I haven't watched this lecture yet, but I just wanted to express how grateful I am to have all of this channel's (and the podcast's) content. You and Laura Robinson are absolute hidden gems in today's world of religous scholarship. Keep up the great work, Ian! What you're doing matters. At least to me!
Thanks! But there have been several podcasts in the last year (not reflected in the RUclips Channel). If you're not subscribed to the podcast, you're missing some content.
9:40 Gospel of Thomas isn't actually Gnostic. What do you think about the NT scholar James David Audlin's very tentative proposal regarding the authenticity of a newly discovered french translation of what must have been an authentic Latin manuscript of a Pilate Diary (written by Pontius Pilate on his sea journey after being fired from his job by the legate of Syria
It can actually be possible to imagine a sectarian Jew saying Saying 87 without any Gnostic meaning; maybe referring to the manpower / combat might of one man "body" being depended on by a subordinate brigand/revolutionary or even aristocrat ("2nd body") - & Jesus thinks any loyalist ("soul") depending on those hypothetical two will meet physical defeat; which may or may not refer to the same historical context as the canonical sayings like "whoever lives by the sword will die by it" or the Johannine saying to certain Jews contemporary with Jesus "you will die in your sins (Jewish-Roman war)". I'm not saying my interpretations are necessarily likely to be at all correct, I'm just keeping an open mind for historicity; Elaine Pagels may well be correct in saying that Thomas' difference from canonicals is best explained by Thomas being earlier than Mark & all potential canonical direct sources. If James David Audlin is right about the tentative authenticity of "Pilate's Diary", then it would mean the historical Thomas did in fact compose an earliest form of a Sayings Gospel within 5 years after Jesus' death, and Pilate's wife along with Mary (presumably the famous Magdalene who later moved to Pilate's hometown where she continues to be remembered as the Madonna (as opposed to the Virgin Mary of mainstream ancient Christianity)) both help in recopying the Gospel Of Thomas (Pilate then presumably gets converted to Christianity & baptised at a later point, as Tertullian says). Our later present form of The Gospel of Thomas would then be a redaction dependent on the form of sayings in the later synoptics (as Goodacre has rightly noticed)
Obviously, I disagree. There used to be scholars who argued that Thomas wasn't gnostic because it doesn't seem to have any pleroma. But I think that's based on a misunderstanding of gnosticism. I think most scholars now acknowledge that it's gnostic (partially reflecting a different conception of gnosticism itself).
@@newtestamentreview9931 I just want to flag that tagging it as Gnostic is only based on this saying (or maybe one or two others) that a Jewish historical Jesus could conceivably have said in a context that gave it a meaning totally unrelated to regarding the body & creation as evil (there are Rabbinic statements that can be taken out of their contexts & be given gnostic meanings that "apparently" make sense on a surface reading); the Gospel of Thomas is by definition: sayings WITHOUT CONTEXT. You never can tell if the "two bodies" Jesus was referring to was in the context of a now non-extant parable that had a plot point in which two physical men needed to rest on each other's bodies to complete a PHYSICALLY DEMANDING task (like PULLING SOMETHING or CARRYING something)-and somehow failed due to poor practical technique or incompetence (analogous to the House being built on sand as opposed to a rock)-& Jesus is saying: "Woe to the "soul" (PERSON) who relies on the bodies of these two men whose bodies failed to complete this physically demanding task (either through poor technique, lazinees incompetence or inadequate bodily strength) that feature as a PLOT POINT in this parable"; afterall, the saying can be interpreted as literally synonymous with "these two 'bodies'/men are unreliable, I pity the 3rd 'soul'/man who thinks they can be relied on". The reason why I'm committed to open-mindedly considering these historical possibilities is because of the possibility (which I'm fully convinced of) that the arguments in favour of the authenticity of Pilate's Diary that James David Audlin is inviting other scholars to examine & give their thoughts for, are in fact irrefutable arguments. A summary of the arguments are available in the two interviews James David Audlin had on History Valley Podcast RUclips channel (one is dated to the last 5 months, and the other interview video on that channel probably dates back to 2023-check it out please & give your thoughts). This saying is literally the only basis for thinking the Gospel Of Thomas is Gnostic-& it's shaky at best if there are a myriad of hypothetically possible scenarios/contexts in which a Jew could have uttered those words without a Gnostic meaning (such as the imaginary possible meanings I've come up with-which are just a tip of the iceberg of hypothetical possibilities). Even Paul blatantly refers to the "flesh" as evil (albeit, admittedly, in Greek & not the Aramaic spoken by the historical Jesus) in canonical Galatians, without it having a Gnostic meaning in Paul's mind (despite whatever meaning Marcion & potentially other kinds of "gnostics" gave it)
i LITERALLY just came back to the Catholic church and have been delving into the history of the bible and found myself consuming information on gnosticism and though to myself, THIS IS TOLKIEN. lol and now here i am. amazing.
![The History of Morgoth [COMPILATION] | Tolkien Explained](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ktet64d9O-c/mqdefault.jpg)
![The History of Morgoth [COMPILATION] | Tolkien Explained](/img/tr.png)
I haven't watched this lecture yet, but I just wanted to express how grateful I am to have all of this channel's (and the podcast's) content. You and Laura Robinson are absolute hidden gems in today's world of religous scholarship. Keep up the great work, Ian! What you're doing matters. At least to me!
