Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (64 page)

In taking this stand, the author placed himself securely in the tradition that he understood to have stemmed from the apocalyptic proclamation of Jesus and his apostles, among whom he numbered himself. In order to provide particularly strong authorization for his views, he claimed to have seen firsthand the glory of Jesus, a glory that foreshadowed one yet to be revealed, on the “Day of the Lord,” when destruction would come to this world. His views, in other words, were not simply those that stood within a noble tradition. They derived from the foundation of the church. The church is rooted in Scriptural prophecies, which anticipate a coming destruction, in the teachings of Jesus himself, and in the writings of Paul. This author was allegedly a companion of Jesus and a fellow apostle of Paul. As opposed to the “mockers” who have proclaimed a nonapocalyptic view of the faith, he writes to assure his readers that a clear and definite end is coming, and that it will be brutal, especially for those who think otherwise. These are “lying prophets”
and lying teachers
. And the author has no scruples at all about telling a lie of his own, by writing a
, in order to attack the teachers of falsehood.
⁷⁶

As a final example of a forgery written, in part, to correct false eschatological notions, we can turn to the Gospel of Thomas. Unlike the other books we have considered, the Gospel of Thomas does not connect itself with the teachings of Paul; indeed, its eschatological views can be read as a rejection of Paul.

No one thinks the book was authentically produced by Didymus Judas Thomas. The name is known throughout Syriac traditions. “Judas Thomas” appears in the Syriac translation of John 14:22 (for “Judas not Iscariot”), in the Abgar legends that we will consider later, and especially in the fabricated Acts of Thomas. In that narrative of Thomas’s missionary exploits there is no doubt concerning whose twin (“Didymus”/“Thomas”) he is; the circumstance that he and his brother Jesus look just alike makes possible some of the most entertaining moments of the plot. Outside of the prologue of the Gospel, the author makes no use of the name (except saying 13, where it is not a self-designation and is probably a reference to a different Thomas). But the prologue is enough. The words that “the living Jesus” spoke are written by Didymus Judas Thomas. What greater authorization do these sayings need? They come from the pen of Jesus’ own twin. Who better to know the secrets that can provide life eternal (saying 1)?

There are numerous themes developed throughout the collection, but as frequently noted, it is no accident that anti-apocalyptic sayings occur near the very beginning (saying 3) and the very end (saying 113), bracketing the whole. Five sayings altogether are particularly germane, and all five point in the same direction. This author, writing falsely in the name of Jesus’ brother, insists, on his brother’s authority, that there is to be no apocalyptic crisis at the end of the age to usher in God’s good kingdom. The kingdom of God is here already, both within those who understand the secret teachings of Jesus and spread throughout the earth, for those who can see. Whether or not this view stands in direct tension with the apocalyptic teachings of the real, historical Jesus, as the majority of scholars continue to hold, they certainly stand at odds with the apocalyptic proclamation of his early apostles, such as Paul. The Gospel of Thomas was written, in some measure, to promote a nonapocalyptic eschatology and to polemicize against Christians who maintained that there was a future, physical kingdom yet
to come to earth. To that extent the eschatology of the collection appears to be much more in line with the views opposed by two of the forgeries we have already considered, 2 Timothy and 2 Peter, and closer to the views advocated by traditions now found in the falsely ascribed Gospel of John, where eternal life, for the most part, is portrayed as a present reality for those who believe in Jesus (thus 3:17–19, 36; 5:24; 11:25–27; etc.). In John, however, there continues to be some element of eschatological reserve in that it contains passages, possibly undigested fragments from earlier traditions, that still allow there will be a future apocalyptic event (5:25–29). Not so in the Gospel of Thomas. The kingdom is here and now; it is not a future, physical event to be anticipated.

The attack on an apocalyptic eschatology appears at the outset in saying 3. The saying presents a number of problems of text
⁷⁷
and translation
⁷⁸
that need not detain us here. T. F. Glasson has plausibly argued that it is to be understood as a midrash on Deut. 30:10–25 that establishes a connection between commandments, wisdom, and the reign of God within.
⁷⁹
In any event, that the interpretation is advanced polemically is obvious: it is directed against “those who lead you,” who maintain that the kingdom is a physical place that can be entered. This view is parodied: Is it in the sky? Is it in the sea? No, the kingdom is not a place that can be entered. “Rather, the kingdom of heaven is inside of you and outside”
.
⁸⁰

The tie to Luke 17:20–21 is obvious: “the kingdom of God is among you” (again:
). But the Thomasine saying differs significantly, at least from the way in which the logion appears in its broader Lukan context. There, Jesus is asked by the Pharisees—understood to be the enemy—when, not where, the kingdom is to come. Jesus replies that it will not come with observable signs, so that no one will be able to say “here it is or there.” Instead, for Luke, the kingdom of God is in your midst. In this case
cannot mean “within” you, as it does in Thomas; Jesus is scarcely telling his opponents that they themselves have
the kingdom “in their hearts.” No, for Luke the kingdom of God is present among them because it is manifest already in the ministry of Jesus. Thus, elsewhere Luke indicates that the kingdom of God has “come near” (10:9, 11) and in Jesus’ ministry it is said already to have “arrived” (11:20). Moreover—and this is the key difference from Thomas—in Luke there is still a firm expectation that there is a decisive event to occur at the end of the age (21:7–32; see esp. v. 31). The experiences of the kingdom as present in the life and ministry of Jesus are therefore proleptic of the denouement that can still be expected. This is evident in the immediate context of 17:20–21 as well, where Jesus goes on to discuss the coming of the son of man (17:22–37).

That is not the case, however, for the Gospel of Thomas. Here the kingdom is already fully present, inside all those who know themselves, recognizing that they are “the sons of the living father.”
⁸¹
This polemic is not only directed against chiliasts of the author’s own day (early second century), proto-orthodox authors such as Papias, who still expected a future, physical, utopian kingdom to appear on earth. It is even more directed against the sacred texts that such proto-orthodox were beginning to cherish as authoritative, such as the Gospel of Mark (9:1; 13:30) and the letters of Paul (1 Thess. 4:14–17; 1 Corinthians 15, especially vv. 24–25, 51–57), which envisioned the kingdom as coming not only with the transformation of the creation (Rom. 8:18–25) but also with the resurrection of the body, which would be raised immortal. Thomas demurs. The kingdom will not be experienced as a place to be entered by a future, physically transformed body; it is to be experienced now, as an internal reality, enjoyed by those who know who they really are.

The polemic continues along a similar line in saying 18. Now, however, rather than being the unnamed “Christian leaders” who misunderstand Jesus’ eschatological teaching, it is the earthly disciples, who, foolishly, for this Gospel, ask about “how our end will be.” The saying clearly calls to mind the Synoptic tradition, where the disciples ask Jesus about the “end of the age” (Mark 13:3–4; Matthew 24:3; Luke 21:7), and where Jesus responds by delivering his apocalyptic discourse. One key difference is that in saying 18 the disciples ask their question in terms not of apocalyptic but of personal eschatology. They are interested in knowing their own fate, presumably after death. Such concerns are more in line with those of proto-orthodox texts like the Greek Apocalypse of Peter, also modeled on the Synoptic little apocalypse, but transformed from a description of the
“end of the age” to an account of “life after death”—the fate of souls in the realms of the blessed and damned.