not think Jesus had any idea of the kingdom being within you. If so it would have shown up in Mark, Q, M, or John! The idea that it is in your midst is only in the Luke in the NT.
At my first reading of Thomas it stuck me as being the quintessential expression of gnostic theology, i.e., salvation via the knowledge brought by the “Word,” rather than by (as Paul would have it) a human, blood-sacrifice to the ‘Hannibal Lecter’ God of the Jews. I was in fact puzzled by your earlier, parenthetical remark that scholarship no longer regards this once-was-lost-but-now-is-found gospel as even BEING gnostic!
True, there is no gnostic mythology. But that as sine qua non criterion would remove the Gospel of Truth from the gnostic corpus, as well. Has Valentinus, likewise, been reassigned? The canonical gospels make no more than the briefest and most passing of references to Jewish mythology — an omission that doesn’t seem to disqualify them for the orthodox label.
As you have noted, Thomas is clearly not orthodox. If not gnostic either, has it become theologically homeless? Or to what form of Christian theology has it now been connected? Is it a solitary instance of the form? Or does the Gospel of Truth (and/or other works) also belong?
I think the problem a lot of people have — including lots and lots of scholars — is taht they think of ancient Christianity as having, say, four or five groups: Jewish – Christains, marcionites, Gnostics, proto-orthodox. And if a text doesn’t fit very well, then it seems homeless. But the reality is that there were *dozens* maybe even hundreds of groups, most of which we probably don’t even know about. Every text has a context! We just may not know what it is. (Scholars do, though, talk about Thomasine Christainity as one of th eother options, and locate the Gospel there)
Thomas appears to share the High Christology of John, embracing the Pre-existence (eternal divinity) conception of Jesus as opposed to either Adoptionism (at Resurrection or Baptism) or Incarnation (at conception or birth) implied by the other three. Otherwise, Thomas seems far more consonant with the synoptics in portraying a Jesus who teaches in pithy aphorisms, clever metaphors and — to a limited extent — insightful parables.
Both John and Thomas seem to have left Jesus’ Jewish apocalyptic roots and sayings behind, the latter further differing from all four canonicals in omitting any historical context or narrative structure. But was it, perhaps, orthodox concern about Thomas reinforcing the (at least, arguably) gnostic theology in John that prompted a new and separate “Thomasine Christianity”?
Among these five gospels it seems to me that John is the better candidate for odd man out. Of course, that is an entirely subjective assessment. But in the quest of the historical words of Jesus can there be much room for debate that it was the author of Thomas — a veritable treasure trove of independent attestations — who should play Sancho Panza?
Professor & Tim: I’ve enjoyed this prolonged exchange. I’ve been interested in this gospel the past several years, as well as Gnosticism. One follow-up I have for Tim: you appeared to indicate a range of 50 to 150 A.D. (CE, take your pick) on Thomas production. I’ve heard some very early dates as well, i think from some Jesus Seminar members. Do you know who, and why they argued earlier authorship? Bart said 120, and I know he only wants the $10k for charity, but i have an insatiable curiousity,so if you recall, much appreciated!
Scott: Céad míle fáilte! (Okay, so it’s not Greek.) I’m sorry to say that the 50 to 150 date range for Thomas was arbitrary on my part. I thought it a wide enough bracket to preempt digression on that issue, and wasn’t basing it on any specific source or knowledge.
The extent of my familiarity with the Jesus Seminar is entirely contained within the covers of their conclusory “The Five Gospels” that published the group’s findings (which seemed to me BTW&FWIW to employ excessively rigorous standards in holding inauthentic many teachings that I suspect actually DO trace back to the historical Jesus.)
Were I attending my hypothetical Thomas Autograph symposium and wagering a square in the “Correct Date” pool, I would pick a year several decades, perhaps as much as a half-century, earlier than our host.
The shared theological underpinnings of Thomas and John seem unequivocal, suggesting they sprang from same, gnostic fountainhead (with apologies to the late, devoutly atheist, Ayn Rand.) But while both are different in theological kind from the synoptics, Thomas conveys in the words of Jesus — as independently attested in Matthew, Mark and Luke; whereas, John propounds in his own words.
I’d go with 82 CE.
