Okay, David, I wanted to make sure I have my ducks in a row here, and will now address your argument.
First, however, I want to make sure we are distinguishing between the relative date of two texts and the relative date of the traditions within those texts. Compare these passages, for example:
Matthew 4.18-22: 18 But while he was walking around by the sea of Galilee he saw two brothers, Simon, who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting about a casting net into the sea, for they were fishers. 19 And he says to them: Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men. 20 But they, straightway leaving the nets behind, followed him. 21 And he passed on from there and saw two other brothers, James of Zebedee and John his brother in the boat with Zebedee their father mending their nets, and he called them. 22 But they straightway left the boat and their father and followed him.
Mark 1.16-20: 16 And while he was going about by the sea of Galilee he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting about in the sea, for they were fishers. 17 And Jesus said to them: Come after me, and I will make you to be fishers of men. 18 And, straightway leaving the nets behind, they followed him. 19 And he passed on a little farther and saw James of Zebedee and John his brother, and they were in the boat mending the nets, 20 and straightway he called them. And they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hirelings and went after him.
These are essentially the same story: the same tradition. Either one author copied from the other, making small changes, or both authors copied from a third source, each probably making small changes. In either case, what you end up with is an
older tradition (the story itself) lodged inside a
newer text (whether Matthew or Mark, in this case). In fact, the same observation applies to this very post right here on this forum: I am writing this up in 2020, but I am also including snippets of tradition which are much, much older (those quotations from Matthew and Mark). So, in what follows, I am discussing only the relative dates of the
traditions we are discussing, namely, the saying about hands, feet, and eyes. The connection between the relative dates of these parallel sayings and the relative dates of the gospels of Thomas, Matthew, and Mark overall is indirect. I hope that is clear enough.
Second, I am not in any way allergic to finding sayings in Thomas which seem to predate those in the canonical gospels. I have argued, for example, that Thomas 71 seems to preserve the most primitive form of the so called Temple Word. I may be right or wrong about that, but I have argued it, because I have no issue in theory with Thomas either being earlier than the canonical gospels or containing materials earlier than the canonical gospels. What matters is what the situation looks like "on the ground," so to speak. And, somewhat relevantly to this discussion, I happen to stand currently persuaded by Dennis R. MacDonald (in what I think was his doctoral thesis) that the saying about two becoming one, and about male and female and all that, is very early and predates even Galatians 3.28. But it is the subsequent bit about hands and feet and eyes that I am discussing here, and that may turn out to be a different story.
davidmartin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 11:26 pm
The Thomas saying probably relates to the other Jesus phrase 'having ears to hear'
So replace existing 'non-spiritual eyes' with seeing ones that can see truth
The inclusion of hands, feet is less obvious how including the whole body not just parts related to senses would mean
I agree. This saying in Thomas is hard to understand, and part of the difficulty is the lack of relationship between (A) hands and feet and (B) eyes. I do want to point out that you write here of Thomas replacing nonspiritual "eyes" with seeing "eyes," both times using the plural. Yet Thomas does not do that, does he? Thomas speaks of "eyes in the place of an eye," plural for singular, even though he then goes on to speak of "a hand in place of a hand" and "a foot in place of a foot," singular for singular in both cases. This discrepancy seems to me to make the saying even slightly stranger and harder to pin down.
I guess it's to do with rebirth/old man/new man type of thing with a Jewish flavour of using the body used to make the point
I agree again. There may be some Jewish flavor here:
Exodus 21.23-25: 23 “But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
Deuteronomy 19.21: 21 “Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
Switching to Matthew problems arise
It's talking about adultery and looking at a woman lustfully (interestingly what Jesus was accused of with the wonky eyed innkeeper in Talmud!)
I
love the observation about Yeshu the disciple of Yeshua ben Perahyah in the Talmud! Will be thinking about that one.
So far so good. The 'eye' part fits perfectly. But what does the 'right hand' have to do with this?
The same problem in Thomas really, how does going from eye to hand make sense. at least in thomas its not a context issue like matthew
I think if you consider the matter long enough, even from a modern point of view, what the "hand" in Matthew
might have to do with sexual immorality may become clearer. The hand in Jewish literature can be a euphemism for the penis, and it can also be viewed as connected with the penis metaphorically:
Matthew 5.27-30: 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.”
