Post by Rogier van Vlissingen on Oct 15, 2006 15:44:59 GMT -5
To highlight just how potentially radical and important Pursah's reading of the Thomas Gospel may be, I'm offering a comparison with the assessment of the Jesus Seminar, taken from their publication of The Five Gospels. All this is a table in the book, Closing the Circle.
For ease of reference, here is a list of the categories they use and of the color codes which I'll use on this list, this is taken from page 37 of their introduction, and modified for the purpose of this post:
red: That's Jesus! (voted <.7501)
green: Sure sounds like Jesus (.5001<voted<.7500) (nb. this is pink in The Five Gospels)
teal: Well, maybe. (.2501<voted<.5000) (nb. this is grey in The Five Gospels)
black: There's been some mistake. (voted<.2500)
The numbers include reference to the sentences, or clauses, as in 2:1, 2:2, 2:3, 2:4 for the respective clauses of saying #2. If the entire saying is rated one way no clauses are broken out. Obviously we list here only those sayings which are included in Pursah's version, but the numbering follows the text of the SV. Note also that SV only applies its highlighting to the actual statements of Jesus, not to the surrounding text.
Quite evidently the work of the Jesus Seminar is more or less the best we can come up with based on critical scholarship. We may also take note of Pursah's statement in DU, that if you understand the thought system of ACIM, it should be pretty obvious which ones do or don't belong. So, one way of looking at this list is that it expresses very clearly that there is a serious discrepancy between ACIM and the Christian tradition, as was to be expected, but the list makes it concrete.
1,
2:1, 2:2-4,
3:1-3, 3:4-5,
4:1, 4:2, 4:3
5:1, 5:2, 5:3 not in PGoTh
6:2, 6:3, 6:4 (Note the entire sayings part of 6 is omitted in PGoTh, and the question answered with the sayings part of 14 instead)
8:1-3, 8:4
9
11
13:1, 13:5 (NB. Pursah agrees and leaves this out-"I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk...)
14:1-3 (omitted in PGoTh, 14:4-5 (appended to Logion 6 in PGoTh)
17
18
20:2-4
22:2 (NB. Pursah leaves this part out too), 22:4-6 (...but not this part!)
23
24:3
24:3
26
28
31:1, 31:2
32
34
36:1-2, 36:3-4 (NB. Pursah also dismisses clauses 3-4)
37:2-3
40
41:1-2
42
45:1, 45:2-3 (nb. omitted by Pursah), 45:4 (omitted by Pursah)
47:1, 47:2-4, 47:5
48
49
51
52
54
56
57
58
59
61:1, 61.3, 61:5
62:1, 62:2
63:1-3, 63:4 (nb. clause omitted by Pursah)
66
67
70
72
75
76:1-2, 76:3
79
80
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92:1, 92:2
94
95
96.1-2, 96.3
97
99:2, 99:3
100:2-3, 100:4 (nb. Pursah drops this one too.)
103
106:1, 106:2
107
108
109
110
111
113
And, by way of contrast, here are the ones SV is sure of (red or pink), but which Pursah leaves out:
6:3-4, 10, 14, 33:2-3, 35, 39:3, 64, 65, 69:2, 78:1-2, 98
In short, while the Jesus Seminar undoubtedly did an amazing job, and is very non-denominational in their outlook, without a doubt they stand in the Christian tradition in the broader sense. With an outlook based on ACIM we would have different opinions on what Jesus is likely to have said, and thus we might read the same literature with very different eyes. None of which detracts one iota from the substantial merit of this work. English literature is richer for this work, The Five Gospels.
For ease of reference, here is a list of the categories they use and of the color codes which I'll use on this list, this is taken from page 37 of their introduction, and modified for the purpose of this post:
red: That's Jesus! (voted <.7501)
green: Sure sounds like Jesus (.5001<voted<.7500) (nb. this is pink in The Five Gospels)
teal: Well, maybe. (.2501<voted<.5000) (nb. this is grey in The Five Gospels)
black: There's been some mistake. (voted<.2500)
The numbers include reference to the sentences, or clauses, as in 2:1, 2:2, 2:3, 2:4 for the respective clauses of saying #2. If the entire saying is rated one way no clauses are broken out. Obviously we list here only those sayings which are included in Pursah's version, but the numbering follows the text of the SV. Note also that SV only applies its highlighting to the actual statements of Jesus, not to the surrounding text.
Quite evidently the work of the Jesus Seminar is more or less the best we can come up with based on critical scholarship. We may also take note of Pursah's statement in DU, that if you understand the thought system of ACIM, it should be pretty obvious which ones do or don't belong. So, one way of looking at this list is that it expresses very clearly that there is a serious discrepancy between ACIM and the Christian tradition, as was to be expected, but the list makes it concrete.
1,
2:1, 2:2-4,
3:1-3, 3:4-5,
4:1, 4:2, 4:3
5:1, 5:2, 5:3 not in PGoTh
6:2, 6:3, 6:4 (Note the entire sayings part of 6 is omitted in PGoTh, and the question answered with the sayings part of 14 instead)
8:1-3, 8:4
9
11
13:1, 13:5 (NB. Pursah agrees and leaves this out-"I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk...)
14:1-3 (omitted in PGoTh, 14:4-5 (appended to Logion 6 in PGoTh)
17
18
20:2-4
22:2 (NB. Pursah leaves this part out too), 22:4-6 (...but not this part!)
23
24:3
24:3
26
28
31:1, 31:2
32
34
36:1-2, 36:3-4 (NB. Pursah also dismisses clauses 3-4)
37:2-3
40
41:1-2
42
45:1, 45:2-3 (nb. omitted by Pursah), 45:4 (omitted by Pursah)
47:1, 47:2-4, 47:5
48
49
51
52
54
56
57
58
59
61:1, 61.3, 61:5
62:1, 62:2
63:1-3, 63:4 (nb. clause omitted by Pursah)
66
67
70
72
75
76:1-2, 76:3
79
80
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92:1, 92:2
94
95
96.1-2, 96.3
97
99:2, 99:3
100:2-3, 100:4 (nb. Pursah drops this one too.)
103
106:1, 106:2
107
108
109
110
111
113
And, by way of contrast, here are the ones SV is sure of (red or pink), but which Pursah leaves out:
6:3-4, 10, 14, 33:2-3, 35, 39:3, 64, 65, 69:2, 78:1-2, 98
In short, while the Jesus Seminar undoubtedly did an amazing job, and is very non-denominational in their outlook, without a doubt they stand in the Christian tradition in the broader sense. With an outlook based on ACIM we would have different opinions on what Jesus is likely to have said, and thus we might read the same literature with very different eyes. None of which detracts one iota from the substantial merit of this work. English literature is richer for this work, The Five Gospels.