The Gospel of Thomas: What is it and why is it not in the Bible?

The Gospel of Thomas is regarded as the most important extracanonical gospel as it is certainly a popular document to study among New Testament critics. Why was it not included in the New Testament? Perhaps we can answer our question by looking at the document. As we explore the Gospel of Thomas by taking into consideration its authorship, date and content we will see why this particular gospel was not included in the Bible. But first, what is the history behind this document?

The Gospel of Thomas was discovered in Coptic around 1945 at Nag Hammadi, Egypt (Gundry 2003, 92). There are three Greek fragments of this document that are referred to as the Oxyrhynchus papyri (Bauckham 1992, 286). These fragments were published in 1897 and 1904, and are identified as Papyri Oxyrhynchus 1, 654, and 655 (286). These fragments were not recognized as parts of the Gospel of Thomas at first, but when the Coptic version was discovered in Egypt, it was recognized that they are from the same work (286). In the prologue for the Gospel of Thomas, the document is attributed to “Didymus Judas Thomas” (287). This attribution demonstrates that the document was derived from the East Syrian Christian tradition in Edessa (Bauckham 1992, 287). It was from this particular tradition that the Book of Thomas and the Acts of Thomas came, which identify that Thomas the apostle was known as Judas Thomas (287). It was thought that Thomas founded the church in this area (287). Therefore, if it is true that Thomas was the founder of that area’s church, the oral traditions from that church were probably transmitted under the name of Thomas, which also means that the Gospel of Thomas is likely to be rooted in these traditions (287). This hypothesis is confirmed by the points of contact between the Gospel of Thomas and other literature from the same area (287). The apostle Thomas is the one to whom this document is attributed, and according to our knowledge of the area and the other documents that come from the same location, there is no reason to doubt that this document comes from the tradition from Thomas. However, did Thomas write the document?

Scholars do not know who wrote the Gospel of Thomas. Neither do scholars know when the document was written. Some date the document as early as A.D. 50-70 (Bauckham 1992, 287). The earliest quote from this document does not come until the Third Century A.D., and given its explicit Gnostic thoughts and vocabulary, the document could not be earlier than the late First Century A.D. (287). The earliest papyri evidence, Papyri Oxyrhynchus 1, was written no later than A.D. 200 (286). Therefore, the document was written no earlier than the late First Century A.D., but no later than A.D. 200. However, the document does stem forth out of a tradition that comes from Thomas. Therefore, we should take the content of the document seriously, even though its date is uncertain. Furthermore, the hypothesis most likely to be correct concerning the document’s assembly believes the Gospel of Thomas was dependent on a tradition that was different from the gospels of the New Testament (Bauckham 1992, 287). Therefore, assuming that the above hypothesis is correct, to a certain degree the Gospel of Thomas could possibly provide evidence for the traditions that may have influenced the canonical Gospels. We cannot simply pass off this document as worthless. We must take this document and its content seriously.

The Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic document that contains a large compilation of sayings that are attributed to Jesus (Achtemeier, Green and Thompson 2001, 219). There are 114 sayings in this document, and they are referred to as logia by modern scholars (Bauckham 1992, 287). This document has no narrative features, and rarely does this text give narrative contexts for the sayings (287). For these reasons the Gospel of Thomas is not actually a gospel (Gundry 2003, 92). The theology of this document “presents Jesus as a revealer of the secret wisdom by which the elect may recognize their true spiritual identity and recover their heavenly origin” (Bauckham 1992, 287). The document is Gnostic due to the explicit distinctive Gnostic theology that is emphasized throughout the text (287). In relation to the New Testament, how does the document measure up? Many of the 114 logia sound similar to the sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels of the New Testament, and others sound different. We should look at the similarities and the oddities.

There are sayings in the Gospel of Thomas that sound like what we have in the New Testament, and there are other sayings that sound similar but with minor changes. Here is an example of a saying in the Gospel of Thomas that sounds like the New Testament. Logion 54 says, “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven,” which sounds similar to Matthew 5:3 and Luke 6:20 (Gundry 2003, 92-3). Here is an example of a saying that sounds similar but with some differences to the New Testament. Logion 46b says, “But I have said that whoever among you will become a little one will know the kingdom and will be greater than John,” which is similar to though different from Matthew 11:11 and Luke 7:28 (93). These sayings may be similar to the New Testament because they come from the tradition as passed on by the apostle Thomas. But what do we make of the oddities of the document?

