Goodacre and Ehrman in conversation about early Christian texts - omg. Public facing/lay accessible scholarship like this is one of the very best things about the internet
Its bloody mental how much the world changes. When I was studying some of this stuff at uni there was none of this type of thing - that was 2006. Absolutely loving this.
@@MossyMozart it's not people having discussions that is new, it is that distinguished scholars are having these discussions in an online forum for a general audience free of charge which is new.
YES HE DOES, Sean, doesn't he? He's a great interviewee and knows his stuff so he makes a FABULOUS interviewer; and he knows all the "best" questions to ask. Amen.
@@steppenwolf3252 For me he did not. I would rather just listen to Bart. I do not doubt Goodacre’s expertise. I do not feel he explained his thoughts with smoothness or clarity. He was to me “choppy.”
Here's how you know someone fully understands a topic: They are able to explain a complex topic to non-experts without talking down to the audience or resorting to jargon. Here are 2 true experts. Brilliant conversation.
what did they explain to you exactly. Other than Barts guest doesnt approve of Thomas ideologically and presumes it is false because it doesnt fit into his orthodoxy. I have no idea if thomas is "real" or not. But i do recognise the same tactics used by 'christian' fundamentalists being used in this video
@@cdreid9999 I can’t say I recognize any fundamentalist sort of tactics being employed by either man. In fact I’d claim the opposite. I find both Bart and Mark to be incredibly non-dogmatic, with only a couple of exceptions (like that they both hold very tightly to the notion that Luke copied Matthew)
@@cdreid9999 I think, overall, Bart and his guests usually have a balanced and nuanced perspective on their studies. I think that concluding a viewpoint from the available evidence is quite different from the fundamentalist approach, which starts from a presupposition and evaluates the evidence in the respect that it conforms to their base assumptions. Holding a strong stance on a topic based on the available evidence would not qualify itself to be considered a fundamentalist tactic.
My favorite saying in the Gospel of Thomas isn’t said by Jesus. it’s 74: “There are many at the drinking trough, but there’s nothing in the well.” I love that saying. Kinda how I feel about Christianity these days!
@@andrewmays3988 Believing . . . what? Are we referring to “don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts” belief promoted by fundamentalists? If that is the “simple belief” to which you are referring, it easy to not have to ask hard questions if you “simply believe.” But it is not intellectually honest. The mental doors of “simple belief” open up to brick walls and blind alleys. What the world needs now is critical thought and competent, evidence-based reasoning.
Bart and Mark are great scholars and wonderful thinkers. This conversation is excellent. They obviously have great respect for each other and the give and take and exchange of ideas is something we are fortunate to be able to participate in.
My favorite saying in Thomas is "The Kingdom of God is spreaad out upon the earth an men see it not" It takes us away from the "other worldly" focus of Christianity- getting to heaven- and refocuses us on earth and gives us the responsiblity of bringing about the Kingdon on God on eartn, not in some distant future, but now, if we would only open our eyes, hearts and minds to it.
I agree. Jesus says, the kingdom of God is within you, in Luke. Here is the same idea, it's spread out before you, and people don't see it. This is true. Few people see.
The passage “Blessed is the Lion” is Jesus teaching about conquering our “animal nature”. Our base animal desires such as the desire for pleasure, killing, fornication and self-seeking. “Blessed is the Lion (animal nature) that is eaten (conquered) by man, and becomes man.” This is Jesus’ description here is that we must exalt the animal nature to the higher human nature. “Cursed is the man whom the Lion eats, and the Lion becomes man”. Here Jesus describes that man becomes cursed when our animal nature takes us over. This is how I interpret the passage, as someone who rigorously studies ancient enlightenment teachings and a degree in Theology. It seems to be the only plausible interpretation I can decipher, and if I am honest, it is quite a powerful teaching when seen in this light. Love your work Bart! Thanks for all that you do 🙏🏼
I agree, knowledge > faith. As to whether it’s a “scam”, to some extent (as I understand Bart) all the gospels are scams because they are presented as being written by the apostles when they weren’t. Whether the Thomas gospel was written later than the others isn’t all that significant to me. What are interesting are the ideas… just as I think there are very interesting ideas in all the gospels. I’m an atheist but the idea that the poor have value and one should love one’s enemies was a very revolutionary idea in ancient times and even in our own time. It’s a pity so few Christians seem to read those parts.
One of my uncles RIP, who was a longtime devotee of Yogananda said once to me, "if you're in this path looking for knowledge, you may be in for disappointment at worst, or a misguided quest at best." I never liked that message, 44 yrs later, because I have always lived and been so thirsty for knowledge.
What a treat! I have followed both of you for many years and have read your books. I was so happy and excited to see you two sit down and talk about such an interesting book! Dr. Ehrman, you asked such great questions and have such a wonderful way of bringing the texts and conversations to a mainstream audience. This was a fantastic discussion!!!
I have read The Gospel of Thomas many times and many commentaries. Some of these sayings of Jesus remind me of Zen koans. Concepts to be contemplated to inspire an insight. Indeed Thomas is a favorite of students of comparative religion. Ones who are looking for the active ingredients common to all religions.
@@ClaimClam I can't see any grounds for calling it false. Many of Jesus's teachings that are in other gospels are also in Thomas. In fact, it consists of Jesus's teachings and nothing else, which you would have thought would make it a vital part of the New Testament. Put Thomas in, and remove all of Paul's epistles, and you would have a much better mix.
Reads to me like someone who speaks obscurely so as to be misunderstood, as Jesus characterizes his own communication style in Mark. Then again, these are the sayings that were supposedly whispered to Thomas, not to randos
Thank you so much for having these conversations, and making them available to the public. I took some Biblical studies courses when I did my undergrad degree, however I was Christian at the time and I remember not being in the right head space to engage with the scholarship properly. The questions that were raised were uncomfortable, and I wasn't emotionally ready to deal with them yet. Now that I am, I am drinking in all the knowledge I can, and gorging on academic discourse. It feels good to freely try to understand The Bible and history without trying to force a certain religious narrative.
It sounds like you had a fairly painless transition. I had a long, lonely, painful crisis of faith that lasted decades,and only recently acquired something like faith. Not planning on ever abandoning a sliver of Agnosticism in my beliefs.
I found this discussion very interesting and, more importantly, relevant. Ehrman obviously continues to bring a wonderful degree of light (and humor and humility) to the discussions on the Bible, and I thank him. Goodacre did a great job of isolating the key to understanding the Gospel of Thomas: unity (religion~~ relegere "go through again" , religare "to bind fast") and singularity (Oneness, i.e., I and the Father are One~ Jesus, John 10:30-38). The problem as I see it, if I may be so bold, is that most people try to make the sayings, teachings, pointings 'understandable' to their minds, which is actually the hinderance. 'The Peace that passeth all understanding' is prior to mind and, therefore, can only be realized. It is the silence prior the mind's conditioned chattering, logic, and worldview from which the depths of realization emerge. The mind is a bifurcator. When it functions properly, it is a wonderful tool in the world of duality, but identifying with the mind's idea of WHO one thinks they are (i.e., a person in the world with a birthday, spouse, car, job, etc. IN the world) is what Jesus is pointing AWAY from. WHAT one is IS NOT of the world. In a way, 'unity' is a bit misleading, as Oneness has never been divided, and the dream of having left the Garden of Eden is a trick of the mind. The apocalyptic revelation is the destruction of the mind's idea that there was ever - actually, as Truth - a separate self, thus realizing WHAT oneness actually is. All the world's a stage, and there seems to be only one Actor that Thou Art.
Very interesting points, and I couldn’t agree more. Do you find that the sayings in Thomas remind you of koans in the Zen tradition… sayings that are almost designed to confuse the mind and direct consciousness beyond it?
@@tlucia88 Yes. The koans will highlight and bring to bear one's attention on the seductive power of the conditioned patterns of thought structure. With a sufficient degree of clarity on the structure as an object within Consciousness (i.e., often labeled as 'Awareness'-- to the Nth degree, I'd add), there's a piercing of the veil, and the mind's/self's dominance is demoted. The interesting 'flip' is the realization that ALL that happens as life is within YOU/CONSCIOUSNESS, and the separation was only ever a belief, and a persistent one at that. All seeming paradoxes/confusions are of the mind, and it can (after one actually gets the hang of it) get joyously interesting seeing how ones own mind tends to work. At the core of every belief system worth its salt is a surrender, and an absolute one at that, and the supposed ego does not go down without a fight. So the 'smaller' realizations and massively confusing insights that pop up are useful, but don't get stuck. There's always FURTHER, until....
Thomas is the only Christian reading still remains to me. I digged deep to Advyta lately and what I found after rereading Thomas once again that so many hidden parallels out there! Sometime one can say after "Jesus said":"This is pure Advyta Vedanta!".
Yes, you are on to something with this intuition. I hope you are ready for the ride, because it usually gets weirder before it gets clearer. I say go for it, but many will discourage you, as will the mind. If interested in a perspective, see my separate post in this thread.
