Scholarly Quotes

Jack Finegan refers to a quote by Hippolytus from a Gospel according to Thomas used by the Naassenes: “He who seeks me will find me in children from seven years old; for there in the fourteenth age, having been hidden, I shall become manifest.” (Hidden Records of the Life of Jesus, p. 243)

Jack Finegan writes: “The saying ascribed by Hippolytus (Text 85 §282) to the Gospel according to Thomas, as used by the Naassenes, bears at least some similarity ot the present text, and this makes it probable that the work to which Hippolytus referred was the same as that with which we are dealing, although the Naassenes may have had their own revision of it. Likewise the Manicheans may have made use of the Gospel according to Thomas, which would account for Cyril’s statements (§285) connecting it with them; but since the Gospel must now be dated well prior to Hippolytus (230) it could not have been written, as Cyril claimed, by a disciple of Mani, since the latter only began to preach in 242 (§115).” (Hidden Records of the Life of Jesus, p. 246)

Marvin Meyer writes of the words “a little child seven days old” in the Gospel of Thomas: “This phrase probably indicates an uncircumcised child (a Jewish boy was to be circumcised on the eighth day), otherwise a child of the sabbath of the week of creation (compare Genesis 2:2-3).” (The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, p. 70)

Gerd Ludemann writes: “This verse contains the Gnostic theme of the child as a revealer (cf. 22.1-2). In Gnostic texts Jesus appears as a little child (Acts of John 88), or Gnostic teachers claim to have seen a little newborn child which is identical with the divine Word (Valentinus).” (Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 592)

Jean Doresse writes: “Jesus, ‘he who was not born of woman’ (16), is also frequently called ‘Jesus the Living’. Could it also perhaps be Jesus who is referred to under the appearance of ‘the child of seven days’ (4)?” (The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, p. 344)

Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freedman write: “If knowledge about the ‘place of life’ can be given to an old man by an infant, it is evident that the knowledge is not ordinary human wisdom but something derived from revelation. This saying is probably the Gnostic explanation of the words of Jesus in Mark 10:14-15: ‘Let the children come to me and do not hinder them, for of such is the kingdom of God; verily I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a child will not enter into it’ (cf., Matthew 19:14; cf. also Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21). A little farther on in both Mark and Matthew we find the words which Thomas has added to the statement about the old man and the infant. ‘Many who are first will be last’ (Mark 10:31; Matthew 19:30; 20:16; and Luke 13:30). The Coptic version has omitted the words, found in the synoptic gospels and in the Greek Thomas, ‘and the last, first.’ These words are necessary in order to lead to the conclusion, ‘And they will become a single one.’ Those who have been last will become first and will be united in the unity which means transcending differences of age and of sex (cf., Sayings 10, 16, 24, 49, 50, 75, 103, 112). It means returning to the original unity of creation (if one can speak of creation in a Gnostic system).” (The Secret Sayings of Jesus, p. 122-123)

F. F. Bruce writes: “The point of this saying is at least superficially similar to that of the canonical sayings about children, such as ‘whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it’ (Mark 10.15). After the words ‘many that are first will be last’, the Greek text (P. Oxy. 654.4) adds ‘and the last, first’ (cf. Mark 10.31, etc.); this has probably been omitted by accident from our Coptic text. The ‘single one’ at the end of the saying is the personality that has finally transcended differentiation of age and sex – the latter is an ideal which finds recurring expression in the Gospel of Thomas (cf. Sayings 11, 16, 23, 49, 75, 106, 114). The underlying thought is that Adam, as first created, was androgynous, before being divided into male and female (Genesis 2.21-23); the pristine arrangement will be restored in the life to come. [This belief is ascribed to the Naassenes by Hippolytus, Refutation v. 6.5; 7.14 f.]” (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 114)

Joseph A. Fitzmyer writes: “Evelyn White (p. 16) has a remark that is worth quoting here. ‘The Saying – however we restore it – is a remarkable instance of that salient characteristic of the Oxyrhynchus collection as a whole – the mixture of elements at once parallel to and divergent from the Synoptics. For while the first part of the Saying has nothing exactly similar in the Synoptics, it nevertheless seems related to a clearly marked group of episodes in the Gospels. On the other hand the second part of the Saying corresponds exactly with the Synoptic version. . . . The Synoptics and the Saying are indeed so close that it is incredible that the two are independent, and the evidence . . . goes to show that it is the writer of the Sayings who is the borrower.’” (Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, pp. 380-381)

Joseph A. Fitzmyer writes: “The heavily Gnostic character of many of the sayings in the Coptic Gospel has already led to the conclusion that the latter is most likely the Manichean version of which Cyril speaks. The deliberate change of ending in the fourth saying, which is paralleled in the Manichean Kephalaia, is certainly evidence in this direction, as H.-Ch. Puech has already pointed out.” (Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, p. 418)

Funk and Hoover write: “Its affinity with other sayings in Thomas relate the status of a child to salvation. In Thom 22:2, Jesus says, ‘These nursing babies are like those who enter the <Father’s> domain.’ The image of the baby or child appealed to the gnostic sensibility as an appropriate image for salvation. The quest for life is also a Thomean theme: ‘Congratulations to the person who has toiled and has found life’ (Thomas 58). The similarity of theme and language suggests that Thomas has revised the saying to his own perspectives.” (The Five Gospels, p. 473)

