L-Evanġelju ta’ Tumas.

What is it?

The Gospel of Thomas is a fairly short document, purporting to contain ‘the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded‘. Although it contains some quotations common to Matthew and Luke, it is interspersed with other attributions that indicate it was compiled by a sectarian splinter group.

Only 3 specimens survive. Two fragments, written in Greek, were found at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, dwar 100 years ago. The only complete text was found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, fi 1945 and is a Coptic translation, discovered among a hoard of early gnostic writings.

Dating

The dating of Thomas is highly conjectural and scholarly opinion varies widely. The Nag Hammadi text dates from around 340 AD. The Oxyrhynchus fragments are dated at around 140 AD, maybe earlier. A number of scholars believe it to be of 1st century authorship.

The fact that it ascribes to James the Just a position in the divine scheme of things that neither he nor Jesus would have endorsed (ara hawn taħt), strongly argues that the earliest feasible date is not until some time after Ġakbu’ death in 62 AD (cf. Josephus, ‘Antiquities’, 20.9.1). B'kuntrast, għandna good evidence that Acts was completed shortly qabel, jew just after this date; u Luqa, Mark and the writings of Paul are acknowledged to be even earlier. Għalhekk, on the basis of dating, the New Testament has the prior claim.

Textual Integrity

Whatever its true date, the claim to be the work of ‘Didymos Judas Thomas’ is not credible. Għal, although John also refers to ‘Thomas, called Didymus’, the treatment of these as if they were distinct names betrays this unknown author’s ignorance of Aramaic; for ‘Didymus’ is simply a Greek rendering of the Aramaic, ‘Thomas’ (both of which mean, ‘the twin’).

Some people (not scholars, generally!) claim that Thomas is a purer source than the NT gospels, as it was not adulterated. But this is historically testable, and the facts do not bear it out.

Thomas contains numerous sayings that do not appear in any of the Gospel sources. Although some of these could be genuine quotations from Jesus, others are clearly of later origin. Per eżempju:

12) The disciples said to Jesus, “We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?” Ġesù qalilhom, “No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”

James the Just was one of Jesus’ aħwa. But the gospels tell us that during Jesus’ earthly ministry, his brothers did not even believe in Him (John 7:5, Mark 3:21). Only after his resurrection did they join the church (Atti 1:14), u James gradwalment żdied għall-prominenza, eventwalment isir l-anzjan ewlieni tal-knisja f’Ġerusalemm (Atti 12:17, 15:12 u 21:18). Ma kienx sa dak iż-żmien, snin wara Ġesù’ mewt, li kiseb il-laqam ‘il-Ġust’ minħabba l-ġustizzja li biha mexxa Kristjan konfliġġenti, Interessi Lhud u Ġentili. Allura, apparti l-improbabbiltà li Ġakbu jkun ir-raġuni għall-ħolqien, din il-kwotazzjoni hija ċara li mhix awtentika.

Huwa wkoll possibbli li tiġi rintraċċata l-adulterazzjoni li għaddejja ta 'Thomas billi tqabbel iż-żewġ sorsi superstiti. Ħares lejn din id-dikjarazzjoni mit-test aktar tard ta 'Nag Hammadi:

“Ġesù qal: Min ifittex m’għandux jieqaf ifittex sakemm isib; u meta jsib, se jkun imħasseb (ħdejh innifsu); u meta jkun imħawwad, hu jistagħġeb, u se jsaltan fuq il-Kull.”

Il-lingwa hawn hija ħafna Gnostika fit-ton, partikolarment fl-użu tiegħu tat-terminu, ‘the All’. Madankollu, the earlier Oxyrhyncus fragments merely say:

“(Jesus says:) Let him who see(ks) not cease (seeking until) he finds; u meta jsib (he will) be astounded, and having been (astoun)ded, he will reign; an(d reigning), he will (mill-ġdid)st.”

‘The All’ is clearly a later addition and the expression which it replaced, ‘he will rest” is reminiscent of Matthew 11:28, “Come to me all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest”. The first part of the saying is likewise similar to Matthew 7:7-8 u Luqa 11:9-10, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. Għal kull min jitlob jirċievi; he who seeks finds … (eċċ.)”. Madankollu, even in the earlier rendering, the idea of astonishment (later bewilderment) as being a necessary step on the road to reigning seems more akin to gnostic thought than to the other known teachings of Jesus.

Għalhekk, bogħod milli jissuġġerixxi Thomas huwa sors aktar pur, l-evidenza tindika li t-test għadda minn adattament progressiv.