Isaiah 57.8: 8 “Behind the door and the doorpost you have set up your sign; indeed, far removed from Me, you have uncovered yourself and have gone up and made your bed wide. And you have made an agreement for yourself with them; you have loved their bed; you have looked on their hand [יָד, NAS ‘manhood,’ RSV ‘nakedness,’ NIV ‘naked bodies,’ KJV ‘it,’ CSB ‘genitals.’].”
11QT 46.13-14a: 13 And you shall make latrines [מקום יד, “a place for the hand”] for them outside the city, where they shall go, 14 outside, to the northwest of the city.
Mishnah, Niddah 2.1: 1 Every hand [כָּל הַיָּד] which frequently examines is, among women, praiseworthy; among men, however, let it be cut off. ....
Mishnah, Niddah 2.1 (Sefaria edition, with expansions): 1 With regard to any hand that is diligent to examine bodily emissions to ascertain ritual impurity, among women such a hand is praiseworthy. But among men such a hand should be severed, as this action is apt to lead to a seminal emission for naught. ....
Babylonian Talmud, Niddah 13a: R. Eleazar stated, “Who are referred to in the scriptural text, ‘Your hands are full of blood’ (= Isaiah 1.15)? Those who commit adultery with their hands.” It was taught at the school of R. Ishmael, “‘You shall not commit adultery’ (= Exodus 20.14) implies, ‘You shall not practice adultery either with hand or with foot.’”
So the connection between masturbation and the hand of a male is not modern; it is ancient. This connection renders that Matthean saying in the Sermon on the Mount quite cogent. I am not sure we are "there" yet with the Thomasine version of the saying.
Over in Mark the context is different. Here it's general and not specific to any one sin
I agree completely. Pretty much any sin is in view in the Marcan version of the saying.
The greater problem in both Mark and Matthew is Jesus commanding people to maim their bodies
Well known as he is for the 'shocking saying' its usually obvious it's not meant to be taken literally, as a guy who communicates in parables
So now here is a literal command?
How to you symbolically cut your hand off?
I think this is the main weakness of your argument. If the saying makes sense in Matthew 18.8-9 = Mark 9.43-48, but not so much in Thomas, then there is no reason to suppose that Matthew and/or Mark had to derive it from Thomas. Let me lay out the passages for reference:
Thomas 22.1-7: 1 Jesus saw some little ones being suckled. 2 He said to his disciples, “These little ones being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom.” 3 They said to him, “Shall we, then, enter the kingdom as little ones?” 4 Jesus said to them, “When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside, and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, 5 in order that you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male be not male nor the female female. 6 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, and an image in place of an image, 7 then will you enter [the kingdom].”
Mark 9.43-48: 43 “And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, 44 where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than having your two feet, to be cast into hell, 46 where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell, 48 where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.”
Matthew 18.8-9: 8 “And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into the fiery hell.”
Other dominical sayings in the gospel seem just as extreme to me. Hate your father and mother? Is that literal, or is it just in comparison to how much you love God and your fellow brothers and sisters in the faith? Or there is this:
Matthew 16.24-28: 24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. 25 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?”
Mark 8.34-37: Mark 8.34-9:1: 8.34 And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. 35 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. 36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? 37 For what will a man give in exchange for his soul?”
Luke 9.23-25: 23 And He was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. 24 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it.” 25 For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits himself?“
Pick up your cross? Is that literal? Is the listener supposed to, not only be
willing to be crucified if need be, but indeed also actually
volunteer to be crucified?
Mutilation of a limb could be a punishment, as it is in Deuteronomy, where it seems to my eye, at any rate, to be a literal command. But, then, look at how Philo seems to treat it!
Deuteronomy 25.11-12: 11 “If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, 12 then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.”
Philo, The Special Laws 32.179: 179 Very naturally, therefore, the law commands (= Deuteronomy 25.11-12) that the executioner should cut off the hand of the woman which has laid hold of what it should not, speaking figuratively, and intimating not that the body shall be mutilated, being deprived of its most important part, but rather that it is proper to extirpate all the ungodly reasonings of the soul, using all things which are created as a stepping-stone; for the things which the woman is forbidden to take hold of are the symbols of procreation and generation.