J. D. Crossan writes: “Marcovich (60; see Schrage, 1964a:258) concludes that the Coptic translator or copyist has omitted ‘and the last first’ by simple oversight. This means that the two-stich aphorism was originally in Thomas, and in the Markan sequence and opening rather than in the Q formulation. It also means that the original chiastic two-stich aphorism was expanded by the addition of a third stich: ‘and they will become one and the same’ (Lambdin: 118) or, possibly better, ‘and they shall become a single one’ (Guillaumont, 1959:5; Wilson, 1973:511).” (In Fragments, pp. 45-46)

J. D. Crossan writes: “Klijn (271) has noted that ‘three different words are used to render the word “single one”‘ in Thomas: (1) wa (11, 22, 106); (2) wa wot (4, 22, 23); (3) monachos (16, 49, 75). The meaning is the same, and that last (Greek) expression ‘cannot have its usual meaning “monk” in this early text’ (Till: 452 note 2). The meaning of this very important Thomistic theme has been summarized by Klijn (272) as follows: ‘(a) The word “single one” is equivalent to the elect and saved ones. (b) Originally man was a “single one,” but he became “two.” In order to be saved he has to become a “single one” again. This means that he has to return to his original state. (c) The original “single one” has become “two” by becoming male and female. This means that originally man was not male and female. As a result we may say that the Gospel of Thomas speaks about salvation as a return to the original state and that it rejects the division of man into male and female.’ When Gos. Thom. 4 is compared with Gos. Thom. 22, one can conclude that ‘becoming as a child, and entering the kingdom, and achieving a stte of asexuality are very nearly interchangeable terms’ (Kee, 1963:313; see also Menard, 1975:83).” (In Fragments, p. 46)

Stevan Davies writes: “A person who has actualized the primordial light has become (is reborn as) an infant (saying 22) precisely seven days of age (saying 4), for he dwells in the seventh day of Genesis.” (http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/jblprot.htm)

Funk and Hoover write: “Becoming ‘a single one’ (v. 3) is a motif that appears elsewhere in Thomas. In Thom 22:5, male and female are turned into a single one; in Thomas 23, one and two become a single one; the two made into one become children of Adam in Thom 106:1. The last reference suggests the androgynous state before the creation of human beings, when male and female had not yet been differentiated. In gnostic theory, Adam and Eve were created by a lesser god, who bungled the job in making two sexes. These ideas are foreign to Jesus.” (The Five Gospels, p. 473)

Marvin Meyer writes: “This theme (becoming one, the two becoming one) occurs in Gospel of Thomas sayings 4, 22, 23, 48, and 106, as well as elsewhere in ancient literature. It is often associated with the primordial union achieved in sexual intercourse (for the Hebrews, heterosexual intercourse; for the Greeks, homosexual or heterosexual intercourse) as the two joined together at the beginning become one again (compare Genesis 2:21-24; Plato, Symposium 192DE). By extension, this oneness can designate an integrated existence beyond all the divisive features of human life.” (The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, p. 70)

Scholarly Quotes

Marvin Meyer quotes a parallel in a saying of Jesus from Manichaean Kephalaia LXV 163,26-29: “Understand what is in front of your face, and then what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.” (The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, p. 71)

Funk gives the citation from the Oxyrhynchus Shroud inscription: “Jesus says, ‘Nothing has been buried that will not be raised.’” (New Gospel Parallels, v. 2., p. 107) Doresse gives the translation: “Jesus says: ‘There is nothing buried which shall not be raised up.’” (The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, p. 356)

Fitzmyer gives the Greek of the inscription found on the shroud discovered in Behnesa, “legei Ihsous: ouk estin teqamme non ho ouk egerqhsetai.” Joseph A. Fitzmyer says that the inscription “is dated palaeographically to the fifth or sixth century A.D.” (Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, p. 383)

Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freedman write: “But it seems hard to believe that this is the sense here, where – as in the rest of Thomas – there is no mention of resurrection. Perhaps one might regard the inscription as an orthodox, or semi-orthodox, revision of the saying in Thomas.” (The Secret Sayings of Jesus, p. 125)

Jean Doresse writes: “In its Coptic edition, the work does contain Gnostic additions or corrections; but the work as a whole contains elements which are scarcely consonant with Gnosticism. There is, for example, the allusion to the resurrection of the body, in Saying 5 of the Greek edition – no doubt this is suppressed in the Coptic edition because it so blatantly scandalized the Gnostics who used the work.” (The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, p. 348)

Funk and Hoover write of the saying “there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed” as follows: “The meaning assigned to the saying varies with the context in which it appears. In Mark 4:22 it refers to Mark’s theory about the enigmatic character of the parables. In Luke 12:2 and Thom 6:5 it cautions against hypocrisy or speaking falsely. In Matt 10:26, which is the parallel to Luke 12:2, cited about from Q, it enjoins the disciples to preach boldly. Luke also records a version in 8:17, which he hsa taken from Mark; it ins context in Luke 8, it legitimizes the mission of the Christian movement.” (The Five Gospels, pp. 475-476)

