The Gospel of Thomas is an apocryphal gospel that, like apocryphal gospels in general, is a late, derivative gospel, probably from the second half of the second century, in contrast with the canonical gospels which, in their less conservative historical dating, are widely agreed to be from the first century. (A few liberal scholars suggest that Thomas is a first century gospel, or at least, that contains traditions about Jesus which go back to the first century, even to Jesus' own lips. The so-called Jesus Seminar includes Thomas in their own canon of gospels, see their book "The Five Gospels").
Although I don't trust in the Gospel of Thomas (because I consider it a late and derivative Gospel), for the argument's sake of this post, I'll assume that it is a reliable source of information about the historical Jesus.
One reason why some liberal scholars are sympathetic to the apocryphal gospels in general, and Thomas in particular, is that they expect to find there traditions about Jesus which are at variance or incompatible with the view of Jesus of the canonical gospels, which present a divine view of Jesus (high Christology). Since these scholars find unpalatable the Jesus portrayed in the New Testament, they're ideologically predisposed and strongly biased in favor of any other sources of information (even if late!) which provides a theologically (and emotionally) palatable view of Jesus compatible with contemporary atheistic naturalism and religious pluralism.
By Christology, I'm referring to the traditional view of Jesus' nature as both divine and human, as found in the New Testament. By "high" Christology, I'm referring to a Jesus which is divine, or at least, a Jesus who is uniquely related or linked to God. By "low" Christology, I'm referring to a purely human Jesus. It is the HIGH Christological (divine) view of Jesus that some liberal scholars find unpalatable (among other reasons, because these liberal scholars are atheists and naturalists, as I've suggested in some posts, for example in this). Given their atheism and naturalism, they cannot accept as historical or reliable or veridical any evidence for a "divine" Jesus (nor for Jesus' sayings implying divinity, nor for the resurrection), since the property of being "divine" (=which belong to God) doesn't exist at all. Hence, a purely human Jesus is the one which is likely to be true and historical. Other scholars, being religious pluralists, cannot accept a divinely unique Jesus, because it would undermine other spiritual teachers.
The Gospel of Thomas is presented by some liberal scholars (like Elaine Pagels and others) as a Gospel which lacks a high Christology. But this contention seems to be false, because the few statements found in Thomas about Jesus' own nature, suggest a high Christology, not a low one.
Let's consider some of the evidence (I'll use as reference this website, in order to allow my readers to check by themselves the references and citations of the Gospelf of Thomas):
Consider Saying 77: "Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained."
Split a piece of wood; I am there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find me there
Notice carefully that Jesus presents himself as "the light", but not as any particular light among others, but the one which is OVER all the things (i.e as the senior and superior light).
Let's suppose, for the argument's sake, that such saying is authentic (=really uttered by Jesus). Is such Jesus' self-perception evidence of low Christology? Is a purely human Jesus the one being presented in such saying? Obviously not.
Any unbiased, straighforward reading of the words of Jesus in that saying clearly shows that he is presenting himself as someone who possess two properties exclusive of God, namely the property of being the CREATOR of everything else and the property of being OMNIPRESENT (i.e. present in all places). Moreover, he's assuming an ontological status which is SENIOR and SUPERIOR to everything (and anyone) else. Is not such the existence of such maximal and exceptional properties precisely the ones that make a "divinity" different from mere "humans"?
So, as truth-seekers, we have to honestly ask: Do the properties of omnipresence and being the creator of everything else fit well with a purely human, non-divine view of Jesus? Does any human being have such properties? Is not God precisely the being to which the properties of omnipresence and maximal creation power are attributed?
On the other hand, is such saying compatible with religious pluralism? Hardly. Even if some weak version of religious exclusivism were compatible with it (e.g. that salvation is available in several religions, but not in all of them), it is clear that the Jesus of Thomas perceived himself as SENIOR and UNIQUE among all the other religious or spiritual teachers. (Below, other sayings in Thomas will be discussed which support the argument for an exclusivistic self-perception of Jesus in Thomas).
Note, by the way, that a common complain of liberal scholars against the canonical gospels is that such gospels present a Jesus who is self-centered, that is, who prefers to talk about himself than about a message. These scholars say that Christians have made a religion ABOUT a person, instead of about a message (a complain which begs the question against the Christian view of salvation through Jesus as the only mediator between God and human beings. The complain assumes that the person of Jesus is irrelevant, only his teachings or messages, which could be uttered by other teachers, are important. Why exactly this has to be like this is never explained, but we can understand it if we know that these scholars are atheists or religious pluralists).
But these scholars, some of whom are sympathetic to the Gospel of Thomas, have not realized that saying 77 includes a Jesus who says "I AM ALL".
Can you imagine a phrase more self-centered, ontologically senior/superior and divine than "I am all"? Can a mere human being, even a spiritually advanced one to say, veridically, that he is all? What is he implying with such saying? Even the canonical gospels' high Christology pales in comparison with such radically self-centered ans divine view of Jesus (put in Jesus' own lips!). So, the liberal complain mentioned above (when it comes from people who accept the authenticity of Thomas) is sheer liberal (atheistic) hypocresy and misdirection.
