Authentic Sayings of Jesus

Matthew 5:17-20
Why do I consider Matthew 5:17-20 inauthentic?
(Mat 5:17-20 NRSV) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the
prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. {18} For truly I tell you, until
heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass
from the law until all is accomplished. {19} Therefore, whoever breaks one of the
least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called
least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be
called great in the kingdom of heaven. {20} For I tell you, unless your
righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the
kingdom of heaven.
There's a short answer, and a long answer. The long answer deals with why I
might think any saying of Jesus in the Gospels is inauthentic. Let me deal with
the long question first, and then with the particular verses.
The first question is whether the New Testament Gospels are "supernaturally
accurate". That is, do they record events and words to a degree impossible for
normal humans to have remembered them?
In the introduction to Luke's Gospel, the author states that he got his information
from interviews. These interviews, according to most scholarly sources, took
place more than 30 years after the fact. For normal people, 30 years is a long time
and memory fades; but not only does memory fade, it changes. Indeed, all of the
Gospels were written more than 30 years after the fact. So, this is why I say that
for the Gospels to accurately contain nothing but authentic sayings of Jesus, it
must be "supernaturally accurate".
However, the Gospel accounts contain some inaccuracies and self-contradictions,
just as one would expect. There are a number of areas where the Gospels show
differing viewpoints and details. A simple example is Mark vs John: Mark
depicts Jesus trying to keep his divinity a secret--forbidding anyone to talk about
it or his miracles; John has Jesus proclaiming his divinity openly and requiring
that it be spread. It couldn't have historically been both ways; either Jesus wanted

himself proclaimed openly as messiah and miracle-worker, or he did not. It seems

obvious to me that two different viewpoints are at work here, viewpoints which
color the narrative.
Just as the documentary hypothesis (which says that the first 5 books of the Old
Testament have multiple authors and multiple versions of the stories edited
together) opens up new and exciting views of the text, and greatly increases
understanding, so too, the hypothesis that the Gospels are a combination of the
authentic sayings of Jesus with the understanding of the early Christian
community is also exciting and enlightening.
Rather than trying to reconcile many Gods and many Jesuses, it's much more
fruitful to have one God and one Jesus, but several recorded viewpoints.
Another important idea is "conventional wisdom". Conventional wisdom is what
"everybody naturally knows" or what society knows passed down from our
parents. Surely Jesus must have taught something more than conventional
wisdom (else why bother to teach). But conventional wisdom is all around us and
I think that just as faulty memory is a universal human trait, so is the bias of the
viewpoint of conventional wisdom. We can see this in our own day by the
number of people who think (erroneously) that "Cleanliness is next to Godliness"
is in the book of Proverbs. That is, a hearer of Jesus would have some tendency
to attribute to him the sayings of conventional wisdom and to soften the rough
edges where Jesus comes up against convention, interpreting Jesus as more
conventional than he was.
The parables are the core example. These stories have many valuable
interpretations, and at their center they are pretty radical. Nevertheless, at the end
of the story in the Gospels, you will often find a sentence which undoes the
radical element of the story, or you will find a more-or-less conventional
explanation of what the story means. I think that these endings and explanations
are not authentic--and from this viewpoint the stories are more powerful without
the explanations. Indeed, Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (c. 130) in Expositions of
the Oracles of the Lord, is quoted by in Euseb. H.E. III. 39 as saying:
Now concerning Matthew it is stated: 'So then Matthew recorded the oracles
[prophetic discourses] in the Hebrew tongue, and each interpreted them to the
best of his ability'
and about Mark:

"Mark became the interpreter of Peter and he wrote down accurately, but not in
order, as much as he remembered [as Peter related] of the sayings and doings of
Christ. For he [Mark] was not a hearer or a follower of the Lord, but afterwards,
as I said, of Peter, who adapted his teachings to the needs of the moment and
did not make an ordered exposition of the sayings of the Lord."
[Both these are taken from Documents of the Christian Church 2nd Edition,
Henry Bettenson, ed, Oxford University Press.]
Armed with this [multi-source] hypothesis and a little practice, it is easy to pick
out the radical, re-born, spiritual thinking of Jesus from the torpid understanding
of his followers. I personally find the degree to which the authentic Jesus has
been kept the Gospels to be remarkable, if not miraculous! And this is one reason
I feel that the Gospels are inspired.
At this point, some readers will take the curve too fast and end up in the ditch.
They will say "aha! the Gospels are nothing more than lies and distortions". This
is not what I think and neither is it what I think the reasonable conclusion is. I
rather agree with Hans Kung who said, in On Being a Christian:
This [kergymatic] orientation and peculiar character of the Gospels do not merely
make impossible a biography of Jesus. They make any dispassionate, historical
interpretation of the texts more difficult. Of course no serious scholar assumes
today, as people did at the beginning of Gospel criticism, that the disciples
deliberately falsified the story of Jesus. They did not arbitrarily invent his deeds
and words. They were simply convinced that they now knew better than in Jesus'
lifetime who he really was and what he really signified. Hence they had no
hesitation in following the custom of the time and placing everything that had to
be said in regard to him under his personal authority: both by putting certain
sayings into his mouth and by shaping certain stories in the light of his image as a
whole. [p 154]

