Scholarly discussion about changes in biblical texts

TheLightWithin

...through a glass, darkly
Veteran Member
Messages
2,728
Reaction score
1,438
Points
108
Location
Cherish religious freedom: yours, mine, everyone's

Dan McClellan again - I appreciate his commentaries.

The first one above is broadly about changes in the text of the bible in bible history - compilation, editing, redaction, and translation
He discusses the history, and how scholars and translators look at and compare the source materials they currently have.

The second one is his response to another content creator who seems outraged by differences she sees in modern translations. She seems to think there is something untoward in the efforts to make more accurate translations I don't know how much she looked into it for explanations or to understand She just seems to think there is something bad going on...(!?) He makes an effort to clarify for viewers who are interested.
 
I found this interesting. An updated NRSV seems to be his current bible of choice? Which is the bible Unity used... I'd be interested to hear what Dan thinks of the Lamsa, the Message, and the five gospels...but I can't find anything...yet.
 
@wil -

I have no idea what you are referring to when you mention “the five gospels”. Could you desvribe a bit more fully?

As for Lamsa, aren’t there really two questions? There is the question of Lama’s translation, but there is also a question as to the Peshitta itself.
 
@wil -

I have no idea what you are referring to when you mention “the five gospels”. Could you desvribe a bit more fully?

As for Lamsa, aren’t there really two questions? There is the question of Lama’s translation, but there is also a question as to the Peshitta itself.
The five gospels is not a translation but a red letter bible...but instead.of.just read they have red for.we think jesus said that, pink for could be him, maybe paraphrased, Grey for doubt it, and black for naw, we.dont think it is
 
The five gospels is not a translation but a red letter bible...but instead.of.just read they have red for.we think jesus said that, pink for could be him, maybe paraphrased, Grey for doubt it, and black for naw, we.dont think it is
That's been thoroughly discredited now by scholars ... no-one seriously stands by it today, do they?
 
The five gospels is not a translation but a red letter bible...but instead.of.just read they have red for.we think jesus said that, pink for could be him, maybe paraphrased, Grey for doubt it, and black for naw, we.dont think it is
I thought that was the Jesus Seminar.

Which the writers at "Got Questions" didn't care for, thinking of it as bad or dishonest I guess

I don't remember it being called 5 Gospels. Maybe it was?
Looking it up, I guess there was a book that used that term, by Robert Funk

When looking up the term the 5 gospels, several different books and website come up

Where they refer to a quote by a British evangelist named Rodney Smith about there being 5 gospels, the traditional four and the Christian one, and most people not having read any of them. They also refer to the slogan "The only gospel some people ever see is YOU"

 
Last edited:
I found this interesting. An updated NRSV seems to be his current bible of choice? Which is the bible Unity used... I'd be interested to hear what Dan thinks of the Lamsa, the Message, and the five gospels...but I can't find anything...yet.
If you are interested, you could look on his YouTube to see if he has commented already. You could even post a question and see if he answers it. I think there are ways to email him, and he does livestreams sometimes, I think Sunday nights? where he takes questions.
 
That's been thoroughly discredited now by scholars ... no-one seriously stands by it today, do they?
Yes, discredited by people that believe Jesus to be Son of G!d...or trinitarians that believe he was G!d on earth.

Me thinks Thomas Jefferson would have liked the book and the seminar based on his rendition of the new testament a couple hundred years ago.

Is it simply different people believe different things regarding faith and belief? (Say it isn't so!)
 
Yes, discredited by people that believe Jesus to be Son of G!d...
Sorry, no ... discredited by scholars generally, as lacking credibility, showing bias, and arriving at conclusions based on a flawed voting system... among a range of other criticisms.

Me thinks Thomas Jefferson would have liked the book and the seminar based on his rendition of the new testament a couple hundred years ago.
Probably.

Is it simply different people believe different things regarding faith and belief? (Say it isn't so!)
No, it's not 'simply' that – it's not the conclusions that scholars take issue with.

Rather, it's the flawed methodology, the clear and indisputable evidence of bias – the inclusion of the Gospel of Thomas and acceptance of its content as viable and authoritative, while the canonical gospels undergo intense scrutiny and criticism, is lamentable, if not laughable.

Its value is as a product of the skepticism of the late last century – it has little or no relevance today.

More recent scholarship – notably Jewish scholarship – clearly shows how little the Seminar knew and understood the world in which Jesus lived and breathed.

It will go down, along with the prior attempts to construct 'the historical Jesus' as a process inevitably foundering on the subjectivity of the various writers who project their own preferences onto the subject – a critique offered by Albert Schweitzer with regard to their forerunners in his "The Quest of the Historical Jesus – From Reimarus to Wrede" written in 1906.
 