@43:10 all the unity themes in the Gospel of Thomas are pointing to what other traditions call non-duality. It's in the Vedas, the Upanishads, Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivaism, Sufism, etc. The basic idea is that thinking of "I, myself am this body" creates an ego or a mental impression of being a separate self who we think is linked to the body. But if we go deeply within and deconstruct this sense of ego self, quieting the mind, detaching from bodily sensations, etc, we may experience the realization that we never really were the person we thought we were. The mind becomes free and quiet, and a sense of pure presence remains. There may be a reduction or disappearance of one's sense of self, and one may feel they are one with everything. That sense of pure presence with no thoughts creating a separate sense of self is "salvation" in Christian mysticism, "moksha" in Hindhusim, Self Realization, enlightenment, Buddhahood, union with God, etc.
What surprises me is that these two scholars seem to be totally unfamiliar with the tenants of Advaita and the other non-dual philosophies of the East. I am somewhat new to Ehrman's podcast, so I wonder if the Advaita subject comes up in other interviews. To me, Jesus was clearly teaching Advaita, which he likely learned in India during all those undocumented years from his teens to his 30's. I will say that he had to dumb it down for his audience in Palestine. Those three words that he whispered in Thomas' ear must have been "You are God"
In studying Thomas I definitely sense monastic influences which implies asceticism. Therefore it reads as far more dualistic than the synoptics, particularly negative about worldly wealth. This develops into more mystical motifs which I find to be an attractive contrast to the apocalypticism of the synoptics. Focus is on the 'now' instead of the 'then', personal involvement over fate
@@cdreid9999 irony is both Paul and Gospel of John can be more easily categorized as two different types of popular Gnostic theologies while the Gospel of Thomas seems to have very little overt relationship. For example Paul’s archons are all over the place in Gnosticism. And John theology is related to the Pythagorean Monad and Logos which was also a gnostic cosmology. Meanwhile the Gospel of Thomas has no overt cosmology.
It would be great fun to listen to an entire informal debate/conversation between Mark and Bart about their opposing views on Q & whether or not the authors of John had access to the synoptic gospels.
@@investigandolabiblia I didn't have to change any of the volumes and didn't think about it so I think that means its awesome! I only notice when something is off!
i really think anyone claiming to be a christian or interestrd in biblical scholarship should read the entire apocrypha...rather than allowing a small group of misogynist men 2000 years ago decide which christian teachings theyre allowed to see
@@cdreid9999 it really is striking to see the arguments against Thomas by established Christianity. I saw the argument of a Catholic priest which actually argued that because Jesus wasn’t sexist so therefore he would not say “make Mary male”. Not putting two and two together that ancient Jews did not have bar mitzvah for girls. Which seems to me the actual context. It is in that text that Jesus completely contradicts Paul. I find the arguments against it ludicrous.
Dearest Bart always informative as well as entertaining. Almost like a fireside chat with him. Much appreciation for Mark Goodacre. I’m addicted to this show.
What a privilege to listen in on this great conversation. This is so illuminating and done in such an engaging and thought provoking way. As @Karla says - one of the very best things about the internet that we have access to and can learn and enjoy listening to scholars such as these.
Interesting point about merging male and female. Reminds me of St. Paul, Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Obviously not JUST a Gnostic idea.
I think it's largely leading people to seek knowledge rather than just accepting a pre-established story and hinting at understanding being the key to salvation.
Megan you really have no idea what a valuable service you are providing us who are on a search for the truth. Of course I use that word advisedly since the search is the point. I dont think I ever expect to find it. The best you can do for me is to allow me to challenge my preconceptions. Ive followoed some different podcasters in the past but this would have to one of the most fascinating and enlightening. You know I read The holy blood and the holy grail in 1982 which was later plagiarized by Dan Brown. it was the first time I heard of the Gospel of Thomas. Ive read Pagel's book since then. Ive also read a lot of her other writing. Im still reading MacCulloch's History of Christianity. It's heavy going I have to say. Thank you again and keep up the wonderful work you are doing.
Seen in London, UK. Gt show. Very good introduction into Gp of Thomas. Wider and broader reading like this does help to get a good handle on the main themes of the Jesus movement. Impressed by fair and honest views by these scholars. God bless them.
I absolutely love this series you're doing with Megan Bart, even though she's not in this one. I've also.followed.Mark for years thanks to you - I'm interested in his take about the synoptic gospels and especially his own take on Markian priority - often wondered what you'd make of that (done buy it myself although all his stuff well argued). Such a delight to.see you two talking. Just about to watch now - canw wait!!
The thing that amazes is me is their expertise in languages. I read the NT in English, Greek, and Latin but not Coptic, Armenian, Aramaic, old Church Slavonic and so on. These guys are brilliant.
I remember when James White a few years ago actually read the Gospel of Thomas on his Dividing Line and just mocked it. Here we have two scholars. Gotta love the scholars. '-)
I love these videos, Bart. Knowledge vs faith . Scholacttsism vs Petert Pan Established dogma vs mystery school Tell you what's up, vs Socratic learning Give you an easy out vs an easy story Discover yourself, no other path will matter.. enigmas are key Don't remain comfortable The brilliance of the synoptic writers are unassailable, But it's important to remember what their goals were.
A great book on the Gospel of Thomas was written by scholar Steven Davies. It has an informative introduction on the history of the gospel and tries to give an interpretation of each saying on the opposite page. His view is that this book may be earlier than Mark.
imo there is a bad habit of assuming there is a baseline all christian teachings are taken from. Which is refuted by the very need for the council. Books should be presumed to be independant oral traditions as a baseline
@@cdreid9999 When authors write identical things, it's a necessary question especially if it happens often. It can't be coincidental. Did one take from the other or did they both come about these things independently? It's not presumed but it's often the most logical theory until shown otherwise.
Fascinating conversation. When I read Thomas, I thought it seemed like an aide memoire for a preacher, each saying being the title or intro to a sermon.
Illuminating discussion! Thank you so much. What struck me was that the legitimating role between the Synoptics and Thomas might go the other way. Instead of Thomas using sayings from the Synoptics to produce a sense of Jesus speaking, the Synoptics used Thomas to claim that they knew the interpretations of the hidden sayings and thus had eternal life. The Synoptics all used the Parable of the Sower with the same explanation. This is likely an effort to say, hey, we all know what this parable means, and Thomas said that if we understand the context of the sayings, we have eternal life. Or editors and scribes included the Sower Parable and its supposed interpretation to combat Thomasian religion, much like the Doubting Thomas story in John's Gospel. Like, you do not need to go to a Thomasian community to know what this means because we will tell you right here. What I can say about the Lion Saying is that in the context of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, blessings cannot come without a curse, but curses can come without a blessing. And sometimes, what is phrased as a blessing is not a blessing. [cf. The "blessing" of Esau] I do not think Jesus said the Lion saying. But the saying illuminates the nature of Jesus cursing his will ["Not my will..."]. Much love!
> Instead of Thomas using sayings from the Synoptics to produce a sense of Jesus speaking, the Synoptics used Thomas to claim that they knew the interpretations of the hidden sayings and thus had eternal life. < I agree, Thomas seems like the purer form of the teachings, and then the others come along with their own interpretations and justifications for those interpretations. Look at logion 35. In Thomas, it simply describes revolutionary tactics, but in Mark it becomes a metaphor for fighting demons, while Matt and Luke present it as a bizarre justification(?) for actual exorcism? Luke actually changes the meaning of the logion, saying you defeat strength not with cunning, but with still _more_ strength. 🤷♂
I’m no linguist or biblical scholar but I do have advanced pattern recognition and experience with comedic writing structure. My take on the lion & man meaning, while not a concrete solution, I do believe my take is a useful push in the right direction: It has all the makings of a double or triple entendre. (Words in jokes that carry double meanings). Think like a Tetris chain where one object connects separate blocks and once those blocks clear out new blocks fall and make new connections. Anyways, my take is that the original text language used a word for man, lion, and or consumed (or possibly all three) that made the passage carry double meanings while using the same word. An example would be: think the theory of relativity, and how it’s attributed to Einstein Blessed is the problem(proof) consumed(solved) by a man’s conclusion(theory) for the problem becomes the man’s conclusion/theory. cursed is the man consumed by a problem for the mans theory becomes a problem(demise) and the problem becomes mans conclusion (demise/legacy)” The meaning in parenthesis would need to have the same root word or slang. An informal and crude example of structure would be: A man will lose money chasing women but a man will never lose women chasing money. If you notice that example the structure it’s the same premise as the lion but still missing a third variable, or constant rather. I’m at work and claim defeat for lack of interest, but I’m relatively certain someone with the training and knowledge will be able to trace back alternate meanings to the words or the original text that make the passage enlightening. Hope that helps.
Yea after looking at it again the whole thing works even if the (GREEK?) word used for “man” also can mean “a mans legacy”. It would be a triple if the word used for “consumed” also can mean “overtaken/overcome”. Blessed is the lion who is consumed by the man, the lion becomes the mans legacy. (Highlight or accomplishment) Cursed is the man who is consumed by the lion, the lion becomes the mans legacy. (Reason he died) That’s gotta be it tbh. All of the saying are pretty straight forward TO ME. Anything such as the lion passage and the male/female & two become one I’m relatively certain have translation issues or meaning not available to me personally.
25:10 If Christianity started as a "mystery cult" it makes a great deal of sense that the earliest gospels (whether or not Thomas is one of those) would be written to leave out some of the "deeper truths" of their sects...those would be passed on orally to initiates who had reached the right stage of enlightenment.
