Visitor Comments
The ego has the capacity to turn any form of piety or religious ritual into an idol. The ego never heals.
- dustonthepath
Religious practices and taboos are part of the meaningless illusion of the world. Remember that what you do to another you have done to yourself and God. Everything that you do is part of your ongoing prayer dialogue with God.
- active-mystic
Too often self-righteousness stems from charity.
- thinking aloud
The person who fasts does not truly fast. The person who prays is not sincere. The giver of alms is removed from the receiver. When you are received receive what is given. Help the afflicted, but do not speak. Do not kill truth.
- Simon Magus
1. Fasting is not taking that which you have (been given) and can be seen as a form of waste. If you have no food you cannot fast 2. Praying is asking for affirmations. Something which a true believer does not need.
3. Giving alms to someone in need suggest that the person is capable of doing more, or something else, to ease someone's suffering. .
in my opinion:
Always help the ones in need, ask nothing in return and be grateful for that what is given to you.
I think this all refers to another part of the text that states that: in order to be able to see the big picture you should always be aware of that what is in front of you.
- ajee
This seems to be a direct answer to saying #6, and #6 seems to be questions that the disciples are asking because they know that by following the teachings of Jesus, they are no longer practicing Judaism. They are asking what their new 'religion' asks of them, what rules it may have, and this is the answer to that.
- gnosis
The essence of this passage is that one goes the wrong way by trying to do good things. Instead one should do what is natural and proper to one's nature and spirit, and true virtue will develop of its own accord. To eat what is set before you extends by analogy to the way in which one transacts with the world. One should not be averse to that which is. One should be willing to swallow whatever comes along and be fed by it.
- slur
We speak from the abundance of what is in our hearts. It isn't what we eat or abstain from eating or doing publicly that defiles us, but that which is in our hearts and proceeds from our mouths that defiles us.
- seeking
Be strong in the material world, but don't let it suck you in. Act like the noble spirit you are at all times.
- Zooie
Do, say, be what is right in the present. Do not limit yourself by restictions. Act for the common good, for the longtime consequences, not for immediate satisfaction and pleasure.
- Maitreya
|
Scholarly Quotes
Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freedman write: "Positive proof that he did so [copy from the canonical gospels] seems to be provided in Saying 14. . . . The statement about healing the sick has nothing to do with the context in Thomas; it is relevant only in Luke's collection of sayings. Therefore, Thomas copied it from Luke." (Gnosticism & Early Christianity, pp. 185-186)
Gerd Ludemann writes: "This develops the notion of v. 4 about eating all that is set before one, and gives a reason for it. The dependence on Luke 10.7-8 in v. 4 also decides positively the dependence of v. 5 on Mark 7.15. For the invitation to heal the sick does not fit in v. 4 at all, and is best explained by the use of Luke 10.9." (Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 597)
F. F. Bruce writes: "Fasting, prayer and almsgiving (cf. Saying 6) are three forms of piety mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6.1-18), but the instructions given here are quite different from those given there. Such pious activities, it appears, are superfluous and indeed harmful for the true Gnostic. (Similar sentiments about prayer and fasting are expressed in saying 104.) The second and third sentences in the saying are respectively parallel to Luke 10.8 f. and Matthew 15.11 (cf. Mark 7.15). The addition of the injunction 'eat what is set before you' of the words denying that food conveys defilement underlines the relevance of the injunction to the Gentile mission (cf. Acts 10.15; 1 Corinthians 10.27)." (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 119)
Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freedman write: "This saying deals with subjects already brought up in Saying 5: fasting, prayer, almsgiving, and dietary observances. Here the statements ascribed to Jesus are more explicit than they were before. Fasting produces sin; prayer results in condemnation; almsgiving harms the spirit. Some ground for Thomas's notion is given in Mark 2:18-20 (Matthew 9:14-15; Luke 5:33-35), where Jesus says that the sons of the bridechamber cannot fast while he is with them. Since Thomas regards the kingdom as present rather than future, fasting (a fortiori, prayer, almsgiving, and dietary laws) is pointless and, indeed, sinful." (The Secret Sayings of Jesus, pp. 134-135)