Lezzjonijiet Utli

Minkejja l-elementi ovvjament spurju, Thomas huwa ta’ valur ġenwin għall-istudjużi għaliex partijiet minnu jidhru li ġejjin minn sors simili għal dawk użati mill-kittieba sinottiċi.. Fejn it-testi jikkorrispondu għall-Evanġelji, dawn jistgħu jipprovdu ħjiel dwar il-frażi eżatt tal-Aramajk oriġinali, kif mitkellem Ġesù. L-analiżi tat-test tissuġġerixxi li xi kwotazzjonijiet jistgħu saħansitra jagħtu tifsira aħjar tal-Aramajk minn dawk misjuba fl-Evanġelji.: għalkemm f'każijiet oħra, il-verżjonijiet tal-Evanġelju jidhru li huma aħjar.

Ovvjament, huwa ferm mixtieq li nfittxu l-aktar prestazzjoni preċiża possibbli ta 'Ġesù’ kliem oriġinali. Madankollu, għandu dejjem jinżamm f'moħħu li d-differenzi ta' dan it-tip huma pjuttost marġinali, u m'għandhom l-ebda effett akbar fuq il-messaġġ ġenerali milli jagħmlu l-qari varjanti numerużi ta 'traduzzjonijiet ta' żmienna.

Talbiet dubjużi

Madankollu, xi studjużi ppruvaw jużaw lil Thomas bħala ‘evidenza’ biex tappoġġja t-teorija li kemm hi kif ukoll l-evanġelji huma adattati minn qabel ‘Evanġelju tal-Qdil’ li huwa allegat li kien fih il-‘veru’ kliem ta’ Ġesù. It-teorija ta’ ‘Q’ sors għall-evanġelji sinottiċi huwa diskuss x'imkien ieħor. Dak li hu pertinenti hawnhekk huwa li wieħed jikkunsidra sa liema punt Thomas innifsu jappoġġja tassew kunċett bħal dan.

Huwa sostnut li hemm madwar 30% korrelazzjoni bejn kliem misjub f’Tumas u dawk f’Mattew u Luqa; u li l-kliem misjub fit-tlieta ġejjin mill-Evanġelju tal-Qatti. If these sayings were truly known to have come from a single document, this might be a reasonable conclusion. Madankollu:

• The ‘Gospel of Sayings’ is a purely hypothetical construct: there is no hard evidence that it ever actually existed.
• Thomas is far shorter than even Mark’s gospel; and this figure means 30% of Thomas: mhux bil-maqlub. Huge amounts are unlike anything in the gospels.
• A correlation between documents makes it probable that there is some kind of commonality between their sources. It does not tell us how that commonality came about. These sayings are meant to have come from a common source (Jesus himself); hekk, even if there were many accounts, a significant amount of common material would still be expected. U, kif innutat qabel, Luke acknowledges the existence of not just one written source, but many.
• Il-korrelazzjoni attwali hija ferm aktar dgħajfa milli jissuġġerixxu dawn it-talbiet. Xi siltiet huma simili ħafna: oħrajn jixbħu partijiet minn kliem misjub fl-evanġelji. Iżda m'hemm l-ebda korrelazzjoni ovvja fl-ordni tal-preżentazzjoni.
• Fid-dawl ta’ dan ta’ hawn fuq, il-biċċa l-kbira tal-istudjużi huma miftiehma li, tkun xi tkun id-dokument tas-sors li seta’ uża l-kittieb ta’ Tumas, kien le l-istess bħal dak użat mill-kittieba tal-Evanġelju.
• L-inferenza inversa magħmula minn xi avukati ta 'din it-teorija, jiġifieri li kull qal li jinstab f’Mattew u Luqa, imma mhux Tumas, mhuwiex qal ġenwin ta 'Ġesù, huwa improbabbli ħafna. Anzi, huwa raġonevoli li wieħed jikkonkludi li okkorrenzi ta 'l-istess qal fi tnejn jew aktar mill-evanġelji, imma mhux Tumas, sempliċement jitfa' aktar dubju fuq it-teorija li kieku ma kinitx sostnuta li huma ġibdu minn dokument sors wieħed.

Innota li dan ma jfissirx li, amongst the other documents to which Luke alludes, a document similar to Q or the Gospel of Sayings could not have existed and been used as a source: it might have. But such a hypothesis, developed upon the basis of the similarities between these documents, cannot legitimately be treated as if it were an established fact, entitling the user to discard all non-conforming passages as inauthentic. Such an argument is far too circular in its reasoning.

Konklużjoni

In summary, Thomas is an interesting document of significant value to textual analysts. Iżda, since it has little in the way of documentary attestation, is clearly not what it claims to be and has suffered from adulteration, it has no real theological value. Its supposed source is actually a reconstruction based primarily on the Gospels, allura kull pretensjoni ta’ awtentiċità li tista’ tagħmel hija dipendenti fuq dawn. Konsegwentement, m'hemm l-ebda argument intellettwali validu biex jiġi kkwotat lil Thomas bħala bażi biex jiġi rrifjutat kwalunkwe materjal mill-evanġelji tal-NT.

Lura għall-artikolu prinċipali.