Gospel of Thomas Saying 7
|
This Gospel of Thomas Commentary is part of the Gospel of Thomas page at Early Christian Writings. |
|
Funk's Parallels
|
|
Visitor Comments The sense of 7 becomes clear from H.M.Jackson, The Lion Becomes Man, SBL:DS 81, 1985. There ia also a quotation of 7b in Didymus of Alexandria. You are what you eat! The wicked world or the prince of this world is the lion. The man is oneself. The man has his own choice to choose whether win over the world just as Jesus showed us as example, but if the man kneel down to serve this world (lion), then this man become a lion, which is the same as this world. Animals are closer to God than humans(therefore blessed)because they have no egos (free-will) or minds to interfere with that relationship. They respond as created. But at some point in the future when the spiritual dimension prevails, animals and humans (dualities) will be one. Not all knowledge is benificial. It depends on the type of knowledge (Lion-power, passionate, art / Human-rational/science) and how the knowledge is used (again lion/human goals). Blessed is the Godless world, which Jesus will consume. For in being consumed by Jesus the Godless world will become humanized. Cursed is Judas, which the Godless world will consume. And the Godless world will become humanized. Can something be good and bad at the same time - it depends on your vantage point - very oriental as is much of Thomas as I believe was the outlook that the Christ offered. If you conquer your inner evil thoughts and deeds (eating the lion) then you'll become a better person--a person of God. If you give in to the evil ways then it will comsume you and you will be evil. "Lion" means "instinct" in this saying, and you know that our primary instinct is the fear. So the lion who eats the man is the man who has been defeated by his own fears. Man must to dominate (eat) that fear and use it wisely for his own benefit and that fear will be part of him, it will help him in the future. Don�t be eaten by your fears. As far as the comment of animals being blessed it seems almost a negative viewpoint of animals is taken here. Where humans are more than animals and that we are above them, almost in a reincarnation viewpoint where humans are above animals in the path to nirvana or heaven. This is also seen in some of the other sayings as well. I agree with holly about eating the lion. It seems to me when you look at what the lion must have represented to someone then, it would likely represent aggression or fear or both. So, it could be said "You are holy when you consume your aggression/fear, but not holy when you are consumed by your aggression/fear". Just who the hell eats lions anyway? This saying ain't about food! And who gets eaten by lions? Let's say... Ignatuis of Antioch? Maybe this saying is a commentary on the value (or non value) of martyrdom. Ignatius speaks in his letter to the Romans about wanting the lions to eat him so that he can become a sacrifice like Christ did, ensuring his passage to heaven. But this saying takes the value away from such thinking. If a lion eats you as in 7B, then the lion becomes human. And what happens to you? According to this saying you are cursed. What a put down for Iggy. On the other hand there is that odd language in the gospel of John where Jesus talks about his disciples eating him and drinking his blood. If Jesus were the lion in 7a then eating him would make him become a part of you. So for salvation's sake, it is much better to eat the Lion then being eaten by just any old lion. Therefore prying open a lion's mouth and jumping inside like Ignatius did is of no value for becoming one with Christ. Perhaps the Lion is mind and the human is the soul or that which (we hope) makes us more than human. For the soul to devour (or dominate) the mind is blessed. For the reverse to happen is cursed. But either way it is the soul that will in the end endure. Whatever the lion is - passion, power, kingship, domination - it is better to assimilate this into human consciousness rather than be driven by it. However, either way, the two (lion and man) become one. There is a compassionate and nonjudgmental wisdom in this that sounds like Jesus to me. Conquer your ego (the lion or animal instincts) through feeding the real you (the Soul or Spirit). Feeding the Soul is done by meditation. If you indulge your animal passions then they will dominate your Soul (Consciousness)and you will have to reincarnate to try again. A thought came to mind. Believing the lion to be passions (good and evil passions) blessed is a righteous passion and a man eats (feeds) and that man becomes the passion. Cursed is the man who allows his passions or desires to consume him for he is now driven by them. The soul's struggle between selfishness and righteousness. This is most likely a clue about the falsehood of death. Death is but an illusion perceived by humanity, and when we die we must realize that we live on in whatever we are "consumed" by. We have the same matter inside of us that existed from the dawn of the universe, we are the continuation of all creation that has never ended. Just as we are the continuation of all that lived before us that we have "consumed" into us, we will be continued in all others that "consume" us. The curse mentioned seems to be humorous, as it states that we are to perceive our unfortunate death, but yet we continue, unbeknownst to our illusioned selves, in the lion! There are things that can be beneficial to us if consumed in wise amounts and directed toward that purpose. However, when we become fascinated by them for their own sake, we become gluttons to the world and enslaved by general lusts...consumed by the lion and fallen into degradation. I believe the lion may be a symbol of evil things or the evil in the world and if your faith is weak that evil can devour you and then you become the evil. |