R. McL. Wilson writes: “Logion 5 calls for a somewhat fuller notice. Discussing a saying quoted by Clement of Alexandria from the Traditions of Matthias (QAUMASON TA MARONTA), Puech compares this logion in Thomas and remarks that it may perhaps derive from the Gospel of the Hebrews; in which case it would afford no proof of a Gnostic origin. More important is the point which emerges from a comparison with the Oxyrhynchus fragments: in POx 654, unfortunately fragmentary, the saying is slightly longer than in the Coptic. After the words just quoted, both continue ‘For there is nothing hidden which will not be manifest,’ but the Greek alone has a further line, completing a parallelism, ‘and buried which . . .’. An inscription on a shroud, also found at Oxyrhynchus, reads ‘Jesus says, There is nothing buried which will not be raised,’ and on the basis of this Puech restores the text to include a reference to the resurrection. Other scholars had done the same before him, but without the support of the shround inscription. As a mere conjecture this restoration would have to be regarded as uncertain, but the shroud inscription, quite recently discovered, adds materially to its probability. Now the saying is quoted in the shorter (Coptic) form in the Manichean Kephalai, and Puech argues that the reference to the resurrection has been excised by a Gnostic editor in whose theology the doctrine of the resurrection had no place. If this be so, we should have here an instance of a gnosticizing redaction of an originally more orthodox document. Fitzmyer, following Bultmann and Jeremias, prefers to consider the longer version as a secondary expansion of the canonical saying, noting that the short version is the one found in our Gospels, but this is to raise a different question: which of the two forms represents the authentic words of Jesus. It is not entirely impossible that the short and canonical version is original, but has been expanded in POx 654, and that subsequently the reference to the resurrection has been removed by a Gnostic editor. Such an example may serve to indicate the complexity of the problems raised by the new document.” (Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, pp. 28-29)

Scholarly Quotes

Funk and Hoover write: “The answers Jesus is represented as giving in 6:2-6 appear to be unrelated to the questions about fasting, praying, and giving posed by the disciples in v. 1. Jesus does answer these three questions directly in 14:1-3. The discrepancy between Thom 6:1 and 2-6 has led some scholars to speculate that the texts of Thomas 6 and 14 have somehow been confused.” (The Five Gospels, p. 476)

Fitzmyer reconstructs the lines appended to saying six in the Greek fragment as follows: “[Ha]ppy is [he who does not do these things. For all] will be mani[fest before the Father who] is [in heaven.]” Fitzmyer writes: “Is this part of the same saying? If so, then we have a different ending in the Greek that is not found in the Coptic. J. Doresse (Thomas, p. 91) treats this as part of a distinct saying. He has in his favour the fact that makarios is preserved in the Coptic of the following saying. But it would then seem that we must either shorten our restoration of l. 39 and the beginning of l. 40 or suppose that the usual introduciton, ‘Jesus says’, has been omitted. Neither seems possible. Moreover, the letters that remain on the following lines do not seem to agree with any possible reconstruction of the Greek of the following Coptic saying. For an attempt to reconstruct it as a separate saying, see M. Marcovich, JTS 20 (1969) 66-7.” (Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, p. 387) Other scholars consider this part of P. Oxy. 654 simply to represent the saying concerning the lion who is fortunate to be eaten by man.

Gerd Ludemann writes: “The disciples’ question is about fasting, prayer, almsgiving and the food laws. The first three also appear in the regulations about piety in Matt. 6.1-18 (cf. Tobit 12.8) and are discussed once again later (Thomas 14; cf. 104). In the present verse the question about food completes the sphere of the Jewish law.” (Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 593)

Jean Doresse writes: “‘nothing hidden will fail to be revealed’ no doubt refers to hidden virtues such as those mentioned by Jesus: they are preferable to ostentatious practices of piety, and will one day be made public.” (The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, p. 371)

Jack Finegan writes: “The reply of Jesus in Line 19, ‘and what you hate, do not do,’ is evidently derived from Tob 4:15, ‘And what you hate, do not do to any one,’ with omission of the words, ‘to any one,’ which reduces the saying from a form of the ‘Golden Rule’ to a self-centered saying.” (Hidden Records of the Life of Jesus, p. 247)

F. F. Bruce writes: “In this and other sayings (cf. Sayings 14, 27, 104) it is insisted that true fasting is abstinence from evil words and actions, not from indifferent things like food. The negative form of the golden rule, ‘Do not [to others] what is hateful to yourselves’, appears repeatedly in early Jewish ethics, e.g. Tobit 4.15 (‘What you hate, do not to any one’) and Hillel’s words in TB Shabbath 31a (‘What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow; this is the whole law; everything else is commentary’).” (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 115)

J. D. Crossan writes: “This somewhat truncated version of the rule’s negative formulation ['do not do what you hate', compared to Mt 7:12, Lk 6:31, Did 1:2b] has the following context. ‘His disciples questioned Him and said to Him, “Do you want us to fast? How shall we pray? Shall we give alms? What diet shall we observe?” Jesus said, “Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered.’” (In Fragments, p. 52)