Thank you Bart and Mark. I appreciate your insights. I fully understand the lion eating the human vs human eating the lion example. How it relates to Jesus is another question. Just to know what people were thinking 2000 years ago is a window to the past. That is invaluable.
Lion: Overcome our trials or they will overcome us? Verses that relate to logos 2? Overcoming our ego/animal/carnal selves? The Gospels are the theatrical releases, but and here the writers reveal their subtexts?
Wonderful talk! As for the meaning of GOT saying 7 , I believe it refers to the world and fleshly things of the Soul that interfere with Spiritual freedom of the mind and heart thus salvation. If man can through wisdom and knowledge eat the lion , conquering the trappings of this evil blind world and its passions (what the lion signifies) and make the lion human, the lion would be tamed and and afforded a chance to become wise. Human would be victorious.
I have been reading sufism for more than 5 years now and gospel of Thomas was music to my ears. Also another point that brings my attention is how the famous eastern poet bulleh shah says "if divine was to attained through shower and cleaning the fishes would have found him" is so similar to what gospel of Thomas have it in verse 3. I'm not sure if he plagiarized or what.
Thanks, Bart, for interviewing a fellow biblical scholar. The Apostle Thomas did more to prove the resurrection of Jesus than Paul, who never knew Jesus before his resurrection....upon which Christianity depends for its authenticity.😇
What if the Gospel of Thomas was written first? Esteemed scholars, thank you so much for your discussion and genuine contribution to our understanding of the Gospel of Thomas. My several years of pondering the text independently and without benefit of discussion has led me to conclude an early authorship for the text. All of my learning has come from becoming aware of my mistakes, so I invite and welcome correction to what I have observed. No mention of the crucifixion, resurrection or coming judgment offers prima-facie evidence that the apocalyptic themes found in the synoptics had not been added yet. (Could a post-synoptic text purporting to record Jesus' teachings have possibly omitted these points, if they were important in that community?) As an interpretive template, I have found that approaching the Gospel of Thomas as a teaching of presence, mindfulness and living in the here and now has given me a powerful and appealing tool for understanding this collection of sayings. Such an approach appears, in fact, to answer all of the puzzles raised in this discussion. Regarding Saying #7 (at 15:00): Elements of the self are the 'one born of woman' and 'the one not born of woman' (#15, #46). The mind-body ego self, born of woman, is a voracious lion out to conquer and devour all. Blessed are those who come to know the true eternal self (#3) and thereby devour the voracious lion ego previously mis-identified as the self. Regarding the meaning of 'will not taste death' (at 25:00): Death is consistently treated as a function of one's present state of mind in the Gospel of Thomas, not as a fact about our bodies. The world is a dead place, much as John views it, full of people behaving like zombies. (#56) Eternity, which is always now (#51, #113), can be enjoyed when we subdue and devour the carcas of the ego self, offering it up like sacrificial meat. (#59 and into #60) Major themes of the text (at 42:00): The major theme of the text is an exhortation to self-inquiry and the pursuit of self-knowledge, as Saying #3 invites us to o. When in our inquiry we come to 'make the two one', we recognize that our true self is so much more than just the busy, discontented, mind-body ego self. When we become child-like by ridding ourselves of all the projected judgmental distinctions we've previously confused with knowledge, we will enter the kingdom' (#22). Thomas was the only disciple prepared for Jesus special teachings because he was the only disciple who knew that he was ignorant! (#13). Peter's Jesus brings justice. Matthew's Jesus brings wisdom. Thomas' Jesus brings “rest” for the restless self (#90). Regarding Saying #114: It doesn't belong. Drop it. It directly contradicts Saying #22, directing the listener to drop the distinction between male and female. The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas is emphatically non-mysogonystic, yet Jesus knows the scorn he's up against in first century Israel (#105). In Saying #21, Mary is being instructed regarding discipleship, to the ire of Peter, no doubt. In Saying #61, Salome is not only acting as an equal, but even challenging Jesus' worthiness of her hospitality! (Look at the story of Mary and Martha in Luke 10 for a wonderful parallel to this identical lesson.) Saying #114 appears to be a scribal addition. As a final observation, I'm persuaded of an early authorship for Thomas because of how it appears that the Sayings in Thomas consistently reflect a deeper teaching than their parallels in the synoptic gospels. As examples, we could examine the parallels to the parable of the mustard seed (#20), or the parable of the lost sheep (#107). For brevity of displaying their difference, consider Saying #86. In Thomas, we have an expression describing the human condition of discontent and restlessness, an observation paralleled in Buddhism as the first noble truth, the universality of human unhappiness. But Luke has turned it into a trivial offhand remark of Jesus complaining about his busy schedule! (Luke 9:57-58) What happened to the lesson? Ok, enough for now, then. Thank you, once more, to all of you scholars who are laboring to make these matters clear to the rest of us. And thank you, too, to anyone with so large a spirit that they are moved to respond to the rantings of this old crack-pot. Peace.
@@Jd-808 Thanks for your kind comment. I've also heard of a similar teaching circulating among native Americans. They talk about people as having two dogs inside of them. Who we become depends on which dog we feed.
Your reading of Thomas is more in line with mine, and I share your view that it represents the more basal form of the teachings. It would explain how Luke and Matt can take a logion like 73 and create completely different origin stories for it. 35 may be a still better example of this. 🤓 My take on 114 is that it's Jesus' super cringey way of explaining that the only reason the women aren't the intellectual equals of men is because guys like Peter keep shunning them. 🤷♂ I see solidarity as one of the primary themes of the tome, as emphasized by the Miracle of Cooperation described in 48 and 106. Interesting that for Matt and Luke, the moving of mountains was a miraculous manifestation of our metaphysical merit, rather than the simple result of working together described by Thomas. Anyway, I see the references to "solitaries" as meaning "those who have achieved unity with their fellows," by making the two into one. "Speaking with one voice," as God laments in Genesis 11:6. 🤔
@@serversurfer6169 Thanks for sharing your thoughtful take on these sayings. We've really got something to talk about here, as I see the Thomas message being brought specifically to the marginalized and suffering individuals for whom institutional community religion has provided no comfort. I've puzzled over #45's reference to “two in the same house making peace with each other” and have tentatively decided that it references the restless ego “born of woman” finding wholeness by merging with the unchanging self “not born of woman”. I take Thomas' use of “house” to be speaking of the individual's physical manifestation. I see this reflected in the individual instruction given about what it means to be a disciple in #21. I also read it in the blessing given to the “solitary” in #49. Then there's the reference to death of the body in #71, the house that no one will be able to rebuild. A follower of Jesus makes a joke about how a church congregation is like a herd standing around an empty watering trough (#74)! This saying is a beautiful set-up for the contrast provided by #75, pointing out that it's the “solitary”, not the many, who enter the wedding chamber (#75). Then I also notice how the audience for Thomas #107 is the sheep who has become lost. But the synoptic treatment has transformed it into the church leadership celebrating it's successful outreach to the backsliders! (Luke 15:1-7) From my perspective, then, it appears that it's the synoptics that have changed the message to be directed to the community when it was originally (as in Thomas) directed to the individual. I'd love to hear more from you about this to see where it goes. Thanks again for your thoughts. Peace.
The book of Thomas is my absolute FAVORITE book. It's right. When you understand the sayings in the book, you shall never again FEAR death - written as "taste". It is absolutely consistent with the spirit of the teachings of Jesus.
John attempts to deligitimize Thomas by calling the Doubter, and decades ago I became convinced that Thomas rebutted him. I.e., they were in conversation.
This was my first intro to Mark Goodacre. I was at first disappointed I wasn't going to get to listen to Bart, but I actually really enjoyed and appreciated Mark's parts; I'll have to check out more of their stuff.
Yes - the “becoming one” in reference to gender simply means that we are primarily mind/soul/ spirit. This removes us from the attachment to the physical world. We still live IN the world, but we know we are not “OF” it, but, rather - as “passerby”. In practice, the “Thomas community” would have women and men teach equally and be of equal stand in community (to the best ability they could in that world).
An interview / dialog on the two sources theory would be extremely interesting. I find Goodacre's points on the Q hypothesis compelling, but its "minority position" status makes me reluctant... I'm sure a "cross-examination" (😄) by Bart Ehrman would at least help in pinpointing the key issues to decide whether to go with the traditional view (Matthew and Luke drawing on Q) or with Goodacre's simpler explanation (Luke copied + edited + expanded on Matthew).
The Gospel writers we know were anonymous. My question would be: Is The Gospel of Thomas considered to be anonymously written, with 'Thomas' added for authentication? In Eastern esoterica, there is a merging of Shiva (masculine) and Shakti (feminine) into One, a unity beyond difference, Consciousness Itself. Adi Da Samraj explains this is his book The Alethon.
My view is that the followers are going through a transformation and the one who makes it correctly is going to understand the meaning of the Jesus's words. Meaning: the one who is already "there" - in the kingdom-, sees the meaning. You guys ask whether there are some actions implied. In my opinion, actions like meditation, prayer, fasting lead you to a state (without death) in which you understand what Jesus meant, because you became same as Jesus and you see everything from his perspective
I wonder if these sayings are intended like Zen koans - you don't taste death because your mind is liberated. The idea of eliminating distinctions is similar to Mahayana texts - the Vimalakirti sutra (probably spelled wrong) has a character change gender and rebuke another character for their attachment to gender.