R. McL. Wilson writes: "As Grant has pointed out, the condemnation at the beginning of this saying takes up three phrases from the Sermon on the Mount [Matt. vi. 16 (fasting), 5 (prayer), and 2 (alms)] in the reverse order; and such reversal of the order is characteristic of Naassene usage. In the passage quoted the opening words are a general summary of the charge to the Seventy in Luke x. 1, followed by Luke x. 8-9 ('if they receive you . . .'). The final sentence has its parallel in Matthew xv. 11, but it may be added that Luke x. 2 is logion 73. In this case Grant and Freedman would appear to be correct in suggesting that the saying 'seems to prove that Thomas used our gospels.' The significant feature is the inclusion of Luke x. 9, the injunction to heal the sick, which is quite out of place in a saying concerned with dietary restrictions, but is easily explained from the Lucan context. There is, however, one point which they have overlooked: in the Gospels the specific injunction 'eat what they set before you' is peculiar to Luke, but Creed notes that there is 'striking resemblance in language' in the Lucan passage to 1 Corinthians x. 27, and that 'it is not unlikely that St. Paul's language is an echo of this injunction,' although the application is quite different. If Paul is quoting and adapting a saying of Jesus, this would point us back to the tradition underlying Luke." (Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, pp. 71-72)
Kurt Rudolph writes: "Even more trenchantly the Jewish laws mentioned in logion 14 are made out to be of no consequence, indeed as detrimental to salvation: Fasting gives rise to sin, praying to condemnation, the giving of alms to harming one's spirit; one should eat everything that is set before one. It is important to heal the sick, by which probably the ignorant are referred to. The saying concludes with a quotation from Mark's Gospel; later still Luke's as well as Matthew's Gospel are brought in on this question. Of sole importance is the 'fast as regards the world' because only that leads to the 'kingdom'. The 'great fast' is taken in this sense also by the Mandaeans: It is no external abstention from eating and drinking but a cessation from inquisitiveness, lies, hatred, jealousy, discord, murder, theft, adultery, the worship of images and idols." (Gnosis, p. 263)
Helmut Koester writes: "The basic difference between Thomas and Mark is that Mark states the second half in general terms ('what comes out of a human being'), while Thomas specifies 'what comes out of your mouth.' In this respect Thomas agrees with the form of this saying in Matt 15:11 ('but what comes out of the mouth defiles a human being'). This might argue for a dependence of Thomas upon Matthew. However, the Matthew/Thomas form of this saying is most likely original: the first half of the saying requires that the second half speaks about words which the mouth utters, not excrements (see Mark 7:19). Moreover, what the Gospel of Thomas quotes here is the one single saying from the entire pericope that can be considered as a traditional piece and that formed the basis of the original apophthegma - consisting of vss. 1-2, 5, and 15 - out of which the present complex text of Mark 7:1-23 has been developed." (Ancient Christian Gospels, pp. 111-112)
J. D. Crossan writes: "The Thomastic version is obviously closer to the Matthean-Lukan [Mt 23:25-26, Lk 11:39-40] than to the Markan [Mk 7:15] since it has the going into the mouth/coming out of the mouth dichotomy rather than the outside/inside distinction. It has been argued that this proves that 'the Gospel of Thomas here follows Matthew' and is dependent on him (McArthur 1960:286; see Schrage: 55; Menard, 1975:101). But this does not explain why the Synoptic texts are in the third person while the Thomistic version is in the second person (Sieber: 193)." (In Fragments, pp. 253-254)
J. D. Crossan writes: "The accusation concerning washing is made against Jesus in Q ( = Luke 11:38) and he replies, naturally, in the second person in Q/Luke 11:39-40 = Matt. 23:25-26, but this has become an accusation against Jesus' disciples in Mark 7:1-2, 5 to which the aphorism in 7:15 speaks in the third person. The general tendency of the tradition is to change an attack on Jesus into an attack on his disciples (Bultmann: 48). This development appears concerning washing as Q ( = Luke 11:38) reappears in Mark 7:1-2, 5, and also concerning eating as Gos. Thom. 4c reappears in Matt. 15:11 (17, 18). 'It seems more likely, therefore, that the second person, a defence of Jesus himself, is the original' (Sieber: 193)." (In Fragments, p. 254)
|