There are sayings in the Gospel of Thomas that sound quite unlike the gospels of the New Testament. One statement bears no resemblance to anything in the New Testament, which is Logion 82, and it says, “He who is near me is near the fire, and he who is far from me is far from the kingdom” (Gundry 2003, 93). Logion 13 sounds quite odd in comparison with Mark 8:27-31; the extracanonical document reads as follows:

Jesus said to his disciples, “Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like.” Simon Peter said to him, “Your are like a righteous angel.” Matthew said to him, “You are like a wise philosopher.” Thomas said to him, “Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like.” Jesus said, “I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out.” (Achtemeier, Green and Thompson 2001, 219)

Due to such oddities of this document, it is said by some scholars that the Gospel of Thomas is a largely corrupted tradition regarding the sayings of Jesus (Gundry 2003, 93). The implicit statement of such an opinion of this document is that the Gospel of Thomas is worthless. However, despite the oddities, the document might possibly have something to offer that is of value.

Although the Gospel of Thomas does not provide is with a direct road to the real historical Jesus, and despite the claims of the Jesus Seminar that the document teaches us much about the teaching of Jesus, there are five logia that could possibly be authentic (Stanton 2002, 129). These logia are 42, 81, 82, 97 and 98, and they are not found in the gospels of the New Testament (129). In addition, in the case of the parables of Jesus, the Gospel of Thomas might actually have more original versions regarding the teaching of Jesus when the sayings in the document are not revisions of sayings in the gospels of the New Testament (129). Such possibilities must be taken seriously and should at least be considered, weighed and critiqued, because of the wide acceptance of this document to be more reliable or at least informative regarding the teaching of Jesus than the New Testament. If we do not take the Gospel of Thomas seriously, we will not be able to dialogue effectively with those who are opposed to the New Testament but who are supportive of this document.

Given its relatively late date, Gnostic theology, and odd sayings attributed to Jesus’ teaching, it is no wonder that the Gospel of Thomas is not included in the New Testament. It is not a real gospel and it does not match up well with what we already have in the earlier gospels of the New Testament. It may have five small pieces of authentic information, but we cannot be certain of this possibility, nor can we be certain that it may give us more authentic versions of Jesus’ parables at times when it is not a clear revision of what we see in the New Testament. However, as New Testament students we must take this document seriously if we are to dialogue with people who value the Gospel of Thomas.


_____________________________

Reference List

Achtemeier, Paul, Joel Green and Marianne Thompson, editors. 2001. Introducing the New Testament: Its literature and theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan and Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Compnay.

Bauckham, Richard. 1992. “Gospels (Apocryphal).” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels: A compendium of contemporary biblical scholarship, ed. Joel Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall, 286-91. Downers Grove, Illinois and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press.

Gundry, Robert. 2003. A survey of the New Testament. 4th ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Stanton, Graham. 2002. The Gospels and Jesus. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Are You a Heretic?

There is a website, Quiz Farm, that allows you to take online quizzes. One particular quiz seeks to tell you if you are a heretic.

I completed this quiz and found out that I am not a heretic (view the picture of the results below).

However, although I am not a heretic, the quiz indicated that I am well on my way to being both a monophysitist and a pelagianist. A monophysitist is one who believes Jesus only had one nature and not two, meaning, that he was only divine, for example, but not human. A pelagianist is one who denies the doctrine of original sin and also denies predestination. I do not take a monophysitist position nor do I follow Pelagius, so I am not sure how I received such high marks for these two heresies. However, I am glad that it decided I was Chalcedon compliant! The decree of Chalcedon in AD 451 is one of the major creeds of the church. The Chalcedonian declaration basically sets the standard for true and essential belief and doctrine for the Church, i.e., it would be important to be Chalcedonian compliant if one claims to be a Christian!

Take the quiz and see how you fare.

Tag, You're It!

My friend at the Theology Evolved blog (www.zachtanksley.com), takes some really yummie photos from where he works at the Moonstone Bistro (is that right, Zach?).