In addition –

The Quest for the Historical Jesus on wikipedia makes no mention of the Seminar!

I can't find any reference by McClellan to the Seminar

Bart Ehrman, although agrees with them on general points (as do many scholars, as do I, as an amateur), disagrees entirely with their conclusions regarding Jesus.
 
Sorry, no ... discredited by scholars generally, as lacking credibility, showing bias, and arriving at conclusions based on a flawed voting system... among a range of other criticisms
Absolutely true!

However....I like the system! Red, pink, Grey, black! No more red letter bibles that literalists point to swearing Jesus said this and did that even when lacking evidence and out of character.

Bias? Absolutely, like the authors of every book ever known pretty much...including all 66 cannonized. If you don't have a belief and bias and want your belief and understanding spread around why does anyone write and publish?

The OT gets discredited by the NT, the Cheistian Bible gets discredited by the quran...

Not all, but in parts, just like Jefferson did and just like the Seminar did, and just like the KJV did....a new version....does everyone buy it? NO! Are their detractors and non believers? YES!!!

Do inagree with everything they wrote? NO!

Do they agree with everything they wrote NO!

Hence the Red, Pink, Grey, Black....they went by majority rule....because nobody ever agrees on all points.

But funnily enough, they did agree the book with the most.sayings, most likely actual quotes or in the vein of Jesus thinking was the book of Thomas..not any of the Canon, err...Thomas.

But this is me, a non believer who doesn't 'know' if the biblical Jesus existed or the stories we have are an amalgam of a number of situations attributed to one man, the hero of the gospels.

What I do know is I believe a lot of what was claimed to be said is motivational, inspirational, and I can and have utilized it to improve my life, improve my attitude about life and the conditions we face as humans interacting in a communal society.

It allows me to see life thru a different lense, see an new perspective, by as Paul asks, let the mind of Christ Jesus be in our mind.

The bible is still my goto book for allegory and parables that I can utilize in the above endeavor and of all the characters in the compilation of 66 (67 lol) books, mythological or real, Jesus is the one that guides me the most.

Btw....did ya read it, read the methodology, read the list of folk who participated in the seminar?

 
Last edited:
Absolutely true!
Well there you go ... that's why the Jesus Seminar was a sideshow; no-one references it these days, it's irrelevant, other than a sociological moment.

There are ongoing viewpoints, of course, but the Seminar was more than that.

However....
LOL, this is your bias towards "black letter literalists swearing Jesus never said this and never did that even when lacking evidence" and "out of character"? Seriously? How do they know the character of Jesus?

But funnily enough, they did agree the book with the most.sayings, most likely actual quotes or in the vein of Jesus thinking was the book of Thomas..
I know! A book of uncertain provenance, which no-one understands ... who'd have thought? :cool: and if Thomas, on what ground completely ignore other non-canonical texts?

Btw....did ya read it, read the methodology, read the list of folk who participated in the seminar?
Not the whole book. We studied excerpts, and the methodology, its place in the Quest for the Historical Jesus – but the point is it's a f lawed work, reflective of the times, and has no longevity.

Regarding the members – there were some reputable scholars, eg Borg, Crossan, Funk ... the others? Relatively young and unknown. But here's a telling point – there were other reputed contemporary scholars with published works on 'the historical Jesus', but they weren't invited to participate, because their opinions didn't fit ...

The members of the seminar clearly stood for the liberal fundamentalist position, under the umbrella of a few big-hitter names.

As for the voting system – N. T. Wright said: "I cannot understand how, if a majority ... thought a saying authentic or probably authentic, the 'weighted average' turned out to be 'probably inauthentic'. A voting system that produces a result like this ought to be scrapped."

Another scholar noted the voting process meant that: "an averaged majority vote by people who were not in any reasonable sense authorities at all."

For the Seminar, a saying will only be held as authentic if it does not match the beliefs of Judaism or those held by the early Christians.

One scholar noted: 'The Jesus of the Seminar shows no continuity with his Jewish context nor his disciples'; another, 'a Jesus who never said, thought, or did anything that other Jews said, thought, or did, and a Jesus who had no connection or relationship to what his followers said, thought, or did in reference to him after he died' and a third, 'an eccentric Jesus who learned nothing from his own culture and made no impact on his followers.'

I could go on ... but in short, the findings of the seminar are largely nonsense.

+++

But this is me ... What I do know ... It allows me to see life ... The bible is still my goto book for allegory and parables ...
LOL, I know your preferred position is left of field ... No issue with that!
 