Very interesting. Thank you.
Glad to see this channel still posting videos. Hope to see more from Ian.
Thanks! But there have been several podcasts in the last year (not reflected in the RUclips Channel). If you're not subscribed to the podcast, you're missing some content.
@@newtestamentreview9931yh .....my personal schedule tends to only permit RUclips
I hope this video becomes a banger in the now vibrant & controversial RUclips Tolkien communities
9:40 Gospel of Thomas isn't actually Gnostic.
What do you think about the NT scholar James David Audlin's very tentative proposal regarding the authenticity of a newly discovered french translation of what must have been an authentic Latin manuscript of a Pilate Diary (written by Pontius Pilate on his sea journey after being fired from his job by the legate of Syria
It can actually be possible to imagine a sectarian Jew saying Saying 87 without any Gnostic meaning; maybe referring to the manpower / combat might of one man "body" being depended on by a subordinate brigand/revolutionary or even aristocrat ("2nd body") - & Jesus thinks any loyalist ("soul") depending on those hypothetical two will meet physical defeat; which may or may not refer to the same historical context as the canonical sayings like "whoever lives by the sword will die by it" or the Johannine saying to certain Jews contemporary with Jesus "you will die in your sins (Jewish-Roman war)". I'm not saying my interpretations are necessarily likely to be at all correct, I'm just keeping an open mind for historicity; Elaine Pagels may well be correct in saying that Thomas' difference from canonicals is best explained by Thomas being earlier than Mark & all potential canonical direct sources. If James David Audlin is right about the tentative authenticity of "Pilate's Diary", then it would mean the historical Thomas did in fact compose an earliest form of a Sayings Gospel within 5 years after Jesus' death, and Pilate's wife along with Mary (presumably the famous Magdalene who later moved to Pilate's hometown where she continues to be remembered as the Madonna (as opposed to the Virgin Mary of mainstream ancient Christianity)) both help in recopying the Gospel Of Thomas (Pilate then presumably gets converted to Christianity & baptised at a later point, as Tertullian says). Our later present form of The Gospel of Thomas would then be a redaction dependent on the form of sayings in the later synoptics (as Goodacre has rightly noticed)
Obviously, I disagree. There used to be scholars who argued that Thomas wasn't gnostic because it doesn't seem to have any pleroma. But I think that's based on a misunderstanding of gnosticism. I think most scholars now acknowledge that it's gnostic (partially reflecting a different conception of gnosticism itself).
@@newtestamentreview9931 I just want to flag that tagging it as Gnostic is only based on this saying (or maybe one or two others) that a Jewish historical Jesus could conceivably have said in a context that gave it a meaning totally unrelated to regarding the body & creation as evil (there are Rabbinic statements that can be taken out of their contexts & be given gnostic meanings that "apparently" make sense on a surface reading); the Gospel of Thomas is by definition: sayings WITHOUT CONTEXT. You never can tell if the "two bodies" Jesus was referring to was in the context of a now non-extant parable that had a plot point in which two physical men needed to rest on each other's bodies to complete a PHYSICALLY DEMANDING task (like PULLING SOMETHING or CARRYING something)-and somehow failed due to poor practical technique or incompetence (analogous to the House being built on sand as opposed to a rock)-& Jesus is saying: "Woe to the "soul" (PERSON) who relies on the bodies of these two men whose bodies failed to complete this physically demanding task (either through poor technique, lazinees incompetence or inadequate bodily strength) that feature as a PLOT POINT in this parable"; afterall, the saying can be interpreted as literally synonymous with "these two 'bodies'/men are unreliable, I pity the 3rd 'soul'/man who thinks they can be relied on".
The reason why I'm committed to open-mindedly considering these historical possibilities is because of the possibility (which I'm fully convinced of) that the arguments in favour of the authenticity of Pilate's Diary that James David Audlin is inviting other scholars to examine & give their thoughts for, are in fact irrefutable arguments. A summary of the arguments are available in the two interviews James David Audlin had on History Valley Podcast RUclips channel (one is dated to the last 5 months, and the other interview video on that channel probably dates back to 2023-check it out please & give your thoughts).
This saying is literally the only basis for thinking the Gospel Of Thomas is Gnostic-& it's shaky at best if there are a myriad of hypothetically possible scenarios/contexts in which a Jew could have uttered those words without a Gnostic meaning (such as the imaginary possible meanings I've come up with-which are just a tip of the iceberg of hypothetical possibilities). Even Paul blatantly refers to the "flesh" as evil (albeit, admittedly, in Greek & not the Aramaic spoken by the historical Jesus) in canonical Galatians, without it having a Gnostic meaning in Paul's mind (despite whatever meaning Marcion & potentially other kinds of "gnostics" gave it)
i LITERALLY just came back to the Catholic church and have been delving into the history of the bible and found myself consuming information on gnosticism and though to myself, THIS IS TOLKIEN. lol and now here i am. amazing.