Short Answer
Before going back to Matthew 5, let me give a simpler example:
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and
cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and
mercy and faithfulness" [Matthew 23:23a NRSV]

This is a powerful statement, and a radical one. As I see it, however, Matthew (or
come Christian apologist) came along and wanted to be sure that Jesus was not
"misunderstood" to be doing away with the tithe on herbs, so he inserted this
"clarification":
"but these things are the things you should have done without neglecting the
others." [Matthew 23:23b]
Can you see the difference in force? Can you see how the 2nd blunts the effect of
the first? It doesn't fit!
[The Jesus Seminar finds all of verse 23 inauthentic and they may be right, but
I'm not convinced. This is a good time to point out that none of these
inauthenticity arguments is conclusive.]
OK, finally back to Matthew 5:17-20:
"Don't imagine that I have come to annul the Law or the Prophets. I have come
not to annul but to fulfill. I swear to you, before the world disappears, not one
iota, not one serif, will disappear from the Law, until it's all over. Whoever
ignores one of the most trivial of these regulations, and teaches others to do so,
will be called trivial in Heaven's domain. But whoever acts on <these
regulations> and teaches <others to do so>, will be called great in Heaven's
domain. Let me tell you: unless your religion goes beyond that of the scholars
and the Pharisees, you won't set foot in Heaven's domain." [SV]
I cannot hear Jesus saying this. Not the Jesus who declared "all foods clean"
(Mark 7:19b which is missing from the KJV but appears in the Greek and the
NASB, or NRSV). Is this the same Jesus who said that Moses gave a
commandment because of the "hardness of their hearts" and not because it was
the way God intended (teaching on divorce)? Is this same Jesus that said: "The
Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath"? Is this the same Jesus who
hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors; who didn't fast; who rejected the
scripture that said "an eye for an eye"? The Jesus preaching a changed heart and
the mercy of God says "obey the law in trivial detail"?
And indeed, if Jesus actually said what appears in Matthew 5:17-20, how is it
possible that the disciples of Jesus, with the real Jesus still fresh in their
memories (and many years before Matthew) had a meeting in which they decided
that new Christian converts did NOT have to follow the detailed law of Moses?
Acts 15:28-29 is inconceivable if Matthew 5:17-20 is authentic.

Kevin (kevin@davnet.org

The Jesus Seminar: Decisions of

Authenticity
The Jesus Seminar: Decisions of
Authenticity
This collection of decisions made by the Jesus Seminar in favor of authenticity
includes all of the "red" sayings and most of the "pink" sayings. Sayings have
been included on the basis that some arguments were offered in the text that favor
authenticity of the sayings. What emerges is a helpful database of sayings that
arguably go back to the historical Jesus. For more information on the pink
sayings not included here and on the decisions concerning gray and black
sayings, refer to The Five Gospels.
On Mark 2:19 (// Mt 9:15a // Lk 5:34)
"Fasting and a wedding celebration are simply incompatible, according to Mark
2:19: guests do not fast as long as the celebration is in progress (so long as the
groom is around). Some form of this saying probably goes back to Jesus since it
is clear that he and his disciples did not fast, in contrast to the followers of John
the Baptist and the Pharisees, who did (compare Mark 2:18)." (p. 47)
On Mark 3:27 (Mt 12:29 // Lk 11:21-22, Th 35:1-2)
"In its present context in Mark and Q, Jesus employs this bold analogy to
underscore the point that no one can invade Satan's domain (of demons) without
first overpowering Satan. It is difficult to conceive of the early Christian
community attributing this robust and colorful figure of speech to Jesus if he did
not, in fact, say it. In addition, the saying is attested in three independent sources,
one of which is Thomas 35:1-2 where it appears without narrative context. This
means that it can be traced back to the oral period preceding the written gospels."
(p. 52)
On Mk 4:21 (Lk 8:16, Mt 5:15, Lk 11:33, Th 33:2-3)
"In spite of variations in content and context, the Fellows of the Seminar
designated the saying pink in all five of its forms. The reasons for this judgment
are: (1) it is Jesus' style to speak in figures that cannot be taken literally; (2) the
application of the saying is left ambiguous; (3) the saying is well attested; (4) the
saying is short and memorable. Because of the variations the Fellows voted pink
rather than red." (p. 57)