I could go on ... but in short, the findings of the seminar are largely nonsense.
Btw....did ya read it
This clown revels in, finds solace in, entertainment and enlightenment in nonsense!

Expecting you to be on board with my beliefs is like expecting you or I to agree with the decisions of those that flew suicide missions on 9/11.. our decades of understanding our realities differ dramatically.

What resonates with me doesn't with everyone....and me trying to explain it is like a fish asking me where to find water when they can't understand we are swimming in it.

Lovya brother.
 
A comment on the historicity of the Gospel of Thomas is that the (presumably) complete text we have is Coptic, and dates from the 4th century.

We have fragments in Greek which predate that, dated around 130-250CE, and a theory that the Greek is itself a translation of a Syriac original.

There is strong scholarship now to argue that Thomas shows some dependence on the four canonical gospels, and that the Coptic text was a revised and edited version to favour the monastic spirituality of early Christian ascetics living in Egypt, later known as the Desert Fathers (and Mothers).

It's against this background that the most enigmatic sayings are most easily understood.

It's also worth noting that the Gospel of Thomas is the common name, but there better title might be the opening statement:
"These are the secret words which the living Jesus spoke, and Didymus Judas Thomas wrote them down"
In the context of its time, the 'secret' or 'hidden' words are commentaries that are kept for the advanced student only, and not disclosed to the neophyte. This again can be read to suggest that Thomas should be read in conjunction with the four Gospels.

+++

Logion 16:
"Jesus said, “Possibly people think that I have come to cast peace on the world (cf. Matthew 10:34 and Luke 12: 51), and they do not know that I have come to cast divisions upon the earth (Luke 12:51): fire (Luke 12:49), sword (Matthew 10:34), and war. For there shall be five in a house: three shall be against two and two against three, father against son, and son against father (Luke 12:52-53), and they shall stand as solitary ones.

Two points:
One is that the logion only makes better sense if read in the light of the Lucan account.
Two is that the 'solitary' of the non-canonical phrase uses the word monachos, Coptic ⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ (monachos), Greek μοναχός (monakhós), meaning 'solitary' or 'monk' – the argument being that the Coptic Thomas took shape in the monastic community – and the term monachos appears more than once in the text, with the emphasis on the solitary individual, the hermit-monks of the desert, being the elect of God.

Logion 4:
Greek: "Jesus said, 'A man old in days will not hesitate to ask a child seven days old about his place in life and he will live. For many of the first will be last and many of the last will be first ... "

Coptic: "Jesus said, 'The man old in days will not hesitate to ask a small child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live. For many who are first will become last, and they will become solitary ones'."

Monastic readers would recognise such wording from their everyday life. The old man (ⲡϩⲗ̄ⲗⲟ) is the title given an experienced monk. The 'child' could then refer to a monk in training, not necessarily a child but a newcomer to the community. In such communities, the 'elder' is far more honourable than an untrained neophyte. (There is an account of St Pachomius who set a younger man to speak to the community. Some of the elder brothers took umbrage at being lectured to by a young man, and walked off! St Pachomius had seen that the younger man was more spiritually advanced than even his elders.) Thus both young and old can be 'solitary ones, that is, authentic monks.

The emphasis on solitary is there in logions 11, 16, 22, 23, 49, 75 and 106.

The Coptic Thomas is championing – in the face of the pastoral collective – the ascetic ideal of the 'solitary one', to whom "the living Jesus" will reveal himself. One is reminded of the words of the desert father, Abba Alois: “Unless a man says in his heart, Only I and God are in the world, he shall not find rest.”
 
When Thomas speaks of "knowing oneself," it means "knowing oneself as a son of God":

Logion 3:
"When you know yourselves, then shall you be known (1 Corinthians 13:12), and you shall know that you are the sons of the living Father (1 John 3:2). But if ye do not know yourselves, then you are in poverty, and you are poverty."

And "the sons of God" are those who, being "solitary ones", have transcended gender (and other) differences; they are "like the angels", "sons of the resurrection", and no longer defined by the flesh.

Logion 22:
"... Jesus said to them: When you make the two one, and when you make the inside as the outside, and the outside as the inside, and the upper side as the lower; and when you make the male and the female into a single one, that the male be not male and the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then shall you enter the kingdom."

The core of this saying – "the two will be(come) one" is probably authentic, found in other early Christian texts, II Clement 12:2: "... he (the Lord) said, 'When the two shall be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male with the female neither male nor female'." 12:5: "And by 'the male with the female neither male nor female' he means this, that when a brother sees a sister he should have no thought of her as female, nor she of him as male."