J. D. Crossan writes: “The text is found not only in the Coptic translation of Thomas, but also among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri fragments of the Greek Thomas in Oxy P 654. The badly mutilated Greek text has been restored from the Coptic version as follows: [ha mis]eite me poiet[e] or ‘[what] you [ha]te do not do’ (Hofius: 41; see also Fitzmyer, 1974:385; Marcovich: 65). The Coptic version is a close translation of that sequence: ‘that which you hate, do not do’ (with Wilson, 1973:511; rather than Guillaumont, 1959:5; or Lambdin: 118). Thus the sequence here is as in Tob. 4:15, ho miseis, medeni poieses, although the former is plural ‘you’ while this latter is singular ‘you.’ Those differences are dictated primarily by context. It is, of course, quite unlikely that Thomas is in any way quoting directly from Tobit (Menard, 1975:87). But his negative version says: What you hate (done to you) do not do (to others).” (In Fragments, pp. 52-53)

Scholarly Quotes

F. F. Bruce writes: “The point of this seems to be that a lion, if eaten by a man, is ennobled by rising in the scale of being, whereas a man, if eaten by a lion, is degraded to a lower status than was originally his and may even risk missing the goal of immortality. It is not that we become what we eat but that what we eat becomes part of us (as in Walter de la Mare’s poem ‘Little Miss T-’). Whether, in addition, there is any special symbolism in the lion, as in 1 Peter 5.8 (‘Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour’), is exceedingly difficult to determine.” (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 115)

Funk and Hoover write: “This saying is obscure. In antiquity the lion was known to be powerful and ferocious. Hunting lions was the sport of kings. The lion was often the symbol of royalty. The winged lion figures in apocalyptic visions, sometimes as the consort of God, at other times as a symbol of evil. In Rev 4:7, the four figures that surround the throne are the lion, the young bull, the human figure, and the eagle. These images were later adopted as symbols of the four canonical evangelists; the winged lion specifically became the symbol for the Gospel of Mark.” (The Five Gospels, p. 477)

Funk and Hoover continue: “The lion was also used to symbolize human passions. Consuming the lion or being eaten by the lion may therefore have had to do with the relation to one’s passions. Understood this way, the saying embodies an ascetic motif. At any rate, Jesus, who was reputed to be a glutton and a drunkard, probably did not coin this saying.” (The Five Gospels, p. 477)

Marvin Meyer writes: “This riddle-like saying remains somewhat obscure. In ancient literature the lion could symbolize what is passionate and bestial. Hence this saying could suggest that although a human being may consume what is bestial or be consumed by it, there is hope for the human being – and the lion. In gnostic literature the ruler of this world (Yaldabaoth in the Secret Book of John) is sometimes said to look like a lion. This saying may ultimately be based upon statements in Plato, for instance his comparison (in Republic 588E-589B) of the soul to a being of three parts: a many-headed beast, a lion, and a human being. Plato recommends that the human part of the soul (that is, reason) tame and nourish the leonine part (that is, the passion of the heart).” (The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, pp. 71-72)

Gerd Ludemann writes: “Verse 1 is about the humanization of bestial forces in human beings, v. 2 about human beings lapsing into a bestial nature. Because of the parallelism, I have emended the text in v. 2b, ‘and the lion will become man’, to the text above ['and the man will become lion']. The logion fits well with the ascetic-Gnostic circles which are interested in taming or humanization of bestial passions. They are often concerned with taming bestial natures, of which that of the lion is the strongest.” (Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 593)

Jean Doresse writes: “No doubt the lion here represents human passions, or more precisely, the lying spirit of evil. This is suggested by a passage from a Coptic Manichaean Psalm (CCLVII): ‘This lion which is within me, which defiles me at every moment, I have strangled it and cast it out of my soul. . . .’” (The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, p. 371)

Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freedman write: “This saying, as Doresse notes (page 134), is extremely obscure. From other sayings in Thomas we may infer that the lion can be eaten only if it is killed and becomes a corpse (60), and that knowing the world is equivalent to finding a corpse (57) – the world is not worthy of those who find such a corpse. The Gnostic who has eaten what is dead has made it living (Saying 10). Therefore, by eating the dead lion, which may be the hostile world (cf., 1 Peter 5:8: ‘Your adversary the devil, like a raging lion . . .’), you can overcome the world by assimilating it to yourself. If the true inner man is consumed by the lion, and the lion becomes the man, the world has overcome the Gnostic (cf., Clement, Excerpta ex Theodoto, 84).” (The Secret Sayings of Jesus, p. 126)

Scholarly Quotes

Funk cites Aesop as follows: “A fisherman drew in the net which he had cast a short time before and, as luck would have it, it was full of all kinds of delectable fish. But the little ones fled to the bottom of the net and slipped out through its many meshes, whereas the big ones were caught and lay stretched out in the boat. / It’s one way to be insured and out of trouble, to be small; but you will seldom see a man who enjoys great reputation and has the luck to evade all risks. (Perry, 1965: 9-10)” (New Gospel Parallels, v. 2, p. 110)

Funk refers to Philoxenas as follows: “Then one will see the fisherman cast his net into the sea of the world and fill it with fish, small and great. . . . At that time he will draw his net and bring it up to the shore of the sea, as he set it, and he will choose the good fish and will put them in his vessels, . . . and he will throw away the wicked ones into utter darkness, where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. (IDB Supplement: 903a)” (New Gospel Parallels, v. 2, p. 110)