On Mk 10:25 (// Mt 19:24 // Lk 18:25)

"Graphic exaggeration is typical of many genuine parables and aphorisms of
Jesus. And a humorous hyperbole of this sort is more likely to come from Jesus
than from a more serious-minded follower of his.
"The comic disproportion between the camel and the needle's eye presented
difficulties to the Christian community from the very beginning. Some Greek
scribes substituted the Greek word rope (kamilon) for the term camel (kamelon)
to reduce the contrast, while some modern but misguided interpreters have
claimed that the "needle's eye" was the name of a narrow gate or pass, which a
camel would find difficult, but not impossible, to pass through. The fact that this
saying has been surrounded by attempts to soften it suggests that it was probably
original with Jesus." (p. 92)
On Mk 12:17 (Th 100:1-4, EgerG 3:1-6)
"Everything about this anecdote commends its authenticity. Jesus' retort to the
question of taxes is a masterful bit of enigmatic repartee. He avoids the trap laid
for him by the question without really resolving the issue: he doesn't advise them
to pay the tax and he doesn't advise them not to pay it; he advises them to know
the difference between the claims of the emperor and the claims of God.
Nevertheless, the early Christian interpretation of this story affirmed the
Christian obligation to pay the tax. Paul struggled with this issue (Rom 13:1-7)
and came out on the side of expedience: pay everyone their proper dues,
including the civil authorities, who have received their appointment from God."
(p. 102)
On Mt 5:38-41 (// Lk 6:29)
"The aphorisms in 5:38-41 are case parodies with a very narrow range of
application. In contrast, the aphorisms in 5:42 are universal injunctions: give to
everyone who begs and lend to all who want to borrow - everywhere, at all times.
These sayings are short and pithy, they cut against the social grain, and they
indulge in humor and paradox. The person who followed them literally would
soon be destitute. It is inconceivable that the primitive Christian community
would have made them up, and they appear not to have been part of the common
lore of the time." (p. 145)
On Mt 5:38-48 (// Lk 6:27-28, 32-35)
"The admonition 'love your enemies' is somewhere close to the heart of the
teachings of Jesus to the extent that we can recover them from the tradition. The
Jesus Seminar ranked the admonition to love enemies the third highest among
sayings that almost certainly originated with Jesus (the other two included the
complex about turning the other cheek, Matt 5:39-42, and the cluster of
beatitudes, Luke 6:20-22). The injunction to love enemies is a memorable

aphorism because it cuts against the social grain and constitutes a paradox: those
who love their enemies have no enemies." (p. 147)
On Mt 6:9-23 (// Lk 11:2-4)
"Jesus undoubtedly employed the term 'Abbas' (Aramaic for 'Father') to address
God. Among Judeans the name of God was sacred and was not to be pronounced
(in the Dead Sea Scrolls community, a person was expelled from the group for
pronouncing the name of God, even accidentally). Yet Jesus used a familiar form
of address and then asked that the name be regarded as sacred - a paradox that
seems characteristic of Jesus' teachings." (p. 149)
On Mt 7:7-8 (// Lk 11:9-10, Th 2:1-4, 92:1, 94:1-2)
"The trio of sayings in Q makes the assurance to those who ask, seek, knock
unconditional. The promise that every request will be met is a gross exaggeration
and surprising, to say the least. That aspect led many Fellows to think it stemmed
from Jesus; they agreed on a pink designation." (p. 155)
On Mt 11:7-8 (// Lk 7:24-25, Th 78:1-3)
"The first two rhetorical questions, on the other hand, employ vivid images with
an ironic edge. And the implied critique of a well-dressed nobility is consistent
with Jesus' sayings that favor the poor (Luke 6:20) and display a disregard for
clothing (Luke 6:29, 12:22-28). A majority of the Fellows agreed that Jesus said
something like this." (p. 178)
On Mt 18:12-14 (// Lk 15:4-7, Th 107:1-3)
"The shepherd whoa abondons the ninety-nine sheep on the mountains or in the
wilderness and goes in search of one stray is taking chances an ordinary shepherd
would not take. Such exaggerations are typical of Jesus' parables: the man who
finds the treasure buried in the field and sells all he has and buys that field (Matt
13:44 // Thom 109:1-3); the trader sells all he possesses in order to buy the single
priceless pearl (Matt 13:45-46 // Thom 76:1-3). Nevertheless, the versions of
these parables in Matthew and Luke have been modified to match the emerging
interests of the Christian movement in repentance and conversion (note Matt
18:14 and Luke 15:7)." (p. 215)
On Mt 18:23-25
"If the story goes back to Jesus - and in the judgment of most of the Fellows it
does - it is a parable, not, as Matthew represents it, an allegory. A parable has a
signle point; an allegory is coded theology. As a parable, the story contrasts the
responses of two figures in the story, the secular ruler and the first slave. One is
willing to forgive a staggering obligation, the other refuses to cancel a paltry