Tim: Thanks! i’m no John Galt myself, but try not to “shrug” off my responsibility to run down every lead; so i’ve ordered a few of Elaine’s books on this topic, one of my faves. I get a vibe reading Thomas, but then, wasn’t it Julius Caesar who said that people believe what they want to believe? One thing that gives me pause is Dr. Ehrman’s strong argument (i think) that Jesus was an apocalypticist, and the Jesus Seminar is on the wrong side of this argument. Jesus as mystic (also) and wisdom/secret knowledge conveyor stands somewhat in contrast to the internal/introspective spiritualist, suddenly becoming extroverted and overcome by his social justice convictions at the worst possible time to do so (Passover) at temple in Jerusalem. Those two character profiles don’t mesh well, or what do you think? Cheers.
Hey, Who is John Galt?
?
“Wasn’t it Julius Caesar who said people believe what they want to believe?” I thought it was Tom Petty. ?
Wouldn’t simple progression obviate the need for any meshing?
I agree with your agreement with Dr. Ehrman that Jesus was clearly an apocalyptic prophet (the obtuseness of the Jesus Seminar on this not exactly enhancing their credibility.) There are quotes throughout the synoptics that presuppose a cataclysmic eschatology — both implicitly (e.g, Mk 8:38//Mt//Lk) and explicitly (e.g. Mk 13:14-20//Mt//Lk.) This whole question is, of course, hopelessly entangled with two other cosmic figures: the “Messiah” and the “Son of Man” — both titles having been subsequently bestowed by Christians on Jesus, himself.
As Dr. Ehrman has frequently observed, the “Messiah,” the eagerly anticipated rescuer of the Jews, could hardly be more misapplied to a peasant who was ignominiously crushed by the very enemies of God he was supposed to vanquish.
What Jesus meant by the “Son of Man” OTOH is a question that is WAY out of my exegetical depth. Further, deducing to what it was that he might have been referring has been enormously — perhaps, hopelessly — complicated by the misguided efforts of redacting scribes who unreservedly inserted it as a self-reference.
Agreed on Dr. Ehrman’s OT messiah analysis and conclusion, and how lost the SoM debate becomes.
But actually my bro’-in-law also said that “people believe what they want to” bit at a Vets club/pub in Hopkins, MN 4 years ago, and i just marveled how the truth comes out (as he’s a video producer, of such talents as Prince).
Returning to meshing. Still have not received Elaine’s books or read them yet, but curious how she will sew together a gatherer of followers, through charisma, yet inveterate mystic staying to himself to divine the will of his Father (i am myself still a theist, of sorts, although i spent decades an atheist after seminary).
How does such a man “bump” into a money-changer’s table at temple during Pasuch? And get misunderstood by all involved that he was not not trying to make a Statement?
For me, it is very difficult to mesh the apocalyptic side of J personality with the wisdom seeker and prophetic speaker Elaine hints at in her thesis. If you’ve read her, go ahead and spoil the show (for me). I’ll still read her work. Peace and gratitude as our attitude.
Ran out of time editing. Meant to say that the introverted mystic with secrets he passes along to favorites is not consistent with the extroverted social justice prophet (with a following) we find elsewhere in the gospels. So it seems we do have to choose between them as to which tradition captured the real historical Jesus. Because the two don’t reside well in one personnage.
I took your point (and sympathize with your running out of edit time since I similarly run out of word space.)
There’s no reason a mystic who privately shares “the secrets of the kingdom” with his inner circle of disciples might not also preach social justice in public. I hasten to add, however, that I believe the political overtones associated with the phrase “social justice” are potentially misleading. Although Jesus was certainly no Randroid, the compassion and acts of charity he commended were always and entirely individual and voluntary. There isn’t the slightest hint of his ever having lobbied the Sanhedrin to create any “social justice” programs that involved forcible wealth transfer.
The disconnect comes in attempting to envision a doomsday prophet who advocates preparing for TEOTWAWKI by embracing a lifestyle of such all-in spirituality that it extends to uncompromising benevolence towards friend and foe alike (implicitly because we are ALL merely fellow-seekers struggling through this mortal coil.) It does take some Olympic-level, mental gymnastics to reconcile those in one personage. At least, in personages like us, that is. But FWIW such priorities are a lot less incongruous coming from a genuine, divine emissary.