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)
Gospel of Thomas Saying 8 |
|
This Gospel of Thomas Commentary is part of the Gospel of Thomas page at Early Christian Writings. |
|
Funk's Parallels GThom 21:5, GThom 24:2, GThom 63:2, GThom 65:2, GThom 96:2, Luke 8:8, Luke 14:35b, Matt 13:47-50, Matt 11:15, Matt 13:9, Matt 13:43, Mark 4:9, Mark 4:23, Aesop Fable 4, Philoxenas Homilies I.9, Rev 2:7a, Rev 2:11a, Rev 2:17a, Rev 3:6, Rev 3:13, Rev 3:22, Rev 13:9.
|
|
Visitor Comments The world sea is full of small truths (fish, viewpoints) about God (Ultimate Reality). When you catch (are gifted with, discover) a larger more comprehensive truth which allows you to see into the nature of the smaller truths as being part of the larger truth, abandon the small truths in favor of the encompassing greater truth. Mankind are the fish, many in quantity, only God will sift through the "catch" to find the deserving to bring to heaven. A Gospel according to Jesus would be a fine large fish indeed! Perhaps the "small" fish are the fortunate ones and the "big" fish will wind up on the dinner plate. The possibillities of this saying as an allegory are interesting, but it is also worth noting that Jesus was never above giving pragmatic as well as spiritual advice, and this parable could also be interpreted as a way to preserve the stock of fish, a very valuable resource. Note that the text is very explicit about the fisherman being a wise fisherman. So only the truly wise will have no trouble in descerning the truth among everything else, because only they know how to. Because a fisherman is chosen you might also want to think about the possibility that he became wise through fishing (experience). Our gifts in life are many, when the soul is found, keep it only. If one knows what one is looking for then it shall be found easily. If we keep the reincarnation motif as told in 'Conversations With God' it makes a lot of sense to say that we (people) are the fish. On a practical level, we all have thoughts, ideas, and theories swimming around in our minds. It makes a lot of sense to throw back the little ones and let them grow. Discernment, selectivity, are good. Learn how to know what is correct for you, an ability that has to be taught Why would the fisherman keep the little fish? One day they will be big. To me this seems to say that man, endowed with the (easily abused) power to harvest his livelihood from nature also would be wise to treat that source of life with respect: by replacing the smaller fish, he encourages them to grow to full size, perhaps reproduce (surely a fish's sacred goal in life), and hopefully return to the net later - as larger fish. In fishing, cast forth your net and see what you catch. You will certainly catch many small fish, but in catching one (or two) large fish, you have all you need for a time and allow the small fish to grow to a size where they can provide for you in the future. (Speak to the masses, draw them in, but only those who are mature enough will understand and can be brought in to develop the understanding necessary for the faith to grow, and they can then nurture the smaller "fish" to the point where they can learn and understand.) This seems to go along with the "I will make you fishers of men" statement in the Bible. To be efficient in converting people to the truth, one should concentrate not only on who is receptive but who can make an impact and influence others below them. It's like the spiritual trickle down effect. I think we're all correct but here's my take on the parable. You, myself, man in general casts nets out all the time. Sometimes we cast nets for love, jobs, and knowledge. Look at what NASA just did. That's a net for seeking knowledge. As we all know when we seek or cast a net out sometimes you don't get quite what you're looking for, i.e. you get little fish. But when you do find what you're looking for then, ahh, the big fish that sustains. The big fish is fully grown, able to coprehend the truths, to accept and understand the abstract, the smallers ones are set free in order to develop and and better their abilities. When they are prepared and able to accept the truth, they meet the wise fisherman. The cited commentaries ignore the acronym ICTHUS. Christ the big fish preferable to all other doctrines. It seems interesting to me that some see the fisherman as man and some as God...why can't it be both? Is Jesus here telling us something of the nature of the higher reality in relation to humanity? |
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)
Gospel of Thomas Saying 9 |
|
This Gospel of Thomas Commentary is part of the Gospel of Thomas page at Early Christian Writings. |
|
Funk's Parallels Luke 8:4-8, Luke 8:11-15, Matt 13:3-9, Matt 13:18-23, Mark 4:2-9, Mark 4:13-20, InThom 12:1-2, ApJas 8:1-2, 1 Clem 24:5.