Clement of Alexandria, in his Stromata (iii, 13), presents the same saying, citing The Gospel of the Egyptians (note that these two texts are, like both the Greek and Coptic versions of Thomas, Egyptian). Again, what we discern in this saying of Jesus are the roots of what would grow into the ideal of the monk.

And finally the most un-right-on idea –

Logion 114:
"Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus, in the older, canonical Gospels and the authentic epistles of Paul, never suggests that women are somehow deficient, or must become 'male'. It seems likely that Thomas 114 is an adulterated logion attributed to Jesus.

However the implication is that ascetically, both sexes can transcend their fleshly distinctions. We have, in Egypt and Palestine, instances of female monastics who intentionally made themselves masculine in appearance and behaviour.

+++

If one is looking for a more 'authentic', more 'inclusive', more 'spiritual' Jesus, that He of the canonical Gospels, then disappointment awaits.

In Thomas is offered no such alternative, despite the enigma of many of the logia.

The canonical Gospels became canonical (the word “canon” means something by which we measure other things) for a simple reason – they were the texts that the vast majority of Jesus-followers treasured above the rest. They represented, despite their differences, the Jesus they considered authentic, the original apostolic deposit, the tradition as written.

The Jesus of Thomas, by comparison, is enigmatic and elusive figure. Its value goes without saying, but its spirituality is not as different, as other, as gnostic, as some believe. A familiarity with early Christian monasticism will not be surprised by it, rather the text is recognisably marked by that ascetic spirituality and the community within which it found its final form ...

And, it has to be said, he Jesus of Thomas is more spiritually 'elitist' than the Jesus of the canon, both the gospels and the epistles.

The Jesus of Thomas stands for me as a significant facet of the experience of the disciples – frightening, disorientating, unsettling, dogmatic, demanding – it's this Jesus which tells me why He can say things in the canonical accounts that the disciples never seem to understand.

That delicious moment in the Gospel of John 13:
"Having said these things, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified and said, 'Amen, amen, I tell you that one of you will betray me.' The disciples looked at one another, confused as to whom he means. One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table close
beside Jesus. So Simon Peter nods his head at this one and says to him, 'Ask who it is that he is talking about.' " (v21-24)

A lovely, 'Ask him," "no, you ask him!" moment – to me it seems best resolved when you allow that Jesus was always saying dark and dangerous things, always challenging his disciples, who probably loved and feared Him in equal measure. A walking, talking koan.

There's no 'gentle Jesus, meek and mild' here ... no mercy, no forgiveness, no charity, no healing, no encouragement ...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: wil
The members of the seminar clearly stood for the liberal fundamentalist position, under the umbrella of a few big-hitter names.

As for the voting system – N. T. Wright said: "I cannot understand how, if a majority ... thought a saying authentic or probably authentic, the 'weighted average' turned out to be 'probably inauthentic'. A voting system that produces a result like this ought to be scrapped."
What were the criteria they used to make those assessments? Do you know?
 
  • Like
Reactions: wil
It's against this background that the most enigmatic sayings are most easily understood.
Context always.
One of the reasons I read commentary and scholarship and forum posts more than scripture itself is my long history of attempting to read Scripture but not understanding the context enough to get anything out of it. Finding the bible hard to read, not necessarily due to complexity (it is though in a way) but that I find it cryptic and incoherent, and not defining its terms, and having a reaction of confusion, boredom, or even some other negative response... and knowing it is important and not wanting to have only negative responses, doing what I can to learn enough to understand context and make more sense of it. Always learning and always glad to... 😇 😍😌
 
  • Like
Reactions: wil
And, it has to be said, he Jesus of Thomas is more spiritually 'elitist' than the Jesus of the canon, both the gospels and the epistles.

The Jesus of Thomas stands for me as a significant facet of the experience of the disciples – frightening, disorientating, unsettling, dogmatic, demanding – it's this Jesus which tells me why He can say things in the canonical accounts that the disciples never seem to understand.
Yes, sometimes even in the NT Gospels
A lovely, 'Ask him," "no, you ask him!" moment – to me it seems best resolved when you allow that Jesus was always saying dark and dangerous things, always challenging his disciples, who probably loved and feared Him in equal measure. A walking, talking koan.
I have sometimes wondered how much of Christian doctrine or ideas would make more sense thought of they way people think of koans
There's no 'gentle Jesus, meek and mild' here ... no mercy, no forgiveness, no charity, no healing, no encouragement ...
Even reading the NT Gospels I have always felt confused - maybe mixed messages but I was raised with mixed religious messages so it should be all good...:oops:
 
  • Like
Reactions: wil
A comment on the historicity of the Gospel of Thomas is that the (presumably) complete text we have is Coptic, and dates from the 4th century.