Anyway, all I want to say is this: Zach, tag, you're it!

edit: I updated the name and spelling of the restaurant Zach works at. It is Moonstone Bistro and not Moonstro Bistro.

Halo 3 - a fun pass-time

I have enjoyed playing Halo 3 since its debut about a month ago. I have beaten the campaign mode in easy, and now I am working at completing it on legendary while simultaneously trying to get all of the hidden achievements that are possible for it. Additionally, I have really enjoyed playing online with my friends and also new and random people through multiplayer on Xbox Live. I do hope that Bungie, the creators of the Halo saga, will bring all of the previous maps from the first and second installment of the trilogy into an high definition multiplayer world, similar to what they did for the expansion pack for Halo 2, but bigger and better for Halo 3. Fun and exciting stuff!

Forthcoming Papers

Since I haven't been able to write much on my blog, I thought I would add my papers that I am writing for graduate school to my blog as I create them.

Here is a short list of forthcoming papers that will be added no later than mid-December:

• Textual-Critical Analysis of Mark 1:1
• Textual Commentary on Mark 1
• The Gospel of Thomas
• The Development of the Church as an Institution in Early Church History
• and a few more.

I hope you enjoy those papers as much as I will enjoy writing them!

A Few Comments on the End Times

So, are you post-trib, pre-trib, amillenialist, millenialist, or something else? Do you think that the end times are here? Far off and away?

I find it interesting that some people are very adamant that the end times are here, because the apostles thought so as well. Two thousand years have gone by and Christians have been claiming it has been the end times ever since the time of Pentecost. I find that fact interesting.

I also find it interesting that some people are very precise in locating Scriptural clues to piece together the end times, but they forget to include a key word from Jesus, which basically states that people will claim that the end times are immanent, but they are wrong, and the Son of God will return like a thief--that is unannounced, swiftly, abruptly--and at night--that is when it is least expected (cf. Matt. 24:27, 36-44 and 2 Pet. 3:10 for example.). Why don't these end time enthusiasts remember to take these words of Jesus into account?

No matter how we think of the times as they are, we must be steadfast for Christ--all of us--making the most of every opportunity for the glory of God and for the benefit of the kingdom, and this task we must do until the day Christ returns.

What do you think about the 2007 San Diego Fires?

Terrorist attack? Government plot? Sign of the end times? Whatever it may be, it sure is tragic. It was reported to me today that so many people have been evacuated out of the San Diego area that our nation has not seen anything like this evac. since the Civil War. Wow. That must be a lot of people. Furthermore, it was reported to me by the same source that there are firefighters from every state in the USA, plus some from outside countries, such as Canada and Australia to name a couple to help fight this terrible fire. Again, wow.

Let's hope the winds do not change direction and keep forcing the fire west towards the ocean and not shift so as to further spread the fire.

Reflections on Arguments Against Halo 3 in the Church

I have already touched base on the negatives and positives of playing Halo (Video Games as Good Clean Fun (5.07.2006)), and I would like for you to read that post first before you continue any further in this new post.

The recent arguments against Halo 3 found both in Dr. Ben Witherington's posts and other people's comments on them on his blog neglect and fail to discuss the relationship between sacred Scripture and the violence that it contains. When the violence of the Bible is taken into consideration, the arguments against Halo 3 fail to stand. The Bible, therefore, complicates the arguments against playing Halo 3. This fact cannot be left to itself. It must be dealt with for anyone who is against playing this popular video game.

Now, the discussion on that blog is whether or not Halo 3 in all of its violence and popular glory should be used in the Church to reach out to teens and the gaming generation. The argument generally follows that since it is violent the Church should not advocate its use. However, I want to point out that the Bible contains its own violent texts, which, if we keep to the same criterion to critique the Bible as they do with Halo 3, causes us to question whether we should be using the Bible in Church! Such questioning points towards the absurdity of the argument.

