Gospel Of Thomas Assassin Parable

[des]

Fred, aren't many of the statements attributed to Paul not really said by Paul but something like a student of Paul. Sometimes I dont' like Paul either (for ex. some of the apparently anti-homosexual phrases, though I'm not sure anyone then actually thought of homosexuality as a *committed relationship*-- what was going on was more prostitution), but he also has some of the best statements as well... The neither Jew nor Greek; without love I am nothing; etc etc.

 

 

There are some problematic statements or behavior attitributed to Jesus too (in the gospels). For example, the lot of statements in Matthew (I think) that have Jesus calling those who disagree with him vipers, etc. (And earlier in the text has this same Jesus saying that anybody who says "you fool" is wrong. Hey "you fool" is really bad but "viper" is ok?!

(I think it might have had more to do with Matthew than Jesus though, but still..)

 

So I actually don't believe that Jesus would ever have said something about turning someone into a man. Perhaps it was to express how powerful Jesus was, that he could go against the laws of nature (as he did in walking on water-- another thing I don't think he *actually* did).

 

 

--des

 

Well, frankly my money is with Paul on this one too.  (I feel like a bit of a black sheep in Progressive circles for believing that Pauline theology is essentially right on the mark in so many respects.  I'm not on the current progressive "everybody gang up on Paul" bandwagon.)  But I also don't disqualify texts from any consideration just because they may have problematic teachings, nor do I believe that there are any texts which are completely immune from error.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[October's Autumn]

Fred, aren't many of the statements attributed to Paul not really said by Paul but something like a student of Paul. Sometimes I dont' like Paul either (for ex. some of the apparently anti-homosexual phrases, though I'm not sure anyone then actually thought of homosexuality as a *committed relationship*-- what was going on was more prostitution), but he also has some of the best statements as well... The neither Jew nor Greek; without love I am nothing; etc etc.

 

 

--des

 

Yes, complete epistles are not considered Pauline but rather signed by an apostle (??) of Paul. Of course the "apostle" did not pay too much attention to what Paul was saying in some cases...

 

Deutero Pauline Epistles

 

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/deutero.stm

 

This explains which epistles are suspect and why.

Edited September 4, 2005 by October's Autumn

[FredP]

Fred, aren't many of the statements attributed to Paul not really said by Paul but something like a student of Paul. Sometimes I dont' like Paul either (for ex. some of the apparently anti-homosexual phrases, though I'm not sure anyone then actually thought of homosexuality as a *committed relationship*-- what was going on was more prostitution), but he also has some of the best statements as well... The neither Jew nor Greek; without love I am nothing; etc etc.

There is a lot of schoarly disagreement about what Paul actually wrote. There is a set of letters that Paul is generally agreed to have written (Romans, Ephesians [maybe], Phillipians, Galatians, I/II Corinthians, I Thessalonians), and others that are a lot more contested -- mainly because of the apparently huge divergence between the two sets in terms of theological content, evolution of ecclesiological structure, and, frankly, understandings of Christian liberty/equality. (That sentence was way too long.)

 

There are some problematic statements or behavior attitributed to Jesus too (in the gospels). For example, the lot of statements in Matthew (I think) that have Jesus calling those who disagree with him vipers, etc.

Are you kidding, Jesus is my inspiration for spouting off at people who disagree with me!

 

Seriously though, the gospels don't have Jesus calling people vipers for disagreeing with him -- they're called vipers because they're hypocrites, prentending to be virtuous, but all the while using their worldly power to suck people dry. This was righteous anger.

Edited September 4, 2005 by FredP

[des]

But he's still saying "you fool" is wrong but calling someone a "viper" isn't? I agree with the argument re: righteous anger, but couldn't someone then say "you fool" in righteous anger?