I've been interested in the Gospel of Thomas for years, most importantly because it appears to making the point that Jesus was a Buddha type figure. If I may be so bold, the primary doctrine of Buddhism is that all consciousness is one consciousness, and all "things" (including consciousness) are one thing. (This is a great oversimplification, but I'll try to keep it simple...) If you consider the "one thing" to be God, that means all "things" - including people - are aspects of God. So Buddhism basically says that ALL people are Jesus - both human and God simultaneously, and this appears, to me at least, to be what Jesus is getting at in the Gospel of Thomas. For example, from saying 3: "the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father". Pretty straightforward Buddhism there! I'm surprised this didn't come up in the discussion, especially when Mark mentioned "the singularity of becoming one". I thought - wow, here it comes! But he was thinking in terms of the singularity of one human being. I think the whole point of the gospel is to present parables/riddles that when understood, will allow the person to "not experience death". We can think of them as Western Zen Koans.
Great lecture ! Here are some thoughts/suggestions from Zen Buddhism . 1. Interpretation of " not tasting death" means not having FEAR at the time of your death. 2. The interpretation of the text is not logical...it's a deep intuitive insight . A Zen koan, such as " what is the sound of one hand clapping," is an example of a non-logical statement that can not be solved logically. 3. The Zen equivalent to Gnosis is knowledge of Self. While this sense of Self is difficult to explain in words, you can think of this Self as being "separate" from thoughts and emotions. 4. The reference to gender means that once you "know your true Self" you know that gender is not part of the true Self. 5. Unfortunately, Zen has no parallel concept to the Lion quote. Thanks for a beautiful lecture. Best wishes
This is a very useful interpretation. I also get the sense that this text has a lot of eastern influence, and is meant to guide the reader to a deeper understanding, rather than impose some greater truth upon them. What are your thoughts on logia like 48 and 106? To me, they preach the power of solidarity. I think the "solitaires" referenced as the elect throughout the text, are those who have achieved true solidarity with their fellows, making the two into one. 🤔
I truly appreciate learning about the Bible and various religious traditions without sanctimonious proselyting. Just like with Greek and Roman mythology, it is very interesting.
I get the impression that the Gospel of Thomas was never meant to be read by the uninitiated, but rather read out loud by someone in the know who supplements the sayings with true knowledge. Someting like lecture notes, come to think of it.
Totally brilliant - an immersive episode. As many have said in the comments here: more of these please - i.e. can we have these *instead*?! It seems fairly obvious to me that many of the more abstruse sayings in the Gospel of Thomas are derived from esoteric tradition in the middle East generally, such as is contained in the technical terminology of Sufi orders. I'm sure I'm not the first to have pointed this out, but it was not referenced in the discussion and Mark Goodacre confessed himself baffled by the non-canonical sayings, so I guess neither he nor Bart are aware of the derivation. I could be wrong.
Scholars have noticed this, but it's difficult to prove derivation because in most cases it's impossible to determine who's influencing whom. Sufi traditions are much younger than Thomas, so it is entirely possible that what we think of as Eastern esoteric tradition that Thomas and similar texts draw from actually evolved from Eastern mystics reading Thomas and similar texts.
If memory serves me well... I heard of a socalled Diatesseron from the ninth century AD, in Gothic (an old germanic language). Besides the regular evangelies it contains a few sayings from Thomas! The thing in question was studied by prof Quispel. A (surpassed some time ago, sadly) Dutch NT scholar. Someone here who remembers the details of this? It showed the influence of christian teachings stemming from Thomas up to the middle ages! 20:44
41:42: the idea of unity and sungularity is great. There is talk of gender and syntethis of male ans female is great. I think that another aspect of singularity is synthesis of mind and body. I mean that we need to singualize what we think and what we do. That is also part of personality persona apart from male and female archetypes.
About saying 7: switch "human" and "lion" to their typical characteristics, and align the clauses for the sake of English, a non-inflected language. Thus: "It is good if intelligence should add to itself power; but it is an evil if power should add to itself intelligence." I chose "intelligence" and "power" by way of example. Articles might be written to demonstrate that to be human is to have knowledge or to be higher in a spiritual hierarchy, etc.; to be a lion is to be courageous or to be lower in a spiritual hierarchy, etc.
Thank you both for this fascinating discussion. IMO, the GOT makes so much more sense if you've read and studied "A Course In Miracles". Jesus explains everything and answers every question you've ever asked, which really illuminates how Christianity has seriously misunderstood him and his teachings, and so much more.
This really works! I was absolutely astounded. After 34 years of misery and suffering, with a broken back, I was healed! Then, after six torturous, years and thousands of treatments, I was healed of a terminal disease, but I did not know how to do it with any consistency, and I wish I did, so I will learn, as much as I can, to get there, and I will. May every1 be with their healing(s)💜🙏✝️🎁🕊🌟💞
Thanks, Big Time, Dr Bart D. Ehrman & Dr Mark Goodacre, for sharing your knowledge. Dr Mark, you confused me when you mentioned "Justin Mark & Justin Luke", I had to put on c.c, to double check, and sure enough. Here is the page, Hahaha. Cheers 🥃, Guys.
14:50 Lion = egoistic person / narcissistic If you don’t praise lies of an egoistic person, he will be consumed and become a man (vulnerable) in everyones eyes, like the rest. But if you praise an egoistic person, that person will overshadow you with his lies no matter what you’ve achieved, as everyone will believe his words since you’ve praised him previously
Ima add. Narcissistic individuals are all about grandiosity and reputation, they are viewed as “Lions” in society, naive and empathetic people fall for it
Goodacre and Ehrman in conversation about early Christian texts - omg. Public facing/lay accessible scholarship like this is one of the very best things about the internet
"omg" in a video like this. Good pun ;D
This is god >th-cam.com/video/C9AOuedvOnI/w-d-xo.html
Its bloody mental how much the world changes. When I was studying some of this stuff at uni there was none of this type of thing - that was 2006. Absolutely loving this.
@@osr4152 - How did you learn about this stuff without discussions?
@@MossyMozart it's not people having discussions that is new, it is that distinguished scholars are having these discussions in an online forum for a general audience free of charge which is new.
I really enjoyed Bart as the interviewer! He knows the best questions to ask.
Absolutely about Bart. However, Mark?? Gosh, how can he teach anybody anything? Did he ever fully answer a question?
YES HE DOES, Sean, doesn't he? He's a great interviewee and knows his stuff so he makes a FABULOUS interviewer; and he knows all the "best" questions to ask. Amen.
@@steppenwolf3252 For me he did not. I would rather just listen to Bart. I do not doubt Goodacre’s expertise. I do not feel he explained his thoughts with smoothness or clarity. He was to me “choppy.”
Agreed, haven't seen Dr Bart in this role before, really enjoyed this.
@@emiliamartucci8291 ...and he's picked up that annoying (to a Brit's ears) habit of describing a group of anything as "a bunch".
Here's how you know someone fully understands a topic: They are able to explain a complex topic to non-experts without talking down to the audience or resorting to jargon.
Here are 2 true experts. Brilliant conversation.
what did they explain to you exactly. Other than Barts guest doesnt approve of Thomas ideologically and presumes it is false because it doesnt fit into his orthodoxy. I have no idea if thomas is "real" or not. But i do recognise the same tactics used by 'christian' fundamentalists being used in this video
@@cdreid9999 What tactics exactly, and where? Spell it out if you don't mind.
He obviously doesn’t fit
@@cdreid9999 I can’t say I recognize any fundamentalist sort of tactics being employed by either man. In fact I’d claim the opposite. I find both Bart and Mark to be incredibly non-dogmatic, with only a couple of exceptions (like that they both hold very tightly to the notion that Luke copied Matthew)
@@cdreid9999 I think, overall, Bart and his guests usually have a balanced and nuanced perspective on their studies. I think that concluding a viewpoint from the available evidence is quite different from the fundamentalist approach, which starts from a presupposition and evaluates the evidence in the respect that it conforms to their base assumptions. Holding a strong stance on a topic based on the available evidence would not qualify itself to be considered a fundamentalist tactic.
I hardly have words to express my joy in listening to these two gentlemen talking about this gospel
Right on, andre!
@@steppenwolf3252
They're the best.
My favorite saying in the Gospel of Thomas isn’t said by Jesus. it’s 74: “There are many at the drinking trough, but there’s nothing in the well.” I love that saying. Kinda how I feel about Christianity these days!
@@janeroberson4750 🙄
Amen😉
I think 74 may be Thomas' observation, and Jesus responds in 75, saying that the many remain trapped outside because they have yet to become one. 🤔
It's amazing how many mental doors are opened by simply believing!!!😇
@@andrewmays3988 Believing . . . what? Are we referring to “don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts” belief promoted by fundamentalists? If that is the “simple belief” to which you are referring, it easy to not have to ask hard questions if you “simply believe.” But it is not intellectually honest. The mental doors of “simple belief” open up to brick walls and blind alleys. What the world needs now is critical thought and competent, evidence-based reasoning.
Bart and Mark are great scholars and wonderful thinkers. This conversation is excellent. They obviously have great respect for each other and the give and take and exchange of ideas is something we are fortunate to be able to participate in.