However, some would say that the Bible and Halo 3 cannot be compared in terms of violence, for the former is not as engaging as the latter. Halo 3 has repetitive killing; it trains the mind, so it is said, to kill without thinking through repititious acts of slaughter. However, according to Ellen Davis in a presentation on preaching from the Old Testament, she argues that Christians should be intimate with the text and allow the Old Testament to have a ruling influence over our lives. In other words, we should be actively engaged with the text through repititious study. Since the Old Testament should be a ruling influence over our lives as it is God's Holy Word, and since we should be intimate with the text--not merely reading it and moving on to another but reading it and meditating on it for days at a time until we have exhausted all that the Spirit would have us take from it for the short-term moment, it makes sense that, at least in theory, the Old Testament should be of a similar influence if not more as Halo 3 in communicating violence.

Furthermore, Scripture has no problem using violence to teach a lesson. Scripture is quite graphic! Its details are enough for one who is intimate--actively engaged--with the text to teach gruesome strategies for murder and violence. In Judges, Ehud deceptively assasinates the king of Moab. Although not every murder or killing in the Old Testament is as graphic as Ehud's story, there is a sense that at times violence is acceptable and necessary. At any rate, God chose to use violence to communicate at least part of his heart to us. This fact cannot be overlooked. Those who oppose Halo 3 must come to terms with this fact, and more importantly they must address it in their argument if they want to attempt to have an affective one.

Up to this point I have attempted to show the complications involved between the arguments against Halo 3 and the contents of the Bible. But now I want to argue more forcefully. Halo 3, although it is violent, must be considered for what it is as a video game. It is a piece of non-reality that has effects in reality. Some of those effects are good and some of them are not necessarily good (for more on this issue please read my aforementioned post). Beyond the positive and negative effects of the game, the good has yet to be faithfully pointed out, while the negatives have dramatically been emphasized, that is, they have been given as a caricature of the game and primarily given by people who have never played or participated in it. One cannot do a book review if they have not read the book; likewise, one cannot review a game if they have not played it.

So, I am going to argue for two related things. First, Halo 3 requires both skill and thinking. Second, Halo 3 requires individual talent but also team effort.

Halo 3 requires a great deal of skill and also a great deal of thinking. In order to play the game, one must be able to develop exceptional hand-eye coordination. Not only hand-eye coordination, but fluid movement with the thumbs and the ability to use several other buttons with the index fingers and thumbs while at the same time moving the cursor in a three-dimensional environment. This task is not easy and it does not necessarily come quickly. It is a skill that one must work hard at, but it proves to be useful outside of the gaming environment. When one learns the skills on the controller and is able to perform well with it, they have gained a certain dexterity that is hard to develop elsewhere, but is valuable for other tasks in life. To be able to position an object strategically in one's hand without having to look at the object is a fine talent, which can be fostered and developed by learning to use a controller. Pitchers in baseball might find this particularly attractive so that they can position the baseball properly in their hand without having to look at it and without dropping it. Hand-eye coordination is especially useful in using a hammer and a nail. To be able to simply look and execute a task is of great value, and it proves to be beneficial to the safekeeping of one's hands in using a hammer and a nail. So it develops hand dexterity, but what else does it do?

In order to play the game, one must be able to develop the skills necessary to play the game. This requires knowledge of the game and also of particular tactics. For example, one must know the weapons involved for battle. Certain weapons are good for particular tasks and terrible for others. The player must know such things. They must be familiar with the tactics of the game. They must be able to read and use the tools given so that they can make good decisions when playing the game. They must be able to monitor their status in the game. They must be able to know where they are at in relation to their team and their opponents. They must be able to navigate the maps of the game and know where the most advantageous locations are for battle. The player must be able to incorporate all of this knowledge so that they can develop their skill. The skill here is to be able to use all the various advantages of the particular games to one's own advantage and also for the benefit of the team. Skill and knowledge are a large factor of the game, for both individual play either in campaign mode or online, and also for team play online.

Whoever says that there is no skill involved in playing this video game obviously has not tried to play it. Whoever says that it is a brainless activity has obviously never played it. There is much skill, knowledge, concentration, focus and strategy involved, which cannot be denied by anyone who has actually played Halo 3.

The team effort that is involved in online play cannot be overlooked. Strategy applies at the team level. Those teams that communicate the most generally win the game. Those teams that have a strategy typically win the game. If one is trying to play the game as an individual but is involved in a team match, they are not going to perform so well. The game invariably encourages teamwork. Teamwork is a virtuous goal. It is essential both in the work force and at home. It is necessary on sports teams. It is fundamental in marriages. It requires open communication and work. It is encouraged in Halo 3, and this fact cannot be overlooked.