Ron Cameron refers to Herodotus, History 1.141: “Once, he [Cyrus] said, there was a flute-player who saw fishes in the sea and played upon his flute, thinking that so they would come out on to the land. Being disappointed of his hope, he took a net and gathered in and drew out a great multitude of the fishes; and seeing them leaping, ‘You had best,’ said he, ‘cease from your dancing now; you would not come out and dance then, when I played to you.’” (“Parable and Interpretation in the Gospel of Thomas,” Forum 2.2 [1986], p. 29)

Ron Cameron quotes a parallel in Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 6.11.95.3: “the kingdom of heaven is like a person who cast a net into the sea and, from the multitude of fish that were caught, chose the better.” (“Parable and Interpretation in the Gospel of Thomas,” Forum 2.2 [1986], p. 28)

John Dart writes: “One scholar, Claus-Hunno Hunzinger, says ‘the Man’ [in Guillaumont's translation] can be understood as a gnosticizing substitute for ‘the kingdom of heaven.’” (The Laughing Savior, pp. 94-95)

Gerd Ludemann writes: “‘Man’ is a keyword link to ‘man’ in 7.1, 2. Instead of ‘man’, originally ‘kingdom of the Father/God’ probably stood in v. 1.” (Jesus After 200 Years, p. 594)

Ron Cameron writes: “The opening words of The Fishnet (‘the person [P.RWME] is like a wise fisherman’) are striking, for the making of a comparison to a person is generally assumed to be anamolous in the parables of the Jesus tradition. It is the overwhelming consensus of scholarship that the reference to ‘the person’ in Thomas has supplanted the original, more familiar reference to ‘the kingdom.’ This is particularly the judgment of those who consider this ‘person’ a gnosticizing substitution for that ‘kingdom.’ Accordingly, ‘the person’ (frequently translated ‘the man’) who is said to be compared to a ‘wise fisherman’ in GThom 8.1 has been variously identified as (1) the ‘Son of Man,’ (2) the gnostic ‘Primal Man’ (ANQRWPOS), (3) the individual Gnostic, or (4) the gnostic Redeemer.” (“Parable and Interpretation in the Gospel of Thomas,” Forum 2.2 [1986])

Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freedman write: “Thomas contains a parable about a ‘wise fisherman’ who threw away all the little fish he caught and kept only a large and good one (Saying 8/7); this may be contrasted with the parable of the Dragnet in Matthew 13:47-50, where good and bad fish are kept together until the end of the age.” (Gnosticism & Early Christianity, pp. 188-189)

F. F. Bruce writes: “This, the first of many parables in the Gospel of Thomas, bears a superficial resemblance to the parable of the dragnet in Matthew 13.47-50,, but its point is closer to that of the parables of the treasure concealed in a field (Saying 109) and the pearl of great price (Saying 76), to gain which a man sells all that he has (Matthew 13.44-46). In this context the big fish is either the true Gnostic, whom Christ chooses above all others, or the true knowledge for which the Gnostic abandons everything else.” (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 115-116)

Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freedman write: “We should expect to read that ‘the kingdom’ is like a fisherman (cf., Sayings 20, 76, 93-95, 104, 106); but for Thomas, true, inner man is equivalent to the kingdom. Moreover, Thomas sharply modifies the meaning of the parable in Matthew 13:47-48, on which he relies for some details. There the kingdom is like the net which brings in fish of all sorts, good and bad alike (a very un-Gnostic notion!). Thomas tells of the ‘experienced’ fisherman who can select the best one of his catch (compare the ‘sheep’ of Saying 104). The parable ends with the admonition, ‘He who has ears to hear, let him hear’; Matthew uses a similar admonition twice in the chapter in which he tells the parable of the dragnet (13:9, 43). Like Matthew, Thomas wants to show that there is a hidden meaning in the parable (see Sayings 22, 25, 64, 66, 93). The maning is that only Gnostics are selected by Jesus or the Father, or that Gnostics select Christ.” (The Secret Sayings of Jesus, pp. 126-127)

R. McL. Wilson writes: “By printing the opening words in the form ‘The Man is like a wise fisherman,’ the official translation inevitably suggests an association with the Gnostic Anthropos, in which case the parable would refer to the election of the Gnostic. He is the large and good fish which is selected while all the rest are thrown back into the sea. It is also possible, however, to interpret this story as a parable of the Gnostic, the fish in this case being gnosis and the parable constructed on the model of the synoptic parables of the pearl of great price and the hidden treasure, both of which also occur in Thomas, to teach that the Kingdom of God (or in Thomas gnosis) is of such supreme value as to be worth any sacrifice.” (Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, pp. 40-41)

Helmut Koester writes: “One may wonder whether Thomas refers to the synoptic parable of Matt. 13:47-48 at all. There is an almost exact parallel to SAying 8 in the poetic version of the Aesopic fables by Babrius, who, in the first century A.D., dedicated his work to the son of King Alexander, whose tutor he was.” (Trajectories through Early Christianity, p. 176)

Joachim Jeremias writes: “The catch varies. When the fisherman throws his casting-net into the shallow water by the bank, weighted with lead round the edge, it falls into the water like a bell. The net often remains empty several times running. A modern observer counted twenty to twenty-five fish in one catch. In the parable, when the fisherman drew his net to shore he found a great number of small fish in it, but among them one fine large fish. Although he might have hesitated about keeping a few of the small fish in his bag, yet in his joy over the CALLICQUS [Thus Clem. Alex., Strom., I, 16.3 with reference to our parable.] he cast aside all such hesitations and threw all the small fish back into the lake. Thus it is when a man is overwhelmed with joy over the glad Good News; all else becomes valueless compared with this surpassing value.” (The Parables of Jesus, p. 201)