Perhaps I used the word "disagree" a little loosely, I should have used enemies. His enemies were likely to have been the very people he supposedly called "viper". He is also quoted as saying something to the effect that anybody can love his friends, I say to you love your enemies, pray for they who abuse you... So on one hand he says this and another he calls them vipers? (in other places, he says "you hypocrit" which I dont' have problems with. Just calling em as he sees em. And maybe I don't think it's too problematic, after all they were vipers in society, but it does seem inconsistent.)

 

(Though I have all sorts more trouble with all the hell fire talk in Matthew than that, actually. It's just an example, I see of an inconsistency. One of thousands I would guess.

 

And in another passage he basically shrivels a tree for not giving him fruit when it was not even in season. Do you think Jesus really did that?

 

 

 

--des

[AletheiaRivers]

I think there was more to Jesus' condemnation of those that were saying "you fool" than just their using the words "you fool". Perhaps the cultural context of what was happening has been lost and we'll never know.

 

I think the picture of why Jesus called certain religious leaders in his days "vipers" and "hypocrites" is a little clearer than the "you fool" situation.

 

And I think the cursing and withering of the tree is a parable. I'll need to reread it and google it to see what it's all about. Perhaps it would have been a more effective visual teaching tool if the tree HAD been in season?

[October's Autumn]

Jesus also (supposedly) calls a gentile woman a dog which would be equivalent to using some not-so-nice words about people of various races.

 

For those who hold the bible literally they have a problem if they understand this because it is a very clear case of Jesus sinning.

 

So there are a few options: Jesus didn't say it in which case you can't take everything in the bible literally (not an issue for most moderates or liberals).

 

Jesus did in fact sin as does every human being. An issue for those who put a lot of emphasis on the death/resurrection of Jesus as the perfect sacrifice (ie one who did not sin). Now an moderate or liberal can "deal" with this easily. They either eliminate the story as a literary device (showing the conversion of Jesus from being for the Jews to being for all humankind). Or they simply understand that Jesus was in fact human and this is one of the many places that he shows his humanity (odd that we show our humanity by what we do wrong, eh?)

 

For those who believe Jesus was in fact perfect and who understand this passage as literal, well, they have a problem. In my experience they deal with it by simply blocking the two pieces of information from it or deny historical evidence which shows the meaning of Jesus calling her a dog.

[flowperson]

This is a reply to a post by MOW on Sept. 2.

This business of recieiving the spirit is a very ancient concept. Among native Americans the concept was one of there being an earth mother and a sky father. One assimilated the spirits through ritual activities. Rythmic-chanting dancing in circles was probably the most prevalent expression of group access to the spiritual powers. The musical and rhythmic harmonization of the group was necessary to demonstrate unity of the community when accessing spiritual powers. Skin drums and flutes were the common musical instruments.

This coincides with practices on the Eurasian land mass going back at least 20,000 years. It is believed that native American groups originated here, at least in part. There was an added aspect there of using a "sky tree" to climb up off of the ground in order to come nearer to the sky spirits, and to be separated from the ground spirits which could render such communication with the sky more difficult. On the Eurasian plains there were few trees and poles with cross pieces tied to them to serve as steps were utilized.

One member of the group, usually male, was chosen by birthright or group consensus to serve as an advocate for the community in communicating with the sky spirits. The communicator, or shaman, would usually become entranced while communicating and would advocate with the spirits on behalf of the group. This might be to cure physical or spiritual affliction, bring rain, provide more plentiful game, etc.

In matriarchal societies, which were very numerous in ancient times, women were thought to absorb spiritual energies through their feet from the earth. A woman of the group was usually chosen to be the keeper of the herbal secrets that were used to cure maladies and promote health. Their proficiencies at this skill set was determined both through lineage, and again, group consensus. Certain spiritual women were also looked to for knowledge as to probable weather patterns and the availability of game and edible staples in certain regions.

In an interesting parallel, the ancient Hebrews, prior to King Hezzakiah's reforms in about 600 bc, would worship God in high places and utilized groups of poles which were known as "groves" in their ceremonies in some ways. This was outlawed by the king and his priests for some reason, but even today we see a parallel to this in the spiral poles supporting the canopy above the high altar at St. Peter's in Rome.