|
|
Visitor Comments Compare with Qur'an, 57:20-21. It is unclear in the scholarly quotes how this is being taken. It appears perhaps that it is being taken that the sown seed are souls who prosper or not dependent on where they are sown. I believe the sown seed refers to the words of wisdom spoken by Jesus (or others) which can either be heeded and understood producing good fruit, ignored on stony soil, lost among the weeds of competing thoughts or perverted into something else entirely. If this is to be interpreted at all and not just basic agriculture, I'd say: keep an open mind, concentrate on what you're doing, do not dismiss new things and you will see, you will learn and find, thus becoming aware of being the living father�s child. It seems to me that the use of 60-fold and 120-fold in Thomas is good evidence that at least some of Thomas is not derived from the synoptic Gospels, but is a separate tradition branching off at least prior to Mark. The original parable was probably spoken in Aramaic, which I believe used the Babylonian base-60 number system. In this system, the progression 30, 60, 120 would have been natural whereas 30, 60, 100 would not. The use of 100 in the synoptic gospels was probably a mistranslation from the time of Mark. I think the most likely interpretation of this is a caution to the missionaries that not everyone will be converted, and not to get dispirited by the failures as not everyone is "good earth." [This is the interpretation of Mark 4:13-20. - PK] Corn is a Meso-American grain. The Doresse "ears of corn" translation is inappropriate. Not everybody recognises a true teacher. This either/or situation is poetically expressed by gradations for the audience. Nevertheless, it is still 100% either/or. The birds will gather, the rock will stand, the thorns will choke, and the worm will eat. If the seed is God's word, it will fall unto unwanton ears, some will hear what others will use, many will understand if they nurture and cultivate the word. The soil is the composite mind/heart/heaven, which is like a garden. The sower is the myriad of influences, especially the ego. The seed is the seed of virtue, or the means by which virtue is inculcated. These teachings are among those seeds, and due to their oblique nature cannot all take root in all minds. In some minds too many conflicting desires and ideas reside, thus many seeds are choked out and consumed by the worm of desire which lives at the root of our preferences. The well-worn road corresponds to the conditioned element of the mind which has hardened such that nothing can take root. Considering the individual as a myriad of selves and a composite of influences is essential to this interpretation. Cast forth the "seed" (teaching and understanding of the Lord). Some will be taken by the birds and beasts (consumed by the worries of the world), some will fall on rock and produce not (minds of rock, "Stupid mind like concrete, all mixed up and permanently set"), some will fall among thorns and were choked off and the worms ate them (the mind was fertile, but too fertile, and there were too many things pulling at the potential, and the "worms," false teachers, consumed them). Some seeds fell on good earth, were watered and cared for, and grew to produce more seed (believers to spread the faith). The seeds are of mankind. In the absence of self-knowledge, there is no everlasting life. The road, the rock, and the thorn, each in its own way, prevent spiritual realization. The represent Spiritual Ignorance, intolerance and hate. The canon collectively seems to miss the point in leaving out the original fates: Consumption by birds, starvation from lack of root and corruption by the worm. The author Thomas is creating a comparison between a handful of seeds and mankind. The sower in the parable seems to represent God, the one who creates life, and like a gardener or farmer he places seeds on to the earth. The earth in this parable is represented by four distinct elements, the road, rock, thorns and soil. These four elements together represent the different conditions of the world, as well as different conditions that mankind faces. To elaborate an example can be provided, the thorns, which are prickly and choke can represent a harsh, poor