Scholarly Quotes

Marvin Meyer writes: “In each occurrence of the parable in the New Testament, the author has added an allegorical interpretation of the parable and placed it on the lips of Jesus (Matthew 13:18-23; Mark 4:13-20; Luke 8:11-15). Stories similar to the parable are known from Jewish and Greek literature. Thus Sirach 6:19 says, ‘Come to her (that is, Wisdom) like one who plows and sows, and wait for her good crops. For in her work you will toil a little, and soon you will eat of her produce.’ In his Oratorical Instruction 5.11.24, Quintilian writes, ‘For instance, if you would say that the mind needs to be cultivated, you would use a comparison to the soil, which if neglected produces thorns and brambles but if cultivated produces a crop. . . .’” (The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, pp. 72-73)

F. F. Bruce writes: “This is another version of the parable of the sower (or the parable of the four soils), recorded in all three Synoptic Gospels (Mark 4.3-8; Matthew 13.3-8; Luke 8.5-8). The worm that attacked the seed sown among thorns is peculiar to this version. The ‘rock’ instead of ‘rocky ground’ is distinctively Lukan; the statement that the seed sown there ‘sent forth no ears up to heaven’ has been recognised as a Naassene thought. [Hippolytus (Refutation v.8.29) reproduces the Naassene interpretation of the parable.] The statement that the first lot of seed fell ‘on’ (not ‘by’) the road probably reflects the sense of the Aramaic preposition used by Jesus in telling the parable (the preposition may be rendered ‘on’ or ‘by’ according to the context).” (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 116)

Joachim Jeremias writes: “Here, as additions to the synoptic form of the parable, we have the antithesis ‘(did not strike root in the earth and sent up no ears to heaven)’, the mention of the worm and the increase in number, 120.” (The Parables of Jesus, p. 28)

Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freedman write: “Thomas adds a few details. The sower ‘filled his hand’ before he cast the seed; this looks like no more than an attempt to indicate the fullness or completeness of the sowing (of souls or spirits). But when we read that the seed which fell on ‘the rock’ (so only Luke) not only had no root but also ‘put forth no ear up to heaven’ we are confronting a combination of this parable with the Naassene doctrine of the heavenward ascent of the good seed. The seed which fell upon thorns was not only choked but also eaten by the worm – presumably the worm of Gehenna (cf., Mark 9:48), though Thomas does not say so, since, like other Gnostics, he doubtless holds that hell is on earth. The good fruit, unlike the bad, is brought forth ‘up to heaven,’ sometimes sixty-fold, sometimes one-hundred-twenty-fold. Thomas feels free to give these figures since Matthew has one hundred, sixty, and thirty; Mark has thirty-sixty-one hundred; and Luke has simply one hundred. His figure is more logical; one hundred twenty is twice as much as sixty.” (The Secret Sayings of Jesus, pp. 127-128)

R. McL. Wilson writes: “In particular he [Quispel] claims as evidence [for primitivity] the reading ‘on the road,’ for which he has found parallels in Justin Martyr and in the Clementine literature. Moreover, Clement of Rome quotes the opening words in this form rather than that of our Gospels. Bartsch, however, argues that the chance is a corection of the synoptic version, and regards the differences in Thomas as the result of condensation in the paraenetic tradition. Luke’s version indeed is an intermediate stage between those of Mark and of Thomas. The correction is certainly very natural, and scholars have long recognized that the synoptic ‘by the wayside’ goes back to a misunderstanding of the Aramaic; but this does not necessarily preclude the possibility that two Greek versions were current. The question should probably be left open, since the evidence is scarcely decisive either way. Grant and Freedman see here only a few additions to the canonical parable, and quote the Naassene exegesis; the form in which the Naassenes cited the parable was apparently not exactly that of Thomas, but ‘based on a mixture of Matthew and Luke.’ In this connection it is interesting to see what the Gnostics, or others like them, could make of an apparently innocuous parable: Puech quotes in another connection, and Doresse adduces at this point in his commentary, an interpretation given by the Priscillianists, to the effect that this was not a good sower, or he would not have been so careless; in fact, he was the God of this world, sowing souls into bodies. The passage is quoted by Orosius (c. A.D. 414) from the Memoria Apostolorum, a work of uncertain date, and it is not clear how far back this interpretation can be traced. We cannot say that this was how Thomas understood the parable, but such an exegesis is certainly in the Gnostic tradition.” (Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, pp. 98-99)

Funk and Hoover write: “Thomas has preserved what the Fellows take to be the form of the parable that is closest to the original. The seed is first sown on three kinds of ground that fail to produce: the road, the rocky ground, and among the thorns. When sown on good soil, the seed produces yields at two different levels: sixty and one hundred twenty. Originally, the yields were probably thirty, sixty, one hundred, as Mark records them, although the doubling of sixty to one hundred twenty may have been original. The structure probably consisted of two sets of threes: three failures, three successes.” (The Five Gospels, p. 478)