Even at later times in the temples the head priests were also said to communicate with God through the ritual of the "shekinah". This was a process through which the male priest would place his being in the "aspect" of the female in order to be able to be penetrated by and recieve God's spirit. When God's spirit descended from heaven to penetrate the soul of the priest with knowledge, it was known as the "mishkan" or the arrow of the spirit.

It is interesting to recognize that, while worship ceremonies have become more abstract and complex over the millenia, certain aspects of the general patterns have been preserved, such as the elevated pulpit and the participation of musicians as a part of the clergy in ceremonies. However, of course, intercession with the spirit may be attained now by the individual through direct appeal, rather than always being required to do so through an advocate/priest.

[des]

Alethia, I was actually saying this on the basis of "if you viewed any of these to be factual statements of what Jesus actually said. I think we just don't know. I imagine that he was eminently quotable, but I honestly don't know how much he really actually said, and wouldn't have a problem if he never literally said any of it. I think my point was just that *if* you take any of the scriptures-- not just Thomas, you might find things that could be questionable, etc. IMO, it wouldn't be so nice to wither away a tree, esp. if it didnt' belong to you. And I don't think he would really have done that, even for metaphorical impact. (Perhaps it was a shade of things to come, as he would die hanging from a tree.)

 

It all reminds me of MASH, strangely enough. I read somewhere that many of the episodes of MASH really happened somewhere (though not quite with all the comedic aspects perhaps), so I am thinking about this or that episode-- well that could have happened or that didn't. So unless you think of God the Scribe, you are in the position of trying to figure this out. BUt, I think, mostly it is beside the point.

 

I'm sure Jesus didn't say to suggest he could make someone a man, wither a tree out for not producing fruit, or say "I AM the way the Truth the life". The point is more "what are these things saying (or in some cases not saying so well)- or perhaps as you suggest, Alethia, that we aren't in the right context to "get" some fo the point of some of them. Perhaps, for instance "viper" has a different connotation in the language it was originally written in? The connotative meaning is lost now, and we are left with denotation only?

 

 

--des

[MOW]

Thank you Flow for responding to my post

Again I don't think Jesus is attempting to perform a sex change operation , I think these things are totally symbolic. One could argue why didn't Jesus suggest that men become women to enter the Kingdom of God. He sort of did in Matthew 19:12. "And there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of God". I'm sure some of you know that the early church father Origen (185-254) actually had himself castrated to follow this scripture(talk about taking the Bible literally!!).

 

I was wondering guys if the problem might be the English language itself in being translated from Eastern languages. I remember reading a rather amusing incident in a book . A computer was programmed to translate from English to Russian and back to English It was told to translate the phrase "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" and it came back "The vodka is agreeable but the meat is too tender"

 

MOW

Edited September 5, 2005 by MOW

[AletheiaRivers]

Alethia, I was actually saying this on the basis of "if you viewed any of these to be factual statements of what Jesus actually said. I think we just don't know.

 

I was coming at it (for "arguments" sake [not that I'd ever argue with my Sis ]) from the point of view that Jesus might have said and done those things. "If he did, then what might it have meant?" - point of view.

 

The point is more "what are these things saying (or in some cases not saying so well)- or perhaps as you suggest, Alethia, that we aren't in the right context to "get" some fo the point of some of them. Perhaps, for instance "viper" has a different connotation in the language it was originally written in? The connotative meaning is lost now, and we are left with denotation only?

 

That was mostly my point Des, that much of it is cultural and we can't always take it at face value. And I don't mean "metaphorical versus literal" either.

 

Even when many say they try to read the texts "plainly", it begs the question of "Plainly from what point of view? A first century Jew or Greek point of view? Or from a medieval point of view? Or from a modern point of view?"

 

I'm at the point where I think we can take much of what's written at "face value", but that we should attempt to understand the face value position from a first century, middle eastern, Jewish POV.