The fact is, there is disagreement about whether Matthew 18.8-9 = Mark 9.43-48 was intended to be literal or figurative, with the figurative option perhaps being more common:
Vincent Taylor, Mark (Commentary), page 411: Actual mutilation is not counselled, but in the strongest possible manner the costliest sacrifice.
John Painter, Mark’s Gospel (NT Readings Commentary), page 133: There is some evidence that certain crimes were punished by the loss of a limb or eyes. If the practice were known in Mark’s time it would make this teaching more forceful. But the urgent meaning is clear. A whole body in Gehenna is worthless and a maimed body in the kingdom of God is by far to be preferred. We may suspect hyperbole in the service of forceful teaching about the priorities involving the kingdom of God.
James R. Edwards, Mark (Pillar NT Commentary), page 245: The instruction to hack off body parts that cause one to stumble is an example of metaphoric hyperbole characteristic of Jesus and is not meant to be taken literally.
Mary Ann Beavis, Mark (Paideia Commentary), page 148: As in the saying about the millstone, the language is hyperbolic, offering self-mutilation as preferable to being caused to stumble by one’s own sinful actions, in this case, behaving inhospitably to other believers.
The fact is, the concept of body parts facilitating sin is present in Jewish thought:
Talmud, Nedarim 32b: 32b .... R. Ammi b. Abba also said, ”What is the meaning of, ‘There is a little city,’ and the rest (= Ecclesiastes 9.14-15)? ‘A little city’ refers to the body; ‘a few men within,’ to the limbs; ‘and there came a great king against it and besieged,’ to the Evil Urge; ‘and built great bulwarks against it,’ to sin; ‘now there was found in it a poor wise man,’ to the Good Urge; ‘and he by his wisdom delivered the city,’ to repentance and good deeds, yet no man remembered that same poor man, for when the Evil Urge gains dominion, none remember the Good Urge. “Wisdom strengthens the wise more than ten mighty ones which are in the city” (= Ecclesiastes 7.19). “Wisdom strengthens the wise” refers to repentance and good deeds; “more than ten mighty ones,” namely, the two eyes, two ears, two hands, two feet, membrum, and mouth. [An explanatory note in the Soncino edition clarifies that “by repentance and good deeds one can conquer the evil desires of all these.”]
Ecclesiastes 9.13-18: 13 Also this I came to see as wisdom under the sun, and it impressed me. 14 There was a small city with few men in it and a great king came to it, surrounded it and constructed large siegeworks against it. 15 But there was found in it a poor wise man and he delivered the city by his wisdom. Yet no one remembered that poor man. 16 So I said, “Wisdom is better than strength.” But the wisdom of the poor man is despised and his words are not heeded. 17 The words of the wise heard in quietness are better than the shouting of a ruler among fools. 18 Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good.
The fact is, other ancient texts spoke in similar ways of mutilating the body:
Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark (Hermeneia Commentary), page 452: Josephus attests that Galileans cut off the hand of the brother of Justus for forging letters.1 He also claims that he caused a leader of an instance of sedition to cut off his own left hand as a punishment.2 / It may be, nevertheless, that the saying in v. 43 is hyperbolic (cf. 10:25). Compare the remarks of the prophetess Diotima in Plato’s Symposium....
1 Josephus, Life 35 §177.
2 Josephus, Life 34 §169–173.
Plato, Symposium 205e-206a: 205e “‘And certainly there runs a story,’ she continued, ‘that all who go seeking their other half are in love; though by my account love is neither for half nor for whole, unless, of course, my dear sir, this happens to be something good. For men are prepared to have their own feet and hands cut off if they feel these belongings to be harmful. The fact is, I suppose, that each person does not cherish his belongings except where a man calls the good his own property and the bad another’s; 206a since what men love is simply and solely the good. Or is your view otherwise?’”
This one appears to be figurative. What about the following?
Seneca, Epistle 51.13: 13 But I have been haranguing against Baiae long enough, although I never could harangue often enough against vice. Vice, Lucilius, is what I wish you to proceed against, without limit and without end. For it has neither limit nor end. If any vice rend your heart, cast it away from you; and, if you cannot be rid of it in any other way, pluck out your heart also. Above all, drive pleasures from your sight. Hate them beyond all other things, for they are like the bandits whom the Egyptians call “lovers,” who embrace us only to garrotte us. Farewell.