Gerd Ludemann writes: “The comparison between the versions of Mark and Thomas indicates that there is a far-reaching agreement, with two exceptions: first, the conclusion differs in that Mark speaks of fruit thirtyfold and sixtyfold and one hundredfold, while Thomas speaks of sixty and one hundred and twenty measures. Secondly, in mentioning the rocky ground on which the seed fell Mark additionally writes that the rising sun contributed to the withering (Mark 4.6), whereas Thomas is silent about this. On the whole we must regard the version of Thomas as older than that of Mark, because it is simpler.” (Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 28)

Scholarly Quotes

R. McL. Wilson writes: “Logion 10 has a parallel in Luke xii. 49, but with a change of emphasis. The canonical version looks to the future: ‘I came to cast fire upon the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!’ In Thomas the fire has been kindled: ‘I have cast fire upon the world, and behold, I guard it until it is ablaze.’ This raises an interesting problem in relation to the common source of Matthew and Luke, since Matthew (x. 34) records a saying, ‘I came not to cast peace, but a sword.’ As already observed, something like this appears in logion 16, but in the saying in Thomas ‘division’ and ‘fire’ are paralleled in Luke, ‘sword’ in Matthew. The question is whether in Thomas we have a conflation of the two synoptic versions, or a form of the saying derived from an independent tradition.” (Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, pp. 110-111)

Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freedman write: “A similar saying in Luke 12:49 is clearly eschatological. ‘I came to cast fire on the earth, and how I wish that it were already kindled.’ Thomas changes future to past and present. The fire has been ignited, and Jesus keeps the world until it burns up; to be near the fire is to be near Jesus and the kingdom (Saying 82).” (The Secret Sayings of Jesus, p. 128)

Marvin Meyer writes: “The gnostic document Pistis Sophia 141 has Jesus utter a nearly identical saying. Jesus, who is called Aberamentho, says, ‘For this reason I said to you, “I have come to throw fire upon the earth,” that is, I have come to cleanse the sins of the whole world with fire.’ See also Gospel of Thomas saying 15.” (The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, p. 73)

Funk and Hoover write: “Both the context and the form of the saying in Thomas distinguish it from the Lukan version (‘I came to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already ablaze!’). In Luke, the saying is part of a cluster probably already formed in Q, and reflects the early Christian community’s mythologized view of Jesus as one who came into the world for its redemption. In Thomas, the saying appears as a single aphorism, not part of a cluster, and with none of the Christianizing language of the Lukan version. The saying in Thomas is thus probably not dependent on Q or Luke, but represents an independent tradition.” (The Five Gospels, pp. 478-479)

Gerd Ludemann writes: “The logion is similar to Luke 12.49, but can hardly have come from there (cf. by contrast the adoption and interpretation of Luke 12.49 in the Gnostic writing Pistis Sophia IV 141: it means the cleansing of the sins of the whole world by fire). The key to its understanding is ‘world’ (Luke: earth), a word which appears sixteen times alone in the Gospel of Thomas and in it has a predominantly negative sense (cf. Logion 56). In Logion 82 ‘fire’ is connected with the nearness of Jesus. So the meaning seems to be that Jesus’ presence will set on fire the world, understood in negative terms.” (Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 595)

Scholarly Quotes

Jean Doresse writes: “The first part of this paragraph is quoted and commented on by the Philosophumena (V, 8, 31). According to this work, the Naassenes explained it as follows: ‘If you have eaten dead things and made them living things, what then will you do when you eat living things? These living things are rational beings, intelligences, men – pearls which the great Being without form has cast into the work of here below!’” (The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, p. 371)

Marvin Meyer writes: “The two heavens will pass away. Presumably the third heaven (the realm of God; compare 2 Corinthians 12:2-4) will not. On the heavens passing away, compare Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; Matthew 5:18 (Q); Luke 16:17 (Q).” (The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, p. 73)

F. F. Bruce writes: “The first part of the saying reminds us of Matthew 24.35 (cf. Matthew 5.18; Luke 16.17): ‘Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away’ – but it is not a close parallel. As for eating dead things, this probably means that when the flesh of dead animals is eaten by human beings it becomes part of a living body (cf. Saying 7). [A similar Naassene saying is quoted by Hippolytus, Refutation v.8.32.] The eating of flesh was probably discouraged, as making it more difficult to attain the light of immortality; the views of a vegetarian Syrian sect called the Encratites may have influenced the tradition in this and some other regards. The words about being one and becoming two refer to the dividing of man into male and female (cf. Saying 4). If sex was to be transcended in the life to come, it was felt best that it should play no part in the present life (this may be a further Encratite trait).” (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 117)

Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freedman write: “The third part of the saying describes the condition of the Gnostic believer. Those who were formerly divided have been united; they have worked together (Saying 59); they are at peace (49); they have become one (103). Unfortunately, it looks as if becoming ‘two’ were regarded as the believer’s goal. Perhaps it would be best to hold that the present unity of the believers represents their goal, and – in spite of the parallelism of the saying – that the becoming ‘two’ is something they should avoid. Jesus is not a divider (Saying 72), except in the sense that he divides families into Gnostics and non-Gnostics (Saying 16).” (The Secret Sayings of Jesus, p. 130)

Stevan Davies writes: “Those who achieve the excellence Thomas commends are people who live from the living one immortally (sayings 11, 111), while those who do not do so live from the dead and will die (sayings 7, 11, 60, 87).” (http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/jblprot.htm)