 

Now how do I go about doing that? Anybody read Sanders? Is he readable? I really like NT Wright, but he's so dang wordy!

Edited September 5, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[FredP]

I'm at the point where I think we can take much of what's written at "face value", but that we should attempt to understand the face value position from a first century, middle eastern, Jewish POV.

Where does that leave something like, say, the lectionary theory of gospel composition? -- i.e. that the gospels (at least the synoptics) were composed specifically to be read alongside corresponding passages in the Hebrew scriptures, to denote their fulfillment. That possibility lends an interesting facet to one's "face value" point of view! Now your POV isn't just cultural/demographic, but specifically someone in a Jewish (Matthew) or Greek (Luke/Acts) worshipping community, with a particular set of assumptions about how to read and interpret scripture. Critics of the historical/critical method are correct, I think, in saying that the scripture can never truly be understood from outside a perspective of faith, i.e. as pure history, from an objective point of view. To make matters worse, a given faith perspective can be the correct interpretive lens, without necessarily being correct. For example, to read messianic prophecy fulfillments correctly, you have to read them as really being messianic prophecy fulfillments! That wouldn't be a generic first century, middle eastern, Jewish POV, but a specifically first century, middle eastern, Jewish Christian POV. And then from there, what might we hear God saying to us from within these horizons....? Is it any wonder why fundamentalism tries so hard to keep it simple?

 

I really like NT Wright, but he's so dang wordy! 

Seriously, I need to add some extra supports to my bookshelf for the W section (which has all my Wilber stuff too). Have you read the Borg/Wright collaboration Jesus: Two Visions?

[AletheiaRivers]

I admit I'm not sure I completely grasp the distinction you're trying to make between what you said and what I said about attempting to read NT scripture thru a Jewish, first century, religious and cultural lens.

 

All my life I've only heard "one side" of the story so to speak - post reformation, protestant, end-times, western influenced Christianity. I'm really coming to appreciate that there is another perspective, that makes more sense (to me), and that fits quite well with progressive Christianity.

 

I think fundamentalism has made things very complicated (even if THEY think they are keeping it simple).

 

I have read "The Meaning of Jesus" and would you believe I agree more with what Wright says in that book than Borg? I appreciate liberal (historical/critical/Jesus seminar) Christianity's attempt to deal with scripture by making much of it metaphorical, but I don't believe (anymore) that is necessarily the best way, because I've come to appreciate that much of what is being argued against are misinterpretations and misunderstandings (imo).

 

I'm just learning this stuff. I wish I had the schooling you do.

[FredP]

I admit I'm not sure I completely grasp the distinction you're trying to make between what you said and what I said about attempting to read NT scripture thru a Jewish, first century, religious and cultural lens. 

I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said, just trying to emphasize the faith perspective which the historical/critical angle generally leaves out. Which makes me both less confident than Crossan and Borg that we can access the objective "historical" Jesus, and more confident that the scriptures have something to say to us personally.

 

I think fundamentalism has made things very complicated (even if THEY think they are keeping it simple). 

I couldn't agree more. Bible interpretation was the annoying little thread that unraveled the whole fundamentalist sweater for me.

 

I have read "The Meaning of Jesus" and would you believe I agree more with what Wright says in that book than Borg?

I would believe that. I would say that I agree with Borg, Crossan, and Spong as far as that the virgin birth, passion narratives, empty tomb and ascension stories, etc. are not straightforward history. But beyond that, we diverge significantly on what to make of them.

 

I'm just learning this stuff. I wish I had the schooling you do. 

Nah. I just got my appetite whet in college. Beyond that, my Bible education has mostly taken place in my recliner.

Edited September 6, 2005 by FredP

[AletheiaRivers]

I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said, just trying to emphasize the faith perspective which the historical/critical angle generally leaves out. Which makes me both less confident than Crossan and Borg that we can access the objective "historical" Jesus, and more confident that the scriptures have something to say to us personally. 