Whoever says that there is no virtue in playing this game obviously does not know the game at all. Whoever says that there is no benefit to playing Halo 3 has no understanding of the game whatsoever. Those who play the game on a consistent basis would not deny that this game requires teamwork, and no one can deny that teamwork is a good virtue.

What I have shown is that there is good benefit to playing Halo 3. But what can be said of all those negative arguments against Halo 3 that focus on the negative influences of the game?

The game, it is argued,teaches killing. I have heard people say that they are not killing people, they are killing pixels. Well, that is not true. No pixels are being killed. The pixels are still there. No person is being killed. When someone is shot, there is the appearance of being shot in unrealistic blood, but no person is being shot. In reality, the game, despite the blood effects, is no different than laser tag. In laser tag, you shoot light at an opponent, and you typically have about three targets on each opponent to shoot at, and they are not all created equal. Shoulder shots are usually worth more (at least in my experience) than stomach or back shots. Compare this setup with that of Halo 3. The player moves the cursor around and shoots light at opponents on the screen. The player is shooting for one of two targets--either the head or anywhere else on the body--and the two are not equal. Both types of play have the following things in common: they both involve shooting light; they both involve aiming at opponents; and they both involve shooting at particular areas of the opponents. They are different in one sense, which is that one is a physical experience while the other is an on-screen experience. Now my question is why is lazer-tag not argued against while Halo 3 is? The only factor I can think of would be the graphic use of blood in Halo 3. The blood is unrealistic, however, but it is there nonetheless. Because of the lack of realism in either game, lazer tag or Halo 3, the players do not perceive themselves as shooting and killing another player, at least that is how it is for myself. I am simply playing a game of virtual lazer tag in a friendly match of skill and knowledge through both individual talent and teamwork. I am not drawn into the game so as to believe that I am killing anyone. I realize that the game is not real. It is fiction. Furthermore, I recognize that it has no bearing on my physical reaction to the strains of life. I have never been in a physical altercation and if I were, I would not be able to defend myself. The video game is far from reality and is quite unable to teach me violent responses for the real world. It may cause more aggression, but as I have said before in my aforementioned post, puzzles can do the same thing. In truth, I have played first-person shooters quite a bit. Several times have I used a shotgun in these games. And yet, when I went to Hawaii over a year ago and went to a volcano shooting range, I had no idea how to use the shotgun, and even though I had an instructor, I had no ability despite my so-called violent influences of the Halo games to be able to hit the clay discs.

What I am saying is the arguments against Halo 3 that rest on the ideas that it teaches our kids to be violent and to kill is bogus. It might teach violence and how to kill in the game, but not in reality. Because the game lacks the ability to draw its players into the game much like a movie or television show is able to do, it is unable to influence the kind of behavior typically and stereotypically attributed to violent video games. Columbines are few and far between; I do not deny that they occur, but I seriously question how much influence games like Halo 3 have on those unfortunate instances of history. If Halo 3 and similar games are as influential as they are made out to be, and since they are so popular and widespread in our culture and in the rest of the world, why is it that we don't see more of those such instances? The truth is these games are not so much of an influence as they are a hobby. However, they are a hobby reserved for those with the minds capable of realizing what they are as fiction. A young mind who is unable to distinguish reality from fiction ought not to play such games (again, see the aforementioned post). For those who are able to make such a distinction, and the ages will vary depending every person's maturity and higher thinking, are able to play such games, and bear in mind that simply because one plays Halo 3 does not mean that they are necessarily a ruthless killer.

As for the arguments that say Halo 3 is a contradiction to the message of Christ, I would have to say, then, that according to their standards the message of the Old Testament is contradictory as well, and therefore they ought to forsake it. Since they are good evangelical Christians, I would hope that they would realize that is a problem and reconsider their arguments.

Halo 3 is a great option for youth ministry to tap into so as to reach out into the world and preach the gospel. It develops unity and teamwork in those who play, it requires thinking and strategy, and it is a fun way to pass time. It is an absolute hit among both the secular and Christian youth generation. Since there is no real biblical problem with it, why not use it? It might resemble killing, but it is not killing, and since it is not negatively affecting gamers as people say it does, what's the problem?