My favorite saying in Thomas is "The Kingdom of God is spreaad out upon the earth an men see it not" It takes us away from the "other worldly" focus of Christianity- getting to heaven- and refocuses us on earth and gives us the responsiblity of bringing about the Kingdon on God on eartn, not in some distant future, but now, if we would only open our eyes, hearts and minds to it.
I agree.
Jesus says, the kingdom of God is within you, in Luke.
Here is the same idea, it's spread out before you, and people don't see it.
This is true. Few people see.
The passage “Blessed is the Lion” is Jesus teaching about conquering our “animal nature”. Our base animal desires such as the desire for pleasure, killing, fornication and self-seeking.
“Blessed is the Lion (animal nature) that is eaten (conquered) by man, and becomes man.”
This is Jesus’ description here is that we must exalt the animal nature to the higher human nature.
“Cursed is the man whom the Lion eats, and the Lion becomes man”.
Here Jesus describes that man becomes cursed when our animal nature takes us over.
This is how I interpret the passage, as someone who rigorously studies ancient enlightenment teachings and a degree in Theology. It seems to be the only plausible interpretation I can decipher, and if I am honest, it is quite a powerful teaching when seen in this light.
Love your work Bart! Thanks for all that you do 🙏🏼
One scholar
+
One scholar
- preaching
= a discussion worth listening to.
Wow, you guys are a match made in heaven, no pun in intended. The people demand more!
Hey OhMan! I agree. I'm in heaven listening to these guys. Some of we the people, "request" more! (teasing you OhMan). O Man O Manashevitz! (sp)
Haha; thanks! :D
Mark Goodacre said, "To Thomas, Gnosis, knowledge, is much more important than faith." I agree, with Mark and Thomas.
ypu missed that this seems to be why he presumes it is a later scam as his baseline
I agree, knowledge > faith. As to whether it’s a “scam”, to some extent (as I understand Bart) all the gospels are scams because they are presented as being written by the apostles when they weren’t. Whether the Thomas gospel was written later than the others isn’t all that significant to me. What are interesting are the ideas… just as I think there are very interesting ideas in all the gospels. I’m an atheist but the idea that the poor have value and one should love one’s enemies was a very revolutionary idea in ancient times and even in our own time. It’s a pity so few Christians seem to read those parts.
One of my uncles RIP, who was a longtime devotee of Yogananda said once to me, "if you're in this path looking for knowledge, you may be in for disappointment at worst, or a misguided quest at best." I never liked that message, 44 yrs later, because I have always lived and been so thirsty for knowledge.
Moral knowledge
What a treat! I have followed both of you for many years and have read your books. I was so happy and excited to see you two sit down and talk about such an interesting book! Dr. Ehrman, you asked such great questions and have such a wonderful way of bringing the texts and conversations to a mainstream audience. This was a fantastic discussion!!!
I have read The Gospel of Thomas many times and many commentaries. Some of these sayings of Jesus remind me of Zen koans. Concepts to be contemplated to inspire an insight. Indeed Thomas is a favorite of students of comparative religion. Ones who are looking for the active ingredients common to all religions.
Yes, Thomas has a very eastern feel to it. I agree that these are concepts to be contemplated, rather than secrets gated by gurus. 🤓
They bear even greater similarity to Sufi teaching stories, and anyone familiar with the latter will find Thomas quite easy to understand.
The False Gospel of Thomas is not it the Bible, don't waste your time on it
@@ClaimClam I can't see any grounds for calling it false. Many of Jesus's teachings that are in other gospels are also in Thomas. In fact, it consists of Jesus's teachings and nothing else, which you would have thought would make it a vital part of the New Testament. Put Thomas in, and remove all of Paul's epistles, and you would have a much better mix.
Reads to me like someone who speaks obscurely so as to be misunderstood, as Jesus characterizes his own communication style in Mark. Then again, these are the sayings that were supposedly whispered to Thomas, not to randos
Thank you so much for having these conversations, and making them available to the public.
I took some Biblical studies courses when I did my undergrad degree, however I was Christian at the time and I remember not being in the right head space to engage with the scholarship properly. The questions that were raised were uncomfortable, and I wasn't emotionally ready to deal with them yet. Now that I am, I am drinking in all the knowledge I can, and gorging on academic discourse. It feels good to freely try to understand The Bible and history without trying to force a certain religious narrative.
It sounds like you had a fairly painless transition. I had a long, lonely, painful crisis of faith that lasted decades,and only recently acquired something like faith. Not planning on ever abandoning a sliver of Agnosticism in my beliefs.
I found this discussion very interesting and, more importantly, relevant. Ehrman obviously continues to bring a wonderful degree of light (and humor and humility) to the discussions on the Bible, and I thank him. Goodacre did a great job of isolating the key to understanding the Gospel of Thomas: unity (religion~~ relegere "go through again" , religare "to bind fast") and singularity (Oneness, i.e., I and the Father are One~ Jesus, John 10:30-38). The problem as I see it, if I may be so bold, is that most people try to make the sayings, teachings, pointings 'understandable' to their minds, which is actually the hinderance. 'The Peace that passeth all understanding' is prior to mind and, therefore, can only be realized. It is the silence prior the mind's conditioned chattering, logic, and worldview from which the depths of realization emerge. The mind is a bifurcator. When it functions properly, it is a wonderful tool in the world of duality, but identifying with the mind's idea of WHO one thinks they are (i.e., a person in the world with a birthday, spouse, car, job, etc. IN the world) is what Jesus is pointing AWAY from. WHAT one is IS NOT of the world. In a way, 'unity' is a bit misleading, as Oneness has never been divided, and the dream of having left the Garden of Eden is a trick of the mind. The apocalyptic revelation is the destruction of the mind's idea that there was ever - actually, as Truth - a separate self, thus realizing WHAT oneness actually is. All the world's a stage, and there seems to be only one Actor that Thou Art.
Very interesting points, and I couldn’t agree more. Do you find that the sayings in Thomas remind you of koans in the Zen tradition… sayings that are almost designed to confuse the mind and direct consciousness beyond it?
@@tlucia88 Yes. The koans will highlight and bring to bear one's attention on the seductive power of the conditioned patterns of thought structure. With a sufficient degree of clarity on the structure as an object within Consciousness (i.e., often labeled as 'Awareness'-- to the Nth degree, I'd add), there's a piercing of the veil, and the mind's/self's dominance is demoted. The interesting 'flip' is the realization that ALL that happens as life is within YOU/CONSCIOUSNESS, and the separation was only ever a belief, and a persistent one at that. All seeming paradoxes/confusions are of the mind, and it can (after one actually gets the hang of it) get joyously interesting seeing how ones own mind tends to work. At the core of every belief system worth its salt is a surrender, and an absolute one at that, and the supposed ego does not go down without a fight. So the 'smaller' realizations and massively confusing insights that pop up are useful, but don't get stuck. There's always FURTHER, until....
Watching the two of your interact was just a supreme pleasure. So enjoyable, entertaining, and enlightening!
This is my first exposure to Mark Goodacre. I was exposed to the name in a conversation with John Dominic Crossan. Always learning.
Wow. I would like to see Bart lead more interviews like this. Highly enjoyable. Thank you!
Without a doubt. Never saw him in this role before
Thomas is the only Christian reading still remains to me. I digged deep to Advyta lately and what I found after rereading Thomas once again that so many hidden parallels out there! Sometime one can say after "Jesus said":"This is pure Advyta Vedanta!".
Yes, you are on to something with this intuition. I hope you are ready for the ride, because it usually gets weirder before it gets clearer. I say go for it, but many will discourage you, as will the mind. If interested in a perspective, see my separate post in this thread.
Yes! Also, "Be passers by."
@43:10 all the unity themes in the Gospel of Thomas are pointing to what other traditions call non-duality. It's in the Vedas, the Upanishads, Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivaism, Sufism, etc. The basic idea is that thinking of "I, myself am this body" creates an ego or a mental impression of being a separate self who we think is linked to the body. But if we go deeply within and deconstruct this sense of ego self, quieting the mind, detaching from bodily sensations, etc, we may experience the realization that we never really were the person we thought we were. The mind becomes free and quiet, and a sense of pure presence remains. There may be a reduction or disappearance of one's sense of self, and one may feel they are one with everything. That sense of pure presence with no thoughts creating a separate sense of self is "salvation" in Christian mysticism, "moksha" in Hindhusim, Self Realization, enlightenment, Buddhahood, union with God, etc.
That’s wonderful. I need to pursue the discipline of meditation.
What surprises me is that these two scholars seem to be totally unfamiliar with the tenants of Advaita and the other non-dual philosophies of the East. I am somewhat new to Ehrman's podcast, so I wonder if the Advaita subject comes up in other interviews. To me, Jesus was clearly teaching Advaita, which he likely learned in India during all those undocumented years from his teens to his 30's. I will say that he had to dumb it down for his audience in Palestine. Those three words that he whispered in Thomas' ear must have been "You are God"
In studying Thomas I definitely sense monastic influences which implies asceticism. Therefore it reads as far more dualistic than the synoptics, particularly negative about worldly wealth. This develops into more mystical motifs which I find to be an attractive contrast to the apocalypticism of the synoptics. Focus is on the 'now' instead of the 'then', personal involvement over fate
the word youre looking for is gnosticism.