 

Ah! OK cool! I totally agree.

 

I would believe that.  I would say that I agree with Borg, Crossan, and Spong as far as that the virgin birth, passion narratives, empty tomb and ascension stories, etc. are not straightforward history. But beyond that, we diverge significantly on what to make of them.

 

The virgin birth is a great point about misinterpretation and misunderstanding. If the Septuigant (sp?) hadn't translated the OT passage (is it maiden?) as virgin, how would that have changed the NT? Did first century Jews even realize the wording of the Septuigant was wrong?

 

Anyway ...

 

I don't think those narratives are straightforward history either. I think much of the gospels may have been an attempt at history though, and so overall, could be intuited literally, with obvious parable and metaphor thrown in. I do believe in a literal resurrection though (whether it was historically and accurately told in the gospels notwithstanding). I just don't agree with the common views of "atonement".

 

Nah. I just got my appetite whet in college. Beyond that, my Bible education has mostly taken place in my recliner.

 

I wish someone made a recliner that would fit under my computer desk. This desk chair is damn uncomfortable!

[FredP]

The virgin birth is a great point about misinterpretation and misunderstanding. If the Septuigant (sp?) hadn't translated the OT passage (is it maiden?) as virgin, how would that have changed the NT? Did first century Jews even realize the wording of the Septuigant was wrong?

You'll probably find a lot of different opinions about that. I think there was some ambiguity already there in the Hebrew, or else the Septuagint translators wouldn't have considered that as a viable choice. So I see the ambiguity and think, ok: on a conventional level we have a maiden denoting that the Son of God comes to us from humble beginnings; and then, on a more symbolic level, we have virginity denoting that God's gift of himself comes to us without any taint of impurity... or even more esoterically, that it is the creative Void out of which God manifests, and to which manifestation returns. Not that I'm trying to force interpretations here, just saying that when I see ambiguity (like possible plays on words), I see an invitation to look at something on multiple levels.

 

I don't think those narratives are straightforward history either. I think much of the gospels may have been an attempt at history though, and so overall, could be intuited literally, with obvious parable and metaphor thrown in.  I do believe in a literal resurrection though (whether it was historically and accurately told in the gospels notwithstanding). I just don't agree with the common views of "atonement".

Well this is where historiography does come into play, because it shows us that, unlike today, ancient "histories" actually do contain divine births and miraculous events of an interpretive nature. So, while a gospel is an "attempt at history," and should be read with that intention in mind, it also contains literary devices that symbolically communicate the meaning of Jesus' life, and beyond that, the meaning of existence and life itself. So when I see those devices, I start looking more for meaning and less for historical "coverage" -- and the more symbolic they appear, the more weighted that desicion becomes. I believe in a literal resurrection in the sense that I believe that in Christ God really, actually, literally, overcomes the gulf between Creator and creation, reality and oblivion, meaning and meaninglessness, death and life.

[AletheiaRivers]

So, while a gospel is an "attempt at history," and should be read with that intention in mind, it also contains literary devices that symbolically communicate the meaning of Jesus' life, and beyond that, the meaning of existence and life itself. So when I see those devices, I start looking more for meaning and less for historical "coverage" -- and the more symbolic they appear, the more weighted that desicion becomes.

 

I agree that much of the NT (and the OT as well) contain literary devices (parables, allegory, metaphor and myth) to communicate the meaning of existence. In fact, I do get more out of most of the stories if I approach it from this perspective.

 

I'd like to know what certain parables and metaphors might have meant to first century Jews. NT Wright deals more with the literal aspect of the NT, which I really really appreciate, but I also want to know a bit more of how Jewish listeners (readers) might have interpreted a parable (say of the fig tree). Does Wright deal with this as well? Would Sanders be a better option?

 

Aletheia

 

PS - I do realize that you are saying that even those areas of the NT that we might think of as literal history ALSO have something to tell us from a symbolic perspective. I agree.