Some liberal scholars (like Pagels) tend to ignore entirely such saying, or simply reinterpret it contrivedly in a way which clearly makes violence against what Jesus is (if the saying is authentic) actually saying and implying.
The Jesus of Thomas fits well with the high Christology of the canonical gospels, despite some liberals' protests to the contrary.
2-Saying 82: "Whoever is near me is near the fire, and whoever is far from me is far from the (Father's) kingdom"
A clear exclusivistic self-perception by Jesus regarding his role for God's kingdom seems to be claimed here (as the only and authoritative mediator among God and the human beings), because the (spiriitual) distance between a person and God's kingdom is made dependent and contingent on the person's distance from Jesus. Note how this view coheres well with traditional Christianity and religious exclusivism!.
If whoever is far from Jesus is far from God's kingdom, then it follows that (for Jesus) a person distanced from him (i.e. non-Christians, non-followers of Jesus, atheists, followers of New Age religions, etc.) won't be near of such kingdom. Therefore and clearly, religious exclusivism is implied.
If Jesus were providing a religious pluralist message, then in principle you could be far from Jesus but near Buddha or Krishna or Osho or Ron Hubbard or Wayne Dyer or Sai Baba, and therefore be near of God's kingdom (after all, for religious pluralism, all or many spiritual ways, including non-Christian ones, lead to God).
But this is not what Jesus is claiming in saying 82 (nor in the canonical gospels). The saying is clear enough, and trying to force a religious pluralistic (or low-Christological) reading of this is clearly unwarranted and contrived, and can be explained only as motivated by wishful thinking and ideological anti-Christian animus.
It could be suggested that when Jesus is referring to "me", he's referring to his message, not to his person. But what reason do we have to such interpretation? The saying says "me" (and "me" refers to a person, not to what a person says). It would extremely misleading, deceptive and dishonest for Jesus to use a personal pronoun which refers to himself, in order to convey an information which has absolutely nothing to do with his person.
But let that pass.
But let that pass.
Let's assume, for the argument's sake, that the proper interpretation of "me" is "my message, not my person". Which is exactly the message of Jesus? Most scholars agree that Jesus taught about God's kingdom, which entails God's existence. But then how could buddhists or scientologists or many spiritualists or some Eastern religions' believers be saved, if their own doctrines are atheistic or agnostic, that is, and don't include God in their doctrines, let alone God's kingdom? And what about polytheistic religions?
Even if the "it is not me but my message" interpretation of Jesus were followed, religious pluralism doesn't follow, because Jesus' teachings about God's kingdom include his own (Jesus) exclusivistic role in such kingdom (see below for more sayings implying this).
The evidence clearly suggests, as more plausible than its negation, that Jesus' self-perception in Thomas was exclusivistic, not pluralistic.
The evidence clearly suggests, as more plausible than its negation, that Jesus' self-perception in Thomas was exclusivistic, not pluralistic.
3-Saying 61: "Jesus said, "Two will recline on a couch; one will die, one will live."
Salome said, "Who are you mister? You have climbed onto my couch and eaten from my table as if you are from someone."
Jesus said to her, "I am the one who comes from what is whole. I was granted from the things of my Father."
"I am your disciple."
"For this reason I say, if one is whole, one will be filled with light, but if one is divided, one will be filled with darkness"
A first observation is that Jesus' view "one will die, one will live" seems to imply that no everybody is going to be saved (otherwise the distinction die/live doesn't make sense, spiritually speaking). This implies that some ways lead to God and others don't (therefore, a strong version of religious pluralism is incompatible with Thomas' Jesus).
Moreover, Jesus is not saying that he is one among others, but THE one who comes from what is whole (God). As consequence, he perceived himself as privileged in being granted from the things of God. Hence, Jesus seems to have claimed a kind of unique or special condition regarding "the Father", which is precisely what Christian exclusivism claims. This coheres with the religious exclusivism and hight Christology of the canonical gospels.
What happen if you take saying 77 and saying 61 together? Well, you get a divine or divine-like Jesus, a clear example of high Christology, not of low Christology.
3-Saying 62: " Jesus said, "I disclose my mysteries to those [who are worthy] of [my] mysteries"
This saying implies:
-Jesus have mysteries that are his own (not of others).
-He decides to whom he's going to disclose his mysteries (i.e. an active role of Jesus is suggested here).
-He decides to whom he's going to disclose his mysteries (i.e. an active role of Jesus is suggested here).
-Not everybody is worthy, in Jesus' eyes, of knowing such mysteries (does it fit with a religious pluralist view of Jesus?) If Jesus were a religious pluralist, then "his" mysteries are not his at all, but in principle of all spiritual teachers (some of who could decide to disclose such mysteries to the people to whom Jesus considered unworthy of such information) . Hence, people that Jesus considered unworthy of knowing such mysteries could, in principle, be considered worthy to OTHERS spiritual teachers, and Jesus' words would be merely a egocentric and dogmatic claim of the most objectionable kind.