By the way, this issue is not a new one. Youth ministries always have a battle with some tee-totaler or another. For example, some parents throw up red flags at youth groups that allow the youth to play cards at church. Others argue against any sort of game play with dice. Both resemble gambling, so they argue, and they do not want their kids around such an environment. Well, the argument's contents have changed (we shouldn't use Halo 3 in the Church), but the argument is still the same.

Critique of Stanton's Jesus and Gospels

When it comes to studying the New Testament, examining the four gospels and the life of Jesus is of utmost importance. Graham Stanton’s book, The Gospels and Jesus, provides New Testament students and Christians alike with the ability to study this important topic. A short summary of Stanton’s book will help us to see the various areas involved in this kind of study, that is, in studying Jesus and the gospels. By briefly summarizing The Gospels and Jesus we will be able to see some of the book’s strengths, which include, but are not limited to, Stanton’s right understanding of a dual perspective of the authors of the gospels, his delightful treatment of determining what is a gospel and how we are to understand and study the four gospels of the New Testament, his intriguing though serious study of the Gospel of Thomas, and his perception on parables in the gospels. To a short summary of The Gospels and Jesus we now turn.

In the first of two parts in the book Stanton addresses the four gospels of the New Testament. In the first chapter he introduces this study by briefly examining how the understanding and knowledge of Jesus came to us through the gospels. In this chapter he shows the difficulties that are involved in this particular study by making an example of the Lord’s prayer (pp. 6-12). In the second chapter he examines what is a gospel, which is an essential study in order to understand what the gospels are trying to communicate or accomplish. Using the categories listed by Stanton, are the gospels biographies, history, proclamation, or stories? Stanton argues that the authors of the gospels were attempting to not only tell the story but also the significance of Jesus, so gospels are a blend of biography, history, proclamation and story (p. 36). He reviews source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism and literary criticism in this chapter, which are different scholarly approaches to reading, studying and interpreting or understanding the gospels. After examining introductory matters regarding the gospels, Stanton turns to each individual gospel.

Stanton’s next four chapters examine the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, respectively. He pays careful attention to the traditions, redaction and sources of all four gospels. He emphasizes that Matthew and Luke both formed their own versions of the gospel according to the tradition of Mark, which they reshaped for their own purposes (pp. 38-9). He pays special attention to the way of Jesus and discipleship in Mark, the way of righteousness in Matthew, salvation history or how God’s way triumphs in Luke, and Jesus as the way in John. He seeks out the relationship between John’s gospel and the synoptic gospels. Stanton also looks at the purpose and provenance of each gospel as well, although he admits that we do not know such things for certain regarding the four gospels of the New Testament. Now that he has looked at the four gospels of the New Testament, Stanton evaluates why there are only four gospels.

In the seventh chapter other texts considered to be gospels are examined to determine why they were not included in the New Testament. Such texts considered are the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter. In regards to the Gospel of Peter, Stanton quickly concludes that the gospel is valueless due to its legendary fashion (pp. 131-2). Stanton also briefly examines the Egerton Gospel, partial or fragmentary gospels, and infancy gospels before giving his own conclusions to the four gospels of the New Testament. Now that he has looked at the distinctive theological and literary features of each of the gospels and has looked at the broader topics and issues concerning them, Stanton moves on to the second part of his book.

A study of Jesus in the gospel traditions comprises the second part of The Gospels and Jesus. In the eighth chapter Stanton looks at the knowledge that we have concerning Jesus. It is here that he answers the question, “Did Jesus exist?” He examines Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient texts and evidence to show that there is support for the existence of Jesus. In the ninth chapter, Stanton assesses this evidence. He argues that historians generally agree that Jesus existed but they disagree on who Jesus was. Stanton seeks to find and utilize criteria for examining the gospels of the New Testament to find authentic traditions concerning Jesus. He argues that anything in the gospel traditions that would have been an embarrassment to the followers of Jesus would have been authentic, and anything that links Jesus traditions to Jewish contexts would have been authentic too. In the tenth chapter Stanton looks at John the Baptist and compares him to Jesus. John the Baptist was “the witness” of the Gospel of John, noting that he is not called “John the Baptist” in that gospel, because his primary role is to bear witness and not to baptize in that tradition (pp. 178-9). Then he looks at John the Baptist in the synoptic gospels. After looking at John the Baptist in all of the gospels, he seeks to determine what we know of this character. He resorts particularly to Josephus to find historical information on John the Baptist just as he did for Jesus. All of this information is given in an effort by Stanton to provide the context for the life of Jesus. The next couple of things that Stanton does is to consider Jesus as a prophet-teacher and look at his teaching on the kingdom of God.