We have fragments in Greek which predate that, dated around 130-250CE, and a theory that the Greek is itself a translation of a Syriac original.

There is strong scholarship now to argue that Thomas shows some dependence on the four canonical gospels, and that the Coptic text was a revised and edited version to favour the monastic spirituality of early Christian ascetics living in Egypt, later known as the Desert Fathers (and Mothers).

It's against this background that the most enigmatic sayings are most easily understood.

It's also worth noting that the Gospel of Thomas is the common name, but there better title might be the opening statement:
"These are the secret words which the living Jesus spoke, and Didymus Judas Thomas wrote them down"
In the context of its time, the 'secret' or 'hidden' words are commentaries that are kept for the advanced student only, and not disclosed to the neophyte. This again can be read to suggest that Thomas should be read in conjunction with the four Gospels.

+++

Logion 16:
"Jesus said, “Possibly people think that I have come to cast peace on the world (cf. Matthew 10:34 and Luke 12: 51), and they do not know that I have come to cast divisions upon the earth (Luke 12:51): fire (Luke 12:49), sword (Matthew 10:34), and war. For there shall be five in a house: three shall be against two and two against three, father against son, and son against father (Luke 12:52-53), and they shall stand as solitary ones.

Two points:
One is that the logion only makes better sense if read in the light of the Lucan account.
Two is that the 'solitary' of the non-canonical phrase uses the word monachos, Coptic ⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ (monachos), Greek μοναχός (monakhós), meaning 'solitary' or 'monk' – the argument being that the Coptic Thomas took shape in the monastic community – and the term monachos appears more than once in the text, with the emphasis on the solitary individual, the hermit-monks of the desert, being the elect of God.

Logion 4:
Greek: "Jesus said, 'A man old in days will not hesitate to ask a child seven days old about his place in life and he will live. For many of the first will be last and many of the last will be first ... "

Coptic: "Jesus said, 'The man old in days will not hesitate to ask a small child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live. For many who are first will become last, and they will become solitary ones'."

Monastic readers would recognise such wording from their everyday life. The old man (ⲡϩⲗ̄ⲗⲟ) is the title given an experienced monk. The 'child' could then refer to a monk in training, not necessarily a child but a newcomer to the community. In such communities, the 'elder' is far more honourable than an untrained neophyte. (There is an account of St Pachomius who set a younger man to speak to the community. Some of the elder brothers took umbrage at being lectured to by a young man, and walked off! St Pachomius had seen that the younger man was more spiritually advanced than even his elders.) Thus both young and old can be 'solitary ones, that is, authentic monks.

The emphasis on solitary is there in logions 11, 16, 22, 23, 49, 75 and 106.

The Coptic Thomas is championing – in the face of the pastoral collective – the ascetic ideal of the 'solitary one', to whom "the living Jesus" will reveal himself. One is reminded of the words of the desert father, Abba Alois: “Unless a man says in his heart, Only I and God are in the world, he shall not find rest.” For those struggling with personal challenges, such as battling temptation, resources like prayer points with scriptures can offer spiritual support. The call to be a 'solitary one' also resonates with the pursuit of unity with God, emphasizing a deep, personal relationship over communal conformity. This focus on individual spiritual growth aligns with the broader Christian call to seek grace and transformation.


Hey Thomas, I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on the *Gospel of Thomas*! You've done a great job digging into its historical context and how it connects to the monastic life of those early Desert Fathers and Mothers. I love how you pointed out the emphasis on the "solitary one" and how it reflects the hermit-monks’ deep focus on their personal walk with God. It’s fascinating to see how the Coptic text seems to champion that ascetic lifestyle, almost like it’s calling people to strip away distractions and get real with their faith.

Your breakdown of Logion 16 and Logion 4 really brought the text to life. The idea that an older monk might learn from a younger one, as you mentioned with St. Pachomius, reminds me how God often flips our expectations—humility is such a big deal in the Christian journey. And Logion 16’s talk of division and fire makes me think of how following Jesus can sometimes shake things up in our lives, pushing us to stand firm in our beliefs, even when it’s tough.

I also appreciate how you tied the “secret words” to teachings meant for those ready to go deeper. It’s a reminder that faith is a journey, and we’re all invited to keep seeking, whether we’re new to it or have been at it for years. Thanks for sharing such a thoughtful post—it’s got me thinking about how I can lean into that “solitary” focus in my own prayer life! What’s your take on how we can balance that inward focus with living out our faith in community?
 
Back
Top