existence and so on. It seems that in this metaphor Thomas has an elitist view when it comes to idea of mankind and those who are true believers. The seeds, which represent mankind, cannot really become fruitful and live unless they are placed in the right conditions. This is obviously not in their power. And so, it is a small group of people who can truly recognize the true message of Jesus, and it is these few people like the seeds who can truly, grow, develop and mature. It is these few who have been lucky enough to be in the right conditions. Thomas is portraying a view that those who are truly illuminated or understand the message are so because of fate, and so they cannot really help being that way. This view creates a barrier between those chosen persons, i.e. the seeds that fell on the good soil, and all the other seeds, which represent the rest of mankind, which will not make it. This elitist view is evident in other sayings in the Gospel of Thomas. |
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)
Gospel of Thomas Saying 10 |
|
This Gospel of Thomas Commentary is part of the Gospel of Thomas page at Early Christian Writings. |
|
Funk's Parallels GThom 16, Luke 12:49-53, Matt 10:34-39.
|
|
Visitor Comments This refers to the resurrection. The cucifixion is the spark, and the resurrection allowed him to ensure the spark became a blaze to engulf the world (with the message). Jesus came to reveal revolutionary concepts of who we are in relation to God and our place in Reality. He watched over the results until he saw that there were sufficient true hearers of his message that its continuance could be assured into the future. active-mystic, I concur. Jesus vouldn't be referring to his crucifixion, as he clearly wasn�t aware of it happening ("why did you abandon me" on the cross). This has connection to saying 3. When one begins to look inside oneself honestly, a fire is kindled that burns away our fabricated view of self revealing our true nature. This fire is like a sword, cutting away our attachments to things we identify with. I have cast a gospel upon the world, and see, I watch over it until it blazes. Note that there are two clever literary devices here: (1) "and see, I watch over it" suggests identity between the reader (who sees) and Jesus (who watches over the gospel as the reader does); (2) the last "it" is ambiguous, as it could refer either to the gospel or the world. The ambiguity is intentional. There are two valid interpretations-the gospel will come ablaze with meaning when it is recognized that Jesus wrote it and what he wrote. It will burn the fingers of the worldly, and it will blaze with the glory of God to those who love Jesus. But also, equally true, is that it will set the world ablaze when this is recognized. Jesus was a great literary genius. He was also a very efficient writer. Farmers often set fire to their fields as a means of cleansing prior to planting. It is scary sometimes but because the farmer is watching we need not be alarmed everything is under control the fire need not cause fear but should be seen as part of greater cycle of planting (life). Has anyone ever noticed that conflicts about religion, Truth, and God are often the most intense? The fruit of the tree of knowledge is the awareness of our differences. It is attachment to our differences that drove humans from the garden of Eden. The way back is guarded by the flaming sword that cuts those attachments. The two forces of antiquity were strife and love. Love,the golden rule from which all else flows, brings us closer to knowing our unity of spirit, which is seen when we burn away our attachments. The perennial message is presented anew & afresh to each generation [audience]. A true teacher watches over his projection [monitors] It is also posible that this is a litterary reference by the author to Prometheus who brought fire into the world and was chained to rock for his trouble. The fire represents Yeshua's word and he is watching over it until it is spread across the world (blazes), so that all may know the truth. Jesus may have been saying that he has cast the world ablaze by sending the word of God and now he is going to watch it spread all over. |
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) |