I think dualistic is not the word so much as ascetic.
@@markjohnson543 the denial of physical and psychological desire in order to achieve ascension.
This is truly the message in Gospel of Thomas.
@@cdreid9999 irony is both Paul and Gospel of John can be more easily categorized as two different types of popular Gnostic theologies while the Gospel of Thomas seems to have very little overt relationship.
For example Paul’s archons are all over the place in Gnosticism. And John theology is related to the Pythagorean Monad and Logos which was also a gnostic cosmology.
Meanwhile the Gospel of Thomas has no overt cosmology.
I did not know about your guest until this video, excited to check out his podcast! Great to meet you, Mark!
Appreciated very much. It reminds me of the tradition of Zen Koans. They work on you over time. Ineffable
Mark was a fantastic guest on the show. More please
It would be great fun to listen to an entire informal debate/conversation between Mark and Bart about their opposing views on Q & whether or not the authors of John had access to the synoptic gospels.
I just listened to the entire audio of the book of Thomas because of what Mark Goodacre said. Thanks!
How was the audio experience?
@@investigandolabiblia I didn't have to change any of the volumes and didn't think about it so I think that means its awesome! I only notice when something is off!
i really think anyone claiming to be a christian or interestrd in biblical scholarship should read the entire apocrypha...rather than allowing a small group of misogynist men 2000 years ago decide which christian teachings theyre allowed to see
@@cdreid9999 it has had a huge effect on Christianity views even if most Christian’s don’t realize it
@@cdreid9999 it really is striking to see the arguments against Thomas by established Christianity. I saw the argument of a Catholic priest which actually argued that because Jesus wasn’t sexist so therefore he would not say “make Mary male”. Not putting two and two together that ancient Jews did not have bar mitzvah for girls. Which seems to me the actual context. It is in that text that Jesus completely contradicts Paul. I find the arguments against it ludicrous.
These two are fantastic scholars and bring out the best in each other.
Dearest Bart always informative as well as entertaining. Almost like a fireside chat with him. Much appreciation for Mark Goodacre. I’m addicted to this show.
Bart this scholar on scholar conversational format is fantastic
What a privilege to listen in on this great conversation. This is so illuminating and done in such an engaging and thought provoking way. As @Karla says - one of the very best things about the internet that we have access to and can learn and enjoy listening to scholars such as these.
Interesting point about merging male and female. Reminds me of St. Paul, Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Obviously not JUST a Gnostic idea.
I immediately thought the same thing
This just amazing. I like how Dr. Ehrman sets it up so that it's just two brilliant folks talking.
A spellbinding talk! So interesting from the very start to the end. Thank you very much, professori
I think it's largely leading people to seek knowledge rather than just accepting a pre-established story and hinting at understanding being the key to salvation.
2 of my fav biblical scholars in one interview??? Dreams do come true!
Thank you so much Mark and Bart. I really enjoyed this conversation. I am looking forward to reading these books!
Love this. Can't get enough quality coverage of Thomas.
I love people who challenge the norm!
Awsome work gentlenen. Pure admiration for you both. Your contributions are huge and contributing to my sanity.
Megan you really have no idea what a valuable service you are providing us who are on a search for the truth. Of course I use that word advisedly since the search is the point. I dont think I ever expect to find it. The best you can do for me is to allow me to challenge my preconceptions. Ive followoed some different podcasters in the past but this would have to one of the most fascinating and enlightening. You know I read The holy blood and the holy grail in 1982 which was later plagiarized by Dan Brown. it was the first time I heard of the Gospel of Thomas. Ive read Pagel's book since then. Ive also read a lot of her other writing. Im still reading MacCulloch's History of Christianity. It's heavy going I have to say. Thank you again and keep up the wonderful work you are doing.
Amazing!!! I love seeing this!!! Please do more conversations with scholars you respect.
Agreed!!! Now imagine if they wrote a book
@@investigandolabiblia Now I'm salivating! Quit it, Investigating, you're making me hungry!
@@steppenwolf3252 😂😂😂😂 this comment cracked me up
Seen in London, UK. Gt show. Very good introduction into Gp of Thomas. Wider and broader reading like this does help to get a good handle on the main themes of the Jesus movement. Impressed by fair and honest views by these scholars. God bless them.
@Sydney - What does " Gt show" mean? (I get that "Gp" = gospel.)
@@MossyMozart Great.
Fantastic discussion. Love this exchange. Thanks to both of you.
I absolutely love this series you're doing with Megan Bart, even though she's not in this one.
I've also.followed.Mark for years thanks to you - I'm interested in his take about the synoptic gospels and especially his own take on Markian priority - often wondered what you'd make of that (done buy it myself although all his stuff well argued).
Such a delight to.see you two talking.
Just about to watch now - canw wait!!
Whoops! not Markian priority but Matthew -Luke and after!
We need more blessed lions!
Love these interviews. Dr Ehrman is a TRUE educator and interviewer. Although I was hoping the interview would had been about the Farrer hypothesis.
The thing that amazes is me is their expertise in languages. I read the NT in English, Greek, and Latin but not Coptic, Armenian, Aramaic, old Church Slavonic and so on. These guys are brilliant.
I remember when James White a few years ago actually read the Gospel of Thomas on his Dividing Line and just mocked it. Here we have two scholars. Gotta love the scholars. '-)
I love these videos, Bart.
Knowledge vs faith
.
Scholacttsism vs Petert Pan
Established dogma vs mystery school
Tell you what's up, vs Socratic learning
Give you an easy out vs an easy story
Discover yourself, no other path will matter.. enigmas are key
Don't remain comfortable
The brilliance of the synoptic writers are unassailable, But it's important to remember what their goals were.
👏🙂
Yay another Dr Bart podcast episode
A great book on the Gospel of Thomas was written by scholar Steven Davies. It has an informative introduction on the history of the gospel and tries to give an interpretation of each saying on the opposite page. His view is that this book may be earlier than Mark.
imo there is a bad habit of assuming there is a baseline all christian teachings are taken from. Which is refuted by the very need for the council. Books should be presumed to be independant oral traditions as a baseline
@@cdreid9999 When authors write identical things, it's a necessary question especially if it happens often. It can't be coincidental. Did one take from the other or did they both come about these things independently? It's not presumed but it's often the most logical theory until shown otherwise.
thanks for your great discussion,
Great conversation. great guest. Bring this fellow back and discus some of the areas you disagree on. Wonderful!
I found this wonderful conversation to be very stimulating. My apologies for long response below. Smiles.
One of my favorite Bible scholars interviewing another favorite Bible scholar. I'm in scholarly Heaven ❤️
Same here 🙃
This is god >th-cam.com/video/C9AOuedvOnI/w-d-xo.html
PLEASE do more episodes with mark. this was awesome!
This was a brilliant discussion. Thank you very much
Fun, lively, and interesting conversation. Dispelling myths about scholars one podcast at a time.
Fascinating conversation. When I read Thomas, I thought it seemed like an aide memoire for a preacher, each saying being the title or intro to a sermon.
Illuminating discussion! Thank you so much. What struck me was that the legitimating role between the Synoptics and Thomas might go the other way. Instead of Thomas using sayings from the Synoptics to produce a sense of Jesus speaking, the Synoptics used Thomas to claim that they knew the interpretations of the hidden sayings and thus had eternal life. The Synoptics all used the Parable of the Sower with the same explanation. This is likely an effort to say, hey, we all know what this parable means, and Thomas said that if we understand the context of the sayings, we have eternal life. Or editors and scribes included the Sower Parable and its supposed interpretation to combat Thomasian religion, much like the Doubting Thomas story in John's Gospel. Like, you do not need to go to a Thomasian community to know what this means because we will tell you right here.
What I can say about the Lion Saying is that in the context of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, blessings cannot come without a curse, but curses can come without a blessing. And sometimes, what is phrased as a blessing is not a blessing. [cf. The "blessing" of Esau] I do not think Jesus said the Lion saying. But the saying illuminates the nature of Jesus cursing his will ["Not my will..."]. Much love!
> Instead of Thomas using sayings from the Synoptics to produce a sense of Jesus speaking, the Synoptics used Thomas to claim that they knew the interpretations of the hidden sayings and thus had eternal life. <
I agree, Thomas seems like the purer form of the teachings, and then the others come along with their own interpretations and justifications for those interpretations. Look at logion 35. In Thomas, it simply describes revolutionary tactics, but in Mark it becomes a metaphor for fighting demons, while Matt and Luke present it as a bizarre justification(?) for actual exorcism? Luke actually changes the meaning of the logion, saying you defeat strength not with cunning, but with still _more_ strength. 🤷♂
I’m no linguist or biblical scholar but I do have advanced pattern recognition and experience with comedic writing structure. My take on the lion & man meaning, while not a concrete solution, I do believe my take is a useful push in the right direction:
It has all the makings of a double or triple entendre. (Words in jokes that carry double meanings). Think like a Tetris chain where one object connects separate blocks and once those blocks clear out new blocks fall and make new connections.
Anyways, my take is that the original text language used a word for man, lion, and or consumed (or possibly all three) that made the passage carry double meanings while using the same word.