-This fit well with this canonical saying: "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him" (Matthew 11.27).
4-Saying 65: "He said, "A [...] person owned a vineyard and rented it to some farmers, so they could work it and he could collect its crop from them. He sent his slave so the farmers would give him the vineyard's crop. They grabbed him, beat him, and almost killed him, and the slave returned and told his master. His master said, 'Perhaps he didn't know them.' He sent another slave, and the farmers beat that one as well. Then the master sent his son and said, 'Perhaps they'll show my son some respect.' Because the farmers knew that he was the heir to the vineyard, they grabbed him and killed him. Anyone here with two ears had better listen!"
A version of this saying is found in Mark 12:1-9:
Jesus then began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 2 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed.
6 “He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’
7 “But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.
9 “What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.
This saying seems to be referring to Jesus as the top, most authoritative God's messenger (note the ascending scale of the importance and authority of the messengers sent by the master in the parable. The supreme and most authoritative messenger is the master's SON). Note that the presence of the "Son" cannot be considered a later addition or invention, because the whole point of the parable depends on the Son being the ultimate authority sent by the master, the HEIR.
By the way, this saying in Thomas provides a multiple attestation of the saying in Mark.
Again, Jesus' self perception seems to be exclusivistic, not pluralistic. And in addition, this saying suggests that Jesus viewed himself as the Son of God (the "heir" in the parable).
By the way, this saying in Thomas provides a multiple attestation of the saying in Mark.
Again, Jesus' self perception seems to be exclusivistic, not pluralistic. And in addition, this saying suggests that Jesus viewed himself as the Son of God (the "heir" in the parable).
5-Saying 75: "There are many standing at the door, but those who are alone will enter the bridal suite"
Here Jesus seem to be making a a reference to the "few" which will be saved. Many are standing at the door, but only who are alone will enter the bridal suite. Therefore, the "many" standing at the door won't enter such suite.
If it is suggested that all will eventually enter the bridal suite, then the whole point of Jesus' distinction in such saying is destroyed. It is precisely the distinction between one and the other which provides sense and meaning to the teaching.
CONCLUSION
The Jesus of Thomas, like the canonical gospels, present of high (divine) view of himself (even put in his own lips, which cannot be seen in the canonical gospels). No sophism can refute this fact.
The Jesus of Thomas, like the canonical gospels, says things that, at least prima facie, provide a religious exclusivistic interpretation of Jesus, and don't make room for a religious pluralist reading of Jesus.
The Jesus of Thomas makes a distinction between people who will be saved (live) and who won't (die), for example in saying 1: "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death" (which implies that many, probably most of the people, will taste death, since most people don't know, let alone understand properly, such sayings).
Efforts to make the Jesus of Thomas a religious pluralist (for example saying 3 which says "When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty") not only ignore all the above passages discussed in this post, but that misrepresent the saying in question (saying 3, for example) which says nothing about salvation. Jesus seems to be talking here only about the conditions for knowing that we're children of God, not of the conditions for entering God's kingdom, which Jesus explicitly linked to the person's response to Jesus himself (saying 82).
Note, by the way, that saying 3 implies that believers in atheistic religions (like some versions of Buddhism and Hinduism) don't know themselves, and live in poverty (because they don't recognize nor understand that they're children of God; a recognition which entails God's existence and therefore the falsehood of such atheistic religions).
Note, by the way, that saying 3 implies that believers in atheistic religions (like some versions of Buddhism and Hinduism) don't know themselves, and live in poverty (because they don't recognize nor understand that they're children of God; a recognition which entails God's existence and therefore the falsehood of such atheistic religions).
This discussion provides more evidence that the liberal approach to the historical Jesus is based on theological (atheism, religious pluralism, anti-Christian prejudices) and emotional (wishful thinking, negative emotions of guilty and fear connected to Christianity) motivations. It tries to portrait a Jesus palatable to contemporary secularism, atheism and religious pluralism, not a Jesus as actually appears in the Gospels (including Thomas), which is a Jesus who claims to himself divine attributes (like absolute omnipresence or maximal creative power, in the case of Thomas) and the exclusive, only mediator between God and human beings.
Wishful thinking, sophisms about "metaphors", misdirections, abuses of the criteria of authenticity, etc. are used to rationalize the evidence in order to avoid a Jesus as portrayed in the best written evidence about his person.
They don't like a divine Jesus, and therefore they manipulate astutely the evidence and the facts in order to present us a purely human Jesus (a spiritual teacher among many others), which will be sympathetically accepted by people with emotional wounds and negative feelings related to Christianity and hence strongly biased in favor of and eager to accept a different Jesus than the traditional one.
0 comments:
Post a Comment