Funk and Hoover write: “A number of themes in this complex led the Fellows to conclude that these sayings derive from a form of Christianity exhibiting mild gnostic tendencies. This appears to be the form of Christianity Thomas espoused. The speculative cosmology in 11:1 has parallels in other gnostic texts. The obscure statements regarding life and death in 11:2-3a seem typical of Thomas (Thom 4:1; 58; 101:3; 7; 60), as does the theme of light (11:3b; compare with 24:3; 50:1; 61:5; 83:1-2). 11:4 may refer to a common gnostic idea that humanity has fallen from an original, perfect state of undifferentiated unity (22:4-7). All these considerations suggest that the Thomas tradition is the origin of this complex rather than Jesus.” (The Five Gospels, p. 479)

12

BLATZ

(12) The disciples said to Jesus: We know that you will depart from us; who is it who will be great over us? Jesus said to them: Wherever you have come, you will go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being. LAYTON

(12) The disciples said to Jesus, "We are aware that you will depart from us. Who will be our leader?" Jesus said to him, "No matter where you come it is to James the Just that you shall go, for whose sake heaven and earth have come to exist." DORESSE

13 [12]. The disciples say to Jesus, "We know that Thou wilt leave us: who will <then> be the great<est> over us?" Jesus says to them: "Wherever you go, you will turn to James the Just, for whose sake heaven as well as earth was produced." Funk's Parallels

Luke 9:46-48, Luke 22:24-27, Matt 18:1-4, Mark 9:33-35.

Visitor Comments

I would agree with Jack Kilmon that this probably represents a part of the earliest recension of Thomas (40 CE or thereabouts). It reflects the way the church was organized during the earliest Nazarene movement, the Judaic proto Christians (although this name would not be used in Jerusalem). - John Moon

Not necessarily a saying with a meaning fixed in only one time. Rather a statement that we should always be turning to a man of ultimate just nature who in facts resides within each of us. And that heaven and earth were in fact created for the sake of each of us individually. (There is only One of Us!) - active-mystic

The last phrase is the mystery here because our we become conscious by use of the paralax view of polarity and then literalize the poles. We see "existence" as being and not being; we see being as "heaven" and "earth". What Jesus the Nazarene Essene is saying here is that James is the highest in the levels of awareness and at that level the mind is at one with "I am that I am" and thus it appears from that perspective that heaven and earth have come into existence for that one's sake. The term "for who's sake" does not mean James ordered heaven and earth at the Universal take-out counter; it means, as with Buddha's birth phrase "I alone am the world honored one." James has rached the level of enlightenment that he appreciates that the birth of consciousness in the individual is co-equivalent with the creation of heaven and earth. - Gregory Wonderwheel Scholarly Quotes

Marvin Meyer refers to the quote of Hegesippus on James the Just in Ecclesiastical History 2.23.4-7 and quotes from Secret James 16:5-11 on his authority: "So, not wishing to give them offense, I sent each one of them to a different place. But I myself went up to Jerusalem, praying that I might acquire a share with the beloved ones who will appear." (The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, p. 74)

Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freedman write: "The answer which Jesus gives is again related to the conversation in the Gospel of John, where Jesus tells the disciples that he is going away to prepare a 'place' for them (John 14:2-3). In Thomas, however, the 'place' is apparently earthly rather than heavenly; it is a place in which they are to go to James the Just, 'for whose sake the heaven and the earth came into existence.' This exaltation of James is characteristic of Jewish-Christian and Naassene tradition . . . it may be derived from the Gospel of the Hebrews. Doresse suggests (page 140) that James may here be regarded as a supernatural power, but there is nothing in Thomas which could favor such an interpretation." (The Secret Sayings of Jesus, p. 131)

Gerd Ludemann writes: "The logion recalls the disciples' conversations about status which we know from Mark 9.33-34. To be precise, the saying regulates the succession to Jesus (cf. the Paraclete in John 14.16, 26; 15.26; 16.7 and Peter as the follower of Jesus in John 21.15-17). James is not only given the predicate 'righteous' (cf. Acts 7.52), but is also assigned a role in creation. All these sayings came into being in Jewish-Christian circles where James later became 'the pope of Ebionite fantasy' (H. J. Schoeps)." (Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 596)

F. F. Bruce writes: "This saying originated in a Jewish-Christian setting where James the Just, Jesus' brother, was regarded as the natural leader of Jesus's disciples after Jesus's departure. James was actually leader of the Jerusalem church for fifteen to twenty years, until his death in A.D. 62; his memory was revered and enhanced by legendary embellishments. Here a high estimate is placed on his person: in Jewish thought the world was created for the sake of the Torah, [Assumption of Moses 1.2; Genesis Rabbah 1.25.] although in one rabbinical utterance 'every single person is obliged to say: "The world was created for my sake."' [TB Sanhedrin 37b]" (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, pp. 117-118)

Robert Price writes: "So to be called the Pillars indicated quite an exalted status. We can see the same sort of godlike veneration reflected in Thomas, saying 12 . . . 'Wherever you come from' refers to the obligation of missionary apostles to check in with a report to James in Jerusalem, another measure of his importance." (Deconstructing Jesus, p. 53)

*