An example would be: think the theory of relativity, and how it’s attributed to Einstein
Blessed is the problem(proof) consumed(solved) by a man’s conclusion(theory) for the problem becomes the man’s conclusion/theory. cursed is the man consumed by a problem for the mans theory becomes a problem(demise) and the problem becomes mans conclusion (demise/legacy)”
The meaning in parenthesis would need to have the same root word or slang.
An informal and crude example of structure would be:
A man will lose money chasing women but a man will never lose women chasing money.
If you notice that example the structure it’s the same premise as the lion but still missing a third variable, or constant rather.
I’m at work and claim defeat for lack of interest, but I’m relatively certain someone with the training and knowledge will be able to trace back alternate meanings to the words or the original text that make the passage enlightening.
Hope that helps.
Yea after looking at it again the whole thing works even if the (GREEK?) word used for “man” also can mean “a mans legacy”. It would be a triple if the word used for “consumed” also can mean “overtaken/overcome”.
Blessed is the lion who is consumed by the man, the lion becomes the mans legacy. (Highlight or accomplishment)
Cursed is the man who is consumed by the lion, the lion becomes the mans legacy. (Reason he died)
That’s gotta be it tbh. All of the saying are pretty straight forward TO ME. Anything such as the lion passage and the male/female & two become one I’m relatively certain have translation issues or meaning not available to me personally.
25:10 If Christianity started as a "mystery cult" it makes a great deal of sense that the earliest gospels (whether or not Thomas is one of those) would be written to leave out some of the "deeper truths" of their sects...those would be passed on orally to initiates who had reached the right stage of enlightenment.
Thank you Bart and Mark. I appreciate your insights. I fully understand the lion eating the human vs human eating the lion example. How it relates to Jesus is another question. Just to know what people were thinking 2000 years ago is a window to the past. That is invaluable.
Lion: Overcome our trials or they will overcome us?
Verses that relate to logos 2? Overcoming our ego/animal/carnal selves?
The Gospels are the theatrical releases, but and here the writers reveal their subtexts?
Wonderful talk! As for the meaning of GOT saying 7 , I believe it refers to the world and fleshly things of the Soul that interfere with Spiritual freedom of the mind and heart thus salvation. If man can through wisdom and knowledge eat the lion , conquering the trappings of this evil blind world and its passions (what the lion signifies) and make the lion human, the lion would be tamed and and afforded a chance to become wise. Human would be victorious.
Excellent insights on Gospel of Thomas, thank you! I think the lion saying meaning is clear when written out in modern language 👍🏽☮️
I have been reading sufism for more than 5 years now and gospel of Thomas was music to my ears. Also another point that brings my attention is how the famous eastern poet bulleh shah says "if divine was to attained through shower and cleaning the fishes would have found him" is so similar to what gospel of Thomas have it in verse 3. I'm not sure if he plagiarized or what.
Thanks, Bart, for interviewing a fellow biblical scholar. The Apostle Thomas did more to prove the resurrection of Jesus than Paul, who never knew Jesus before his resurrection....upon which Christianity depends for its authenticity.😇
What if the Gospel of Thomas was written first? Esteemed scholars, thank you so much for your discussion and genuine contribution to our understanding of the Gospel of Thomas. My several years of pondering the text independently and without benefit of discussion has led me to conclude an early authorship for the text. All of my learning has come from becoming aware of my mistakes, so I invite and welcome correction to what I have observed. No mention of the crucifixion, resurrection or coming judgment offers prima-facie evidence that the apocalyptic themes found in the synoptics had not been added yet. (Could a post-synoptic text purporting to record Jesus' teachings have possibly omitted these points, if they were important in that community?)
As an interpretive template, I have found that approaching the Gospel of Thomas as a teaching of presence, mindfulness and living in the here and now has given me a powerful and appealing tool for understanding this collection of sayings. Such an approach appears, in fact, to answer all of the puzzles raised in this discussion.
Regarding Saying #7 (at 15:00): Elements of the self are the 'one born of woman' and 'the one not born of woman' (#15, #46). The mind-body ego self, born of woman, is a voracious lion out to conquer and devour all. Blessed are those who come to know the true eternal self (#3) and thereby devour the voracious lion ego previously mis-identified as the self.
Regarding the meaning of 'will not taste death' (at 25:00): Death is consistently treated as a function of one's present state of mind in the Gospel of Thomas, not as a fact about our bodies. The world is a dead place, much as John views it, full of people behaving like zombies. (#56) Eternity, which is always now (#51, #113), can be enjoyed when we subdue and devour the carcas of the ego self, offering it up like sacrificial meat. (#59 and into #60)
Major themes of the text (at 42:00): The major theme of the text is an exhortation to self-inquiry and the pursuit of self-knowledge, as Saying #3 invites us to o. When in our inquiry we come to 'make the two one', we recognize that our true self is so much more than just the busy, discontented, mind-body ego self. When we become child-like by ridding ourselves of all the projected judgmental distinctions we've previously confused with knowledge, we will enter the kingdom' (#22). Thomas was the only disciple prepared for Jesus special teachings because he was the only disciple who knew that he was ignorant! (#13). Peter's Jesus brings justice. Matthew's Jesus brings wisdom. Thomas' Jesus brings “rest” for the restless self (#90).
Regarding Saying #114: It doesn't belong. Drop it. It directly contradicts Saying #22, directing the listener to drop the distinction between male and female. The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas is emphatically non-mysogonystic, yet Jesus knows the scorn he's up against in first century Israel (#105). In Saying #21, Mary is being instructed regarding discipleship, to the ire of Peter, no doubt. In Saying #61, Salome is not only acting as an equal, but even challenging Jesus' worthiness of her hospitality! (Look at the story of Mary and Martha in Luke 10 for a wonderful parallel to this identical lesson.) Saying #114 appears to be a scribal addition.
As a final observation, I'm persuaded of an early authorship for Thomas because of how it appears that the Sayings in Thomas consistently reflect a deeper teaching than their parallels in the synoptic gospels. As examples, we could examine the parallels to the parable of the mustard seed (#20), or the parable of the lost sheep (#107). For brevity of displaying their difference, consider Saying #86. In Thomas, we have an expression describing the human condition of discontent and restlessness, an observation paralleled in Buddhism as the first noble truth, the universality of human unhappiness. But Luke has turned it into a trivial offhand remark of Jesus complaining about his busy schedule! (Luke 9:57-58) What happened to the lesson?
Ok, enough for now, then. Thank you, once more, to all of you scholars who are laboring to make these matters clear to the rest of us. And thank you, too, to anyone with so large a spirit that they are moved to respond to the rantings of this old crack-pot. Peace.
That’s a great interpretation of #7. I really think you nailed it. You should see if you can email Mark about it!
@@Jd-808 Thanks for your kind comment. I've also heard of a similar teaching circulating among native Americans. They talk about people as having two dogs inside of them. Who we become depends on which dog we feed.
@@Jd-808 The two dogs are a nice dog and a mean dog.
Your reading of Thomas is more in line with mine, and I share your view that it represents the more basal form of the teachings. It would explain how Luke and Matt can take a logion like 73 and create completely different origin stories for it. 35 may be a still better example of this. 🤓
My take on 114 is that it's Jesus' super cringey way of explaining that the only reason the women aren't the intellectual equals of men is because guys like Peter keep shunning them. 🤷♂
I see solidarity as one of the primary themes of the tome, as emphasized by the Miracle of Cooperation described in 48 and 106. Interesting that for Matt and Luke, the moving of mountains was a miraculous manifestation of our metaphysical merit, rather than the simple result of working together described by Thomas. Anyway, I see the references to "solitaries" as meaning "those who have achieved unity with their fellows," by making the two into one. "Speaking with one voice," as God laments in Genesis 11:6. 🤔
@@serversurfer6169 Thanks for sharing your thoughtful take on these sayings. We've really got something to talk about here, as I see the Thomas message being brought specifically to the marginalized and suffering individuals for whom institutional community religion has provided no comfort. I've puzzled over #45's reference to “two in the same house making peace with each other” and have tentatively decided that it references the restless ego “born of woman” finding wholeness by merging with the unchanging self “not born of woman”. I take Thomas' use of “house” to be speaking of the individual's physical manifestation. I see this reflected in the individual instruction given about what it means to be a disciple in #21. I also read it in the blessing given to the “solitary” in #49. Then there's the reference to death of the body in #71, the house that no one will be able to rebuild. A follower of Jesus makes a joke about how a church congregation is like a herd standing around an empty watering trough (#74)! This saying is a beautiful set-up for the contrast provided by #75, pointing out that it's the “solitary”, not the many, who enter the wedding chamber (#75). Then I also notice how the audience for Thomas #107 is the sheep who has become lost. But the synoptic treatment has transformed it into the church leadership celebrating it's successful outreach to the backsliders! (Luke 15:1-7) From my perspective, then, it appears that it's the synoptics that have changed the message to be directed to the community when it was originally (as in Thomas) directed to the individual. I'd love to hear more from you about this to see where it goes. Thanks again for your thoughts. Peace.
The book of Thomas is my absolute FAVORITE book. It's right. When you understand the sayings in the book, you shall never again FEAR death - written as "taste". It is absolutely consistent with the spirit of the teachings of Jesus.
John attempts to deligitimize Thomas by calling the Doubter, and decades ago I became convinced that Thomas rebutted him. I.e., they were in conversation.
