Gospel of Thomas Saying 64 |
This Gospel of Thomas Commentary is part of the Gospel of Thomas page at Early Christian Writings. |
|
Funk's Parallels Deut 20:5-7, Deut 24:5, Luke 14:15-24, Matt 22:1-14, Sirach 26:29. |
Visitor Comments The "Master" is God Within. Those who decline the gift he offers, do not recieve the gift. Teacher's advice to advanced students for when they go themselves have to go forth. The sovereign quality in aspirants is ordinariness. When the world has filled them to the extent it is able to do and not distorted their ordinary qualities, then they may well be eligible for other things....... The only reasonable interpretation I can see for this passage is an exhortation to abandon the matters of the physical reality completely and totally for the pursuit of the spiritual. Like it or not, this seems to be the only means to see the kingdom of heaven. It's the little choices that we make every day that isolate us from the spirit of life. We blame God for this by making God a judge; forgetting that we were invited to dinner all along. Those who do the work of the world will not be able to do the work of God. |
Scholarly Quotes Marvin Meyer writes: "The Palestinian Talmud recounts a similar story about the rich tax-collector Bar Ma'jan, who arranged a feast for the city officials; when they did not come, he invited the poor instead." (The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, p. 94) Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freedman write: "Here Thomas rewrites the parable of the banquet in Luke 14:16-24, adding some minor details from a similar story in Matthew 22:1-10. Much of the narrative differs from the gospel parables, however. According to Luke, the first man to be invited had bought a field which he had to see; another had bought five yoke of oxen and had to test them; the third had just been married. In Matthew only two are mentioned: one goes away to his own field, the other to his own business. As it is told in Thomas, the parable develops the notion of business dealings from Matthew, and the mention of a wedding (also in Matthew, but not as an excuse), as well as the recurrent sentence, 'I excuse myself from the banquet,' from Luke. The excuses offered in the Lucan parable reflect the rural atmosphere (field, oxen); those in Thomas seem to be more urban in character, and the idea of buying a village is alien to the environment of the synoptic gospels." (The Secret Sayings of Jesus, p. 170) R. McL. Wilson writes: "In Thomas the first guest invited must settle with merchants who owe him money, the second has bought a house, a third a village (the official translation reads 'farm', but the word is KWMH) and must go to collect the rent. The remaining excuse does mention a wedding, but here the man has to arrange a dinner for his friend who is about to be married, or possible (in Schoedel's translation) to direct the wedding banquet. Here Grant and Freedman see only a re-writing of Luke with some minor details from Matthew, but it may be questioned if this is a sufficient explanation. On the other hand they would seem to be correct in suggesting that the excuses in the Lucan parable reflect a rural background, while those in Thomas are more urban in character. The true explanation may rather be that here we have a parable developing in the course of transmission, on its way, in fact, from a Palestinian to a Hellenistic environment." (Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, p. 101) Joachim Jeremias writes: "The parable of the Great Supper in the Gospel of Thomas 64 ends with the sentence, 'Tradesman and merchants shall not enter the places of my Father.' Even if the reference is, in the first place, to the prosperous who decline the invitation, its generalized terms convey the idea of a sharp attack on the rich. This attitude of class-consciousness is to some extent in line with that of Luke in this parable (14.16-24) which he introduces as a sequel to the warning not to invite the richer and propsperous, but the poor, lame, halt, and blind (14.12-14). By his repetition of this list in 14.21 he indicates that the parable is intended to be a hortatory illustration of 14.12-14: one should behave like the host in the parable who symbolically invites to his table the poor, the lame, the blind, and the halt. But that is surely not the original intention of the parable: in it, as we shall see, Jesus should rather be regarded as vindicating before his critics his preaching of the good news to the poor: he is saying, in effect, 'While you are refusing salvation, God is calling the despisedd to share the salvation of the people of God.'" (The Parables of Jesus, p. 44-45) Funk and Hoover write: "In place of the three initial invitations, Thomas has four and they vary somewhat from the invitations found in Luke. The first wnats to be excused because some merchants are coming to repay a debt that evening; the second has just bought a house; the third has to arrange a marriage banquet for a friend; and the fourth has just pruchased an estate. Thomas appears to have exaggerated the commercial basis for rejecting the invitations, which accords with his own concluding generalization in v. 12: 'Buyers and merchants will not enter the places of my Father.' As in Luke, the slave then goes out into the streets and brings back whoever happens to be about at that hour. However, Thomas does not describe them as poor and handicapped." (The Five Gospels, p. 510) Gerd Ludemann writes: "By comparison with the related parable Luke 14.15-24 (Matt. 22.1-14), Thomas offers an allegory-free version which may stand closest to the original parable. (For the secondary features in the present parable see on Luke 14.15-24.) This is the case despite the fact that as in Thomas 63 an urban milieu has taken the place of the rural one. The invitation expressed in the same words (vv. 2, 4, 6, 8) is in popular narrative style." (Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 622) Helmut Koester writes: "The absence of secondary apocalyptic motifs is also evident in Thomas's version of the parable of the Great Banquet (Q/Luke 14:16-23 = Gos. Thom. 64). Matt 25:2-10 has allegorized this parable. Luke also added some allegorical features when he appended the second invitation to those 'on the roads and hedges' of the countryside (Luke 14:23), apparently a reference to the Gentile mission. At the end of his parable Thomas reports only the invitation to those on the streets of the city, and there are no traces of any allegorization in his version. This version is based unquestionably upon the original form of the parable and not on either Matthew or Luke. On the other hand, Thomas has changed the excuses of the first invited guests so that they reflect more closely the milieu of the city. There are four invitations, instead of three, and the excuses are 'I have claims against some merchants,' 'I have bought a house,' 'My friend is to be married,' and 'I am on the way to collect rent from a farm.' At the end Thomas adds, 'Businesmen and merchants [will] not enter the places of my Father.' No doubt, this is a secondary application." (Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 99) |
If you like the site, please buy the CD to support its work and get bonus stuff! |
||
Gospel of Thomas Saying 64 |