[See preface above]
IMHO there is an unspoken presupposition here as ubiquitous as it is unrecognized: that a mystic-doomsayer-immaterialist-pacifist was ALL of those simultaneously.
This rather perplexing conglomeration actually describes Essene fundamentals very well. Although I know Dr. Ehrman dismisses the idea, I suspect that Jesus and his mentor, John the Baptist, were erstwhile monks at Qumran who left the monastery on a mission to save as many of God’s Chosen People as possible from the Messiah’s looming armageddon. All the canonical gospels begin with the two parting company — and taking their respective ministries in different directions with different emphases. John’s relentless fire-and-brimstone ranting soon cost him his head. Jesus, it seems, moved away from all things temporal. If so, it would be unsurprising that he would abandon the notion of the apocalyptic establishment of a Kingdom of God in this world in favor of a more transcendent one in the next.
For the powers-that-be this view, albeit contentious, was non-confrontational. Until, that is, he took offense at the crassness of fleecing the flock on the very Temple grounds and interfered with business. His end then came quickly. Though, terrifyingly, not as swiftly as for his mentor.
Tim- seems another reasonable read to me. I’m finishing Bart’s H&H and halfways through Elaine’s Beyond Belief. Wanted to read them simultaneously because of the John/Thomas comparisons. I try not to buzzsaw, but slowly absorb each, and savor. Reminds me of how (relatively) little documentary evidence there is, in years and literary sources between say 30 and 200 A.D., and so the interpretations and theses abound. Many defensible narratives about the narratives and major characters/ personalities/ people! Lots to fill in with these novel character profiles and Christian groups developing and competing. I feel blessed to have been born and raised in the rich (spiritually i’m saying, setting material wealth aside for a moment, although it can either distract or focus depending on how one uses it) western tradition and notables cast, even as i drift often oriental for individual solace and access in familiar symbols and personages i was raised on. I doubt Jesus would mind! I should think he’d appreciate the attention to his (dare i say it) personal sacrifice & commitment to seek our Father (Gnostics add Mother). Seekers have nothing to fear, and only self-centered peace to gain. peace, sw
Returning to the immediate question: Exactly where was it that the HISTORICAL Jesus said we should look to find the Kingdom of God?
Although there may be a scholarly consensus for an “in your midst” over a “within” reading of Luke, AFAIK there is no question of the ambiguity. Indeed, the less popular interpretation finds substantial validation in having been preferred by the translators of the venerable KJV — centuries BEFORE the pericope was seconded by the rediscovered Thomas (a source which should, ironically enough, remove doubt.)
Further, Luke’s “in your midst” reading is hardly unproblematic. In reply to the question of “WHEN?” it is a rhetorically strained, non-responsive, non sequitur. It contradicts Jesus’ apocalyptic proclamations — everywhere else — that the arrival of the Kingdom was imminent, not realized by his very presence. Further, it puts the kind of self-aggrandizing insinuation on Jesus’ lips that is otherwise found only in John. Then there’s the fact that this sounds less interpretation than interpolation, suspiciously accommodating of post hoc orthodoxy.
In any case why favor a subjective reading of Luke over the straightforward and completely unambiguous Thomas — the very independent source that powerfully attests the authenticity of the saying?
It was commonly intepreted as meaning *inside of you” throughout Christian history, especially when the distinctive teachings of Jesus adn the Gospels had been understood because of new theological developments. The KJV is picking up on the standard intpretatin at the time — but it has no bearing on what it may have meant 1400 years earlier. The best way to interpret a book is to examine it in its own context, not to put a different context into it.
If the 17th century KJV translation was representative of a then standard “within you” understanding of Lk 17:20-21, it seems to me that the recovery of Thomas more than three centuries later (providing INDEPENDENT ATTESTATION for Luke’s pericope, I feel compelled to reiterate) only reinforces the case that an “among you” interPREtation smacks loudly of orthodox interPOLation. I would appeal to Mr. Occam for support, but don’t wish to commit the “let the text speak for itself” faux pas.
So, Thomas notwithstanding, how does contemporary scholarship explain:
1.) Asked WHEN the Kingdom will come, how can an answer that it is “in your midst” be other than a non-responsive, rhetorically-strained, non sequitur?