[flowperson]

At the greatly despised risk of repeating myself, for I firmly believe that mindless repetition of past mistakes and known facts will likely lead to the eventual downfall of civiization, I strongly urge those of you that have hangups on literary interpretaions of words and phrases used in the English version of the Bible to read the King James version for a change. It was the first comprehensive translation of the ancient texts into our language; and, while some of the language is stilted and difficult, one may, with the assistance of a Strong's Comprehensive Concordance, trace questioned words and phrases to their Greek(nt) or Chaldean (ot) root meanings.

Interpretations published by others( ie Spong, Wright, Crossan, ad infinitum) will not fulfill your individual quests for satisfaction in the end, they will only tell you what they think you should believe. I believe one of the purposes of the Bible and its interpretations is to allow us to think and believe for ourselves. Think of it as the original blueprint for real democracy.

It is tedious work to do this, but once all of the related threads of meaning for words and phrases are tracked down and followed in a passage to their ancient root meanings, one may form a picture of what the author (s) may have been getting at when using particular words or phrases.

I'll bet there's even some spiffy software out there now that will make the job less tedious than it was when I was heavily into research in the 80"s and did it with the books, But it was very rewarding when I firmed the concepts that I was after at the end of the trails.

BTW ( see I can use acronyms too!) there was a fascinating article published in Biblical Archaeology Review a number of years ago that was very convincing in its proofs and arguments that the texts of both the OT and NT were based upon number systems and groupings. Fred, you should be particularly interested in this. Sorry that I can't give you the exact date or author reference, but if you get ahold of an index of the periodical's issues, you should have little trouble in finding it. It might even have been as far back as ten to fifteen years ago, but I believe it would be worth your while to track it down.This may have appeared when the Bible Code books craze was going on. C'mon guys! Progressives are supposed to be good at thinking outside of the box!

[AletheiaRivers]

Here is the recommendation of one websight :

 

Toward the literal end of the spectrum are translations such as the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the New American Standard (NAS), and the Douay-Rheims Version.

 

Next come slightly less literal translations, such as the Revised Standard Version (RSV), and the Confraternity Version.

 

Then there are mostly dynamic translations such as the New International Version (NIV) and the New American Bible (NAB).

 

And finally, toward the very dynamic end of the spectrum are translations such as the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), the New English Bible (NEB), the Revised English Bible (REB), the Contemporary English Version (CEV), and the "Good News Bible," whose translation is called Today's English Version (TEV).

 

One translation that is hard to place on the spectrum is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). The basic text of the NRSV is rendered literally, following the RSV, but it uses "gender inclusive language," which tries to translate the original text into a modern "gender neutral" cultural equivalent (like the Cotton-Patch Version does with other issues).

 

For Biblical studies, the website recommends something on the literal end of the spectrum.

[FredP]

For Biblical studies, the website recommends something on the literal end of the spectrum.

I generally read the NRSV if I'm interested in the actual words of the text (and my Greek NT if I'm feeling especially geeky), and the New Jerusalem Bible if I'm reading the text at a more literary level. (KJV is a good literary Bible too, but it's horribly inaccurate in so many places.) What a literal translation usually cannot do is capture the formal intent of the original text. For example, acrostics are used frequently in the Psalms, and where possible the NJB actually attempts to render them as acrostics in English. I think for hardcore Biblical study, you probably need the original text, at least one translation on the literal end of the spectrum, and as many freer translations as you can get your hand on, so you can get a feel for how expert linguists and translators render ancient texts.

 

How many people know that Tolkien was one of the NJB translators?

[FredP]

I do know that there is a whole lot of numerical structure going on, especially in the Pentateuch (Genesis - Deuteronomy). I read The Bible Code when it came out. The details of it aren't widely accepted by mathematicians, despite the book's grandiose claims, but the idea that there are words and phrases buried in the text at number positions is very easy to verify. Computers have helped unravel a lot of that, yes! Very cool stuff. Scribes were the most educated people in ancient civilization; they were not mindless copyists.