"If vice rends your heart, pluck it out." Does this not sound very much like what Jesus advises in Matthew 18.8-9 = Mark 9.43-48? "If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off." So whether the saying is supposed to be literal or figurative may be the wrong question; after all, we can find examples of both in the literature. The question is whether the saying makes sense in its context in Matthew 18.8-9 = Mark 9.43-48, and the answer, to my eye, is a resounding yes. It makes perfect sense, and each element of it making sense finds parallels in other ancient literature about morality, the body, and the final fate of humanity. Mutilation is a punishment meant to inspire self control; if you want to make it into the kingdom, therefore, either control or punish yourself before God has to do it for you by casting you into Gehenna.
Did Thomas take it from Mark/Matthew?
In not sure i can see a pathway to that. It would be a lot harder to deftly neutralise all context, all refs to hell, and go back to a diffuse mystical saying than it is the other way around
I think this would actually be ridiculously easy, given that Thomas did not have to actually "neutralize" anything. If Thomas was inspired by the synoptics, then the
only elements he lifted from Matthew 18.8-9 = Mark 9.43-48 are (A) the three body parts and (B) the concept of entering the kingdom. If you imagine having to cross out stuff until you whittle the passage down just to those elements, then sure, you may think it unlikely. But just to notice that there are three body parts associated with entering the kingdom is an absolute cinch, no crossing stuff out necessary. I can craft sayings that make more sense than the one in Thomas without even trying:
- When your eye opens, your hand extends, and your foot stands firm, you shall enter the kingdom.
- When your eyes see the problem clearly, when your hands are able to solve it, and when your feet commit to continue walking in that solution, you shall enter the kingdom.
Consider those to be passages from the Book of Ben.
The tagging on of hands, feet, and eyes to the saying about two becoming one and male and female looks quite artificial in Thomas:
Simon Gathercole, The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction and Commentary, page 311: 22.6 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. Popkes is right to observe that 22.6 is apparently not about the overcoming of opposites, as was the case in 22.4–5. 22.6 speaks of replacement, rather than ‘making the two one’ as is found elsewhere.
So why did Thomas append this ungainly saying about body parts to the one about two becoming one? A decent hypothesis is that Thomas led
into the saying about two becoming one with reference to Jesus and the "little ones," so he also led
out of that saying with reference to what comes up in that same passage in the synoptics:
Thomas 22.1-7: 1 Jesus saw some little ones being suckled. 2 He said to his disciples, “These little ones being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom.” 3 They said to him, “Shall we, then, enter the kingdom as little ones?” 4 Jesus said to them, “When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside, and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, 5 in order that you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male be not male nor the female female. 6 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, and an image in place of an image, 7 then will you enter [the kingdom].”
Matthew 18.1-9: 1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes! 8 And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into the fiery hell.”
I want to be crystal clear about what the argument is here. I am
not suggesting that the sequence of sayings in Matthew 18.1-11 = Mark 9.33-50 makes much more sense, if any, than the sequence of sayings in Thomas 22.1-7. I have commented before on how artificial the synoptic sequence here actually is. But it is almost universally acknowledged that the synoptic sayings in this section are connected by catchword: in Mark 9.33-50, for example, "child" leads to "little one," which appears in a saying about "stumbling," which is also found in the saying about eyes and hands and feet, a saying which includes the image of "fire," which in turn leads to the saying about "salting" with fire, and salt is therefore the topic of the last saying in the collection.
Thematically some of these connections are just as jarring as Thomas adding hands, feet, and eyes to the male and female saying, but
logistically we can see that they are connected by catchword.
Is there a similar progression to the sayings in Thomas 22.1-7? I would love to see it, because at the moment it looks to me like the only reason
Thomas has a saying about eyes and hands and feet at this point is because
Matthew and Mark have a saying about eyes and hands and feet at this point. I am more than willing to be persuaded otherwise, but that is how it appears to me here and now.
during a discussion on GoT the other i noticed something else
Not only are some of the sayings difficult, but some of them almost demand additional information to make sense of
I agree again. And
sometimes that additional information is to be found in the synoptic gospels, implying that Thomas is using them (or something like them) at times; his restatement of some sayings presumes information which he has to hand, but which he does not relate in the text.
YMMV.