2.) Doesn’t an insinuation by Jesus that he, himself, IS the Kingdom of God, attribute to him a self-deifying claim found nowhere else in any of his public statements in any of the synoptics?
3.) Doesn’t such a response directly contradict Jesus’ apocalyptic teachings — everywhere else — that the coming of the Kingdom of God was imminent, not already realized?
In any case I’m not asking about what the author of Luke might have meant 1400 years earlier. My question is what the historical Jesus actually SAID fifty years before that.
1. He’s saying it is not future, so don’t ask when. It’s here. 2. He is saying that the things he does embody what the kingdom will be like when it arrives in power. He is not saying he is God but that he is revealing the kingdom of God 3. Yes, that’s my point. Luke is presenting Jesus in a de-apocalypticized mode, while retaining elements of the apocalptic message. Later still, when we get to John, virtually all traces of apocalyptic thought are gone. Later still, in Thomas, Jesus preaches *against* theapocalyptic view.
Although I would nominate the “in your midst” translation as poster child for contortionist, doctrinal apologetics, the reason I raised the issue in this thread is precisely because the saying is not only in Luke.
St. Bede must have been looking out for us, rescuing Thomas from the tender mercies of the RCC version of the Ministry of Truth (a crusade by orthodoxy Thought Police about which BTW you are far more sanguine than me), preserving independent attestation.
After nearly two millennia a second, unconnected author’s account has been resurrected! Not only do we now have TWO sources for comparison, but the venerated one is ambiguous while the heretical Lazarus is crystal clear! Why the scholarly intransigence when a clarifying version of a disputable saying has in fact emerged from the tomb?
But if consonance of message within Luke is the definitive criterion, where else does that gospel even hint at a de-apocalypticized Jesus?
(I suspect FWIW that I could identify a good number of Luke’s passages wherein Jesus stresses the overarching importance to salvation of what is “within.” So, what better the place to seek “the Kingdom of God”?)
Well, you may think it’s contortionist but I think that’s just because you always thought it meant something else. It’s a pretty common view. If you’re raised reading the Bible in an English transation that says “inside” you, then of course that’s what you’ll think it has to mean.
Fascinating discussion. Since i currently lean towards Dr. Kastrup’s monism, Descartes’ hard dualistic “enlightenment” path led down a dark corridor for me. The KoG within has a magnetic appeal to we seeking One (spiritually, and otherwise). So what were all of Jesus’ secrets and whom did he tell them to? The ortho or gnostic traditions that survived him?
Another literary Galt fan, i see. That is the question. Or, when the producers quit us altogether, who WAS John Galt?
Just finished Ch4 of your latest book, and the best ancient epitaph of materialists: I was not. I was. I am not. I care not.
We should all vote whether it bests Ben Franklin’s enlightenment era contender written in 1728 in his youth as a proposed epitaph (assuming one interprets it as materialistic, rather than deistically)- “food for worms” (multiple versions) We can’t even get to an “autograph” going back a lousy 300 years!
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-01-02-0033
I was raised reading NASB which also translates it as “in your midst,” adding the distinction-without-a-difference footnote: “or among you,” but no mention of the “within you” alternative.
Actually, it’s your Teaching Company lectures that deserve credit (or blame) for my realization that the problem is not — and never was — with the teachings of Jesus. On this or AFAIK anything else.
The difficulties arise from the fragmentary and sometimes garbled records of those words, disastrously compounded by nonsensical church doctrine — starting with the perverse (and IMHO idolatrous) “Inerrancy” delusion that elevates the authority of the words of ALL Bible authors to those of the incarnate Word of God! (??)
Worse, wherever unwelcome push comes to inconvenient shove, it is the teachings of Jesus that give way! Consider 1 Cor 8:1-13 vs. Mt 15:10-19 or Eph 2:8-9 vs. Mt 25:31-46. Church doctrine invariably endorses Paul, undoubtedly because his repudiation of the Law, a sine qua non for proselytizing erstwhile pagans, made HIS side the one that buttered the church’s bread.
Notwithstanding Luke or Nicaea or the Pope or the College of Contemporary Scholars, what do YOU think the historical Jesus actually said was when/where we should seek the Kingdom of God?
He thought the kingdom was coming soon to earth, in a cataclysmic judgment in which God would destroy all the forces of evil and those who sided with them.