In the eleventh chapter Stanton examines the prophet-teacher role of Jesus. He posits that Jesus functioned in a dual role--both as a prophet and a teacher. These two roles are similar but they are not the same according to Stanton (p. 190). He notes that the evangelists refer to Jesus both as a prophet and a teacher; therefore, we must understand Jesus in light of these references, especially when looking at the prophetic sayings and actions of Jesus in the gospels and also when coming to an understanding of the way he taught his disciples and how they interacted with him. In the twelfth chapter Stanton looks at the frequent teaching of Jesus on the kingdom of God. He notes that Jesus gives no clear explanation of what he means by “the kingdom of God” (p. 204). He wants to know whether the kingdom is temporal or spatial, and he concludes that it is mostly temporal but it is used both ways by Jesus. He concludes that what Jesus means by the kingdom sayings is God’s kingly rule in the time and place where God’s power and will have control (p. 214). Next, Stanton looks at how Jesus taught using parables and aphorisms and he looks at the miracles of Jesus.

In the thirteenth chapter Stanton looks at parables and aphorisms. Leslie Houlden’s book, Jesus: the complete guide, also includes articles on the teachings and parables of Jesus, so it seems that Stanton is following good scholarship throughout his book by adhering to particular categories to study the life of Jesus. Stanton says parables are primarily comparisons typically done in a story form and aphorisms are short and pithy sayings. He notes that the evangelists give us many parables. Aphorisms are closely related to parables, although they are not the same (p. 229). In the fourteenth chapter Stanton examines the miracles and exorcisms of Jesus. He looks at how the evangelists portray Jesus and the miracle traditions, which he says are not unique to the gospels of the New Testament, and he also asks whether or not Jesus did in fact perform miracles. After concluding that historians generally agree that Jesus did perform miracles, he asks another question--why did Jesus perform them? Stanton determines that Jesus performed such things in his ministry because they were the kingdom of God in operation (p. 239). From here, Stanton looks at how Jesus understood himself--whether as Messiah, Son of God or Son of Man.

No book on the life of Jesus can escape the task of determining who Jesus thought of himself by examining the titles or names of Jesus, such as the Son of Man or the Son of God, and in a similar fashion with other books on Jesus, such as Jesus: the complete guide, by Leslie Houlden, Stanton spends the fifteenth chapter examining who Jesus thought of himself. Did Jesus think of himself as the Messiah? Did Jesus refer to himself as the Son of God? Or were these titles designed and attributed to Jesus by the post-resurrection church? Stanton concludes that it is difficult to determine which titles or claims were created by the church and which ones were used by Jesus himself (p. 252). Interestingly and intriguing enough, he thinks that Jesus probably did not refer to himself as Messiah (p. 252). Although it is likely that he did not call himself the Son of God, Jesus did refer to God as the Father, so it is easy to see that it could be that the church created and attributed this title to Jesus (p. 252). The title “Son of Man” became a messianic title over time as the church developed and attributed it to Jesus, although Jesus did use it indirectly of himself (p. 252). Now Stanton looks at the conflict involved in the ministry of Jesus.

In the sixteenth chapter Stanton looks at the conflict Jesus had with other leaders. He looks at how the gospels portray the conflicts and then he looks at the various competitors, namely the Essenes, Sadducees, “zealots,” scribes, and Pharisees over issues of Sabbath, purity and divorce. He notes in the last section of this chapter that Jesus did not intend to abolish the laws of the Old Testament, but he did mean to interpret them differently than what was commonly taught and understood during his time. Next, Stanton looks at the passion narratives.