Oh? I kinda got the impression that Thomas was the Trotsky to Peter's Stalin. 😅
I’ve always seen doubt as a tool
This was my first intro to Mark Goodacre. I was at first disappointed I wasn't going to get to listen to Bart, but I actually really enjoyed and appreciated Mark's parts; I'll have to check out more of their stuff.
I'd recommend that you listen to the Extended Episodes of Mark's NT Pod in that case.
@@nendwr Thanks!
An astonishing and enlightening episode! 😮
Thanks so much for this. These are all great episodes but this was particularly helpful.
Wonderful discussion. Thanks for sharing it.
We're lucky to have Mark Goodacre questioning scholarly orthodoxy.
where did he do that? His entire argument seems to be that thomas is a scam because it doesnt fit his orthodoxy
My best regard to Mr. Bart from Indonesia.. .very fascinating podcast...
Yes - the “becoming one” in reference to gender simply means that we are primarily mind/soul/ spirit. This removes us from the attachment to the physical world. We still live IN the world, but we know we are not “OF” it, but, rather - as “passerby”.
In practice, the “Thomas community” would have women and men teach equally and be of equal stand in community (to the best ability they could in that world).
Yes, my reading of 114 is something like, "The only reason the women are not your equals is because you block their way, Peter." 😇
An interview / dialog on the two sources theory would be extremely interesting. I find Goodacre's points on the Q hypothesis compelling, but its "minority position" status makes me reluctant... I'm sure a "cross-examination" (😄) by Bart Ehrman would at least help in pinpointing the key issues to decide whether to go with the traditional view (Matthew and Luke drawing on Q) or with Goodacre's simpler explanation (Luke copied + edited + expanded on Matthew).
The Gospel writers we know were anonymous. My question would be: Is The Gospel of Thomas considered to be anonymously written, with 'Thomas' added for authentication?
In Eastern esoterica, there is a merging of Shiva (masculine) and Shakti (feminine) into One, a unity beyond difference, Consciousness Itself. Adi Da Samraj explains this is his book The Alethon.
My view is that the followers are going through a transformation and the one who makes it correctly is going to understand the meaning of the Jesus's words. Meaning: the one who is already "there" - in the kingdom-, sees the meaning. You guys ask whether there are some actions implied. In my opinion, actions like meditation, prayer, fasting lead you to a state (without death) in which you understand what Jesus meant, because you became same as Jesus and you see everything from his perspective
I wonder if these sayings are intended like Zen koans - you don't taste death because your mind is liberated. The idea of eliminating distinctions is similar to Mahayana texts - the Vimalakirti sutra (probably spelled wrong) has a character change gender and rebuke another character for their attachment to gender.
> you don't taste death because your mind is liberated <
Exactly. Death is bitter, yet some die with a smile on their face. 🤔
I've been interested in the Gospel of Thomas for years, most importantly because it appears to making the point that Jesus was a Buddha type figure. If I may be so bold, the primary doctrine of Buddhism is that all consciousness is one consciousness, and all "things" (including consciousness) are one thing. (This is a great oversimplification, but I'll try to keep it simple...) If you consider the "one thing" to be God, that means all "things" - including people - are aspects of God. So Buddhism basically says that ALL people are Jesus - both human and God simultaneously, and this appears, to me at least, to be what Jesus is getting at in the Gospel of Thomas. For example, from saying 3: "the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father". Pretty straightforward Buddhism there! I'm surprised this didn't come up in the discussion, especially when Mark mentioned "the singularity of becoming one". I thought - wow, here it comes! But he was thinking in terms of the singularity of one human being. I think the whole point of the gospel is to present parables/riddles that when understood, will allow the person to "not experience death". We can think of them as Western Zen Koans.
Yes. I think you’re right
I don't know you in real life. No idea if you're a prat or not, but I'm quite glad there's a Bart Erhman in the world.
I've met him and will vouch for Bart being a really nice guy.
Great lecture ! Here are some thoughts/suggestions from Zen Buddhism .
1. Interpretation of " not tasting death" means not having FEAR at the time of your death.
2. The interpretation of the text is not logical...it's a deep intuitive insight . A Zen koan, such as " what is the sound of one hand clapping," is an example of a non-logical statement that can not be solved logically.
3. The Zen equivalent to Gnosis is knowledge of Self. While this sense of Self is difficult to explain in words, you can think of this Self as being "separate" from thoughts and emotions.
4. The reference to gender means that once you "know your true Self" you know that gender is not part of the true Self.
5. Unfortunately, Zen has no parallel concept to the Lion quote.
Thanks for a beautiful lecture.
Best wishes
This is a very useful interpretation. I also get the sense that this text has a lot of eastern influence, and is meant to guide the reader to a deeper understanding, rather than impose some greater truth upon them. What are your thoughts on logia like 48 and 106? To me, they preach the power of solidarity. I think the "solitaires" referenced as the elect throughout the text, are those who have achieved true solidarity with their fellows, making the two into one. 🤔
I truly appreciate learning about the Bible and various religious traditions without sanctimonious proselyting. Just like with Greek and Roman mythology, it is very interesting.
I get the impression that the Gospel of Thomas was never meant to be read by the uninitiated, but rather read out loud by someone in the know who supplements the sayings with true knowledge. Someting like lecture notes, come to think of it.
Discussion Topics. ✊
Totally brilliant - an immersive episode. As many have said in the comments here: more of these please - i.e. can we have these *instead*?! It seems fairly obvious to me that many of the more abstruse sayings in the Gospel of Thomas are derived from esoteric tradition in the middle East generally, such as is contained in the technical terminology of Sufi orders. I'm sure I'm not the first to have pointed this out, but it was not referenced in the discussion and Mark Goodacre confessed himself baffled by the non-canonical sayings, so I guess neither he nor Bart are aware of the derivation. I could be wrong.
Yeah, there generally seems to be more of an Eastern flavor to Thomas. 🤓
Scholars have noticed this, but it's difficult to prove derivation because in most cases it's impossible to determine who's influencing whom. Sufi traditions are much younger than Thomas, so it is entirely possible that what we think of as Eastern esoteric tradition that Thomas and similar texts draw from actually evolved from Eastern mystics reading Thomas and similar texts.
thank you for sharing awesome podcast 👍
If memory serves me well... I heard of a socalled Diatesseron from the ninth century AD, in Gothic (an old germanic language). Besides the regular evangelies it contains a few sayings from Thomas! The thing in question was studied by prof Quispel. A (surpassed some time ago, sadly) Dutch NT scholar. Someone here who remembers the details of this? It showed the influence of christian teachings stemming from Thomas up to the middle ages! 20:44
I think there may have been no teacher. The individual coming to the correct interpretation on his own is what brings eternal life.
41:42: the idea of unity and sungularity is great. There is talk of gender and syntethis of male ans female is great. I think that another aspect of singularity is synthesis of mind and body. I mean that we need to singualize what we think and what we do. That is also part of personality persona apart from male and female archetypes.
I wouldn't expect action in the text, it's just quotes. Good. Nice to have these.
OMG. I squealed when I saw this. OH! and Goodacre get that podcast back on track!
About saying 7: switch "human" and "lion" to their typical characteristics, and align the clauses for the sake of English, a non-inflected language. Thus: "It is good if intelligence should add to itself power; but it is an evil if power should add to itself intelligence."
I chose "intelligence" and "power" by way of example. Articles might be written to demonstrate that to be human is to have knowledge or to be higher in a spiritual hierarchy, etc.; to be a lion is to be courageous or to be lower in a spiritual hierarchy, etc.
Wow. That makes sense! 😃
Some theologians make knots, some untie them, but the really crazy ones do both. The question is how can something so simple become so complex.
Thank you both for this fascinating discussion. IMO, the GOT makes so much more sense if you've read and studied "A Course In Miracles". Jesus explains everything and answers every question you've ever asked, which really illuminates how Christianity has seriously misunderstood him and his teachings, and so much more.
This really works! I was absolutely astounded. After 34 years of misery and suffering, with a broken back, I was healed! Then, after six torturous, years and thousands of treatments, I was healed of a terminal disease, but I did not know how to do it with any consistency, and I wish I did, so I will learn, as much as I can, to get there, and I will. May every1 be with their healing(s)💜🙏✝️🎁🕊🌟💞
Bot
What a great conversation! Enjoyed every second
Thanks, Big Time, Dr Bart D. Ehrman & Dr Mark Goodacre, for sharing your knowledge. Dr Mark, you confused me when you mentioned "Justin Mark & Justin Luke", I had to put on c.c, to double check, and sure enough. Here is the page, Hahaha. Cheers 🥃, Guys.
Fantastic interview and information. Thank you both very much.
14:50
Lion = egoistic person / narcissistic
If you don’t praise lies of an egoistic person, he will be consumed and become a man (vulnerable) in everyones eyes, like the rest.
But if you praise an egoistic person, that person will overshadow you with his lies no matter what you’ve achieved, as everyone will believe his words since you’ve praised him previously
Achieved or done (good/bad), the lion is already a man at that point and has more trust in himself from others
Ima add. Narcissistic individuals are all about grandiosity and reputation, they are viewed as “Lions” in society, naive and empathetic people fall for it
Absolutely the other way around.The authors of the synoptic gospels had access to Thomas.Thomas is before..
Thank you for all the evidence you provided, that was helpful!