In the seventeenth chapter Stanton looks at the last days of Jesus through the perspective of the four gospels of the New Testament. He examines the passion narratives, especially the last supper and compares it to the Jewish Passover seder (p. 277). Then he considers several reasons to determine why Jesus was put to death; he also examines the accusations against Jesus that lead to his demise. He also looks at Jesus as the crucified Messiah-King and the resurrection, questioning whether or not it actually happened. From here Stanton asks, “Who was Jesus of Nazareth?

In the last and final chapter of the book Stanton reviews the content of the book and considers who Jesus was. He proposes that the only way to know anything about Jesus is to start with the gospels and critically examine them and take into account the position of the evangelists and “the modifications they have introduced” (p. 293). He argues further that we must understand Jesus in the context of first-century Judaism (p. 293). He also argues that there are traditions in the gospels that can in fact be considered trustworthy and reliable information; he appeals to traditions that would have been an embarrassment to the followers of Jesus as being authentic, because no one would make it up unless it was true due to the effect it would have (p. 295). He concludes that although we cannot reconstruct the exact and entire life of Jesus, we do know a good deal about him (p. 295).

Now that we have briefly summarized The Gospels and Jesus, we can look at three strengths of this book. We will look at the following points: first, Stanton’s right understanding of a dual perspective of the authors of the gospels; second, his intriguing though serious study of the Gospel of Thomas; and third, his perception on parables in the gospels.

Stanton takes a good position regarding the nature of the gospels. He does well by saying that we should understand the gospels in light of the evangelists’ dual perspective when writing them. He argues that the evangelists intertwined story and significance, which means that they were writing both about the life of Jesus and also what his life meant for their readers and themselves (p. 5). They were not specifically looking to write a biography, history, novel or theological treatise; they were looking to tell the story of Jesus and what it means for the world by using biographical, historical, narrative and theological features. This fact is rightly noted by Stanton, and it is certainly one of the strengths of this book.

Stanton takes the Gospel of Thomas seriously and does not pass over it as a waste of time, which is a strong point of the book. Many scholars have thought highly of this gospel, so it is necessary for Stanton to take it seriously if he is to gain good repute on a wide scale. He notes that the Gospel of Thomas comes from a considerably later date than that of the four gospels of the New Testament, and it sounds quite different from them as well. He determines that this document does not provide what its positive critics claim--a new royal path back to the historical Jesus--but he takes this document seriously and critically analyzes the text and submits that five of its sayings (or logia, to be precise) might actually be authentic, meaning that they might come from the mouth of the historical Jesus (p. 129). Stanton’s ability to critically examine the Gospel of Thomas and take it seriously is certainly one of the strengths of this book.

Stanton’s treatment of parables and aphorisms is a strength of the book. He rightly states that parables must interpret the student’s understanding and the student’s understanding must not interpret the parables. What Stanton means is that the parables have to be understood in the context of the First Century A.D. We should not import our own understanding into the parables, but allow the parables to speak to us and shape and mold our understanding (p. 227). This point is a particularly good one and is certainly a strength of the book as it stands as a good hermeneutic not only for studying parables but the Bible as a whole.

Stanton’s book, The Gospels and Jesus, is a great book as it enables New Testament students to gain a good grasp of Jesus in the gospels. Stanton’s book stands out for its good perception on parables, for its fair critique and serious treatment of the Gospel of Thomas, and its right understanding of the dual-perception of the evangelists through which we must understand the gospels. Any student of the New Testament must certainly read and come to terms with the content of this book as it is generally filled with helpful, delightful and invaluable information regarding Jesus and the gospels.

Arco 2007 is Here!

I did not have the opportunity to go two years ago, so to be able to go this year is a huge deal for me. Bayside in Granite Bay is where I go to church; Bayside is part of a larger church group called Bayside Family of Churches. Two years ago Bayside Family of Churches rented out Arco Arena and brought all of the different Bayside churches together--Bayside of Granite Bay, Bayside of South Sacramento, Bayside of Woodland, Bayside of Lincoln, Bayside of West Roseville, Bayside of Rocklin, etc.--and now they are doing it again. I am very excited because it is for me a wonderful opportunity to come together with my church of the past 10+ years and see how God has worked in us and through us in this region and also internationally, but it is also a delightful treat to come together as one church.