sum. The parable invites the listener to choose the appropriate mode of behavior."
(p. 218)
On Mt 20:1-15
"In this parable, both groups of participants get what they do not expect: the first
get less than they expected, in spite of their agreement with the owner (v. 2); the
last get more than they expected, since as idlers they could not have expected
much. This reversal of expectations comports with Jesus' proclivity to reverse the
expectations of the poor: 'God's domain belongs to you' (Luke 6:20) and the rich:
'It's easier for a camel to squeeze through a needle's eye than for a wealthy person
to get into God's domain' (Mark 10:25//Matt 19:24//Luke 18:25). As a
consequence, the Fellows awarded this parable a red designation, although it is
attested only by Matthew."
On Lk 6:20-21 (// Mt 5:3-6, Th 54, Th 69:2)
"The Fellows of the Seminar were virtually unanimous in their view that Jesus is
the author of the first three congratulations. They are also convinced that the
Lukan version of those addressed to the poor, the weeping, and the hungry are
more original." (p. 290)
On Lk 6:41-42 (// Mt 7:3-5, Th 26:1-2)
"In any case, the grotesque comparison of a speck or sliver and timber sounds
very much like the exaggerated language of Jesus. Thomas (26:1-2) preserves an
abbreviated form of the same saying. All three versions were awarded pink
status, in spite of relatively minor variations."
On Lk 9:58 (// Mt 8:20, Th 86:1-2)
"Jesus appears to have much in common with Cynic teachers who wandered
about in the ancient world, offering their sage advice. However, the Fellows of
the Seminar believe that such ascetic behavior ran counter to Jesus' social world
and would have been sufficiently distinctive to have attracted atention. In
addition, the saying employs images that are concrete and vivid. And here, as
elsewhere, Jesus does not speak of himself in the first person, but refers to
himself in the third person as the 'son of Adam.'" (p. 317)
On Lk 9:59-60 (// Mt 8:22)
"The fifth commandment reads: 'You are to honor your father and your mother.'
Honoring parents entailed seeing to their proper burial. In this injunction Jesus is
advising a potential follower to dishonor his father. This kind of behavior would
not have been socially acceptable. Yet in relation to the claims of God's imperial
rule, Jesus may have set normal obligations aside. At least the Fellows of the
Seminar think he did so." (p. 317)

On Lk 10:30-35
"The imagery of the parable itself draws on the longstanding animosity between
Judeans and Samaritans. The parable subverts the negative, stereotyped identity
of the Samaritan and throws the conventional distinction between 'us' and 'them'
into question. A Samaritan who goes to the aid of a person, probably a Judean,
who has been assaulted and left for dead, after two representatives of the
established religion have ignored him, has stepped across a social and religious
boundary. Jesus' audience, which was made up of Judeans, would have viewed
the story through the eyes of the victim in the idtch: the parable prompts them to
think of the identification of their neighbor as a different ethnic group. The
possibility of another kind of social world has come into view.
"As a metaphrorical tale that redraws the map of both the social and the sacred
world, the Seminar regarded this parable as a classic example of the provocative
public speech of Jesus the parabler." (p. 324)
On Lk 11:24-26 (// Mt 12:43-45)
"Spirits that have been cast out of their human homes wander through 'waterless
places' (spirits were thought to reside in damp places and were especially
connected with springs, wells, and outhouses). When they cannot find a new
abode, they tend to return to their previous home. And they bring other unclean
demons with them. So this vivid picture claims. It's a strange thing to report in
the context of first-century exorcisms, which were thought to relieve victims
permanently. The Fellows could not imagine why it would have been invented
and attributed to Jesus if he did not in fact say it. Yet it has little connection with
other teachings of Jesus." (pp. 330-331)
On Lk 12:22-31 (// Mt 6:25-34, Th 36)
"In these sayings, Jesus depicts the providence of God who cares for all creatures
- birds, lilies, grass, and human beings. Fretting about food and clothing does not
produce food and clothing. Serene confidence that God will provide undergirds
Jesus' lifestyle as an itinerant, without home or bed, without knowing where the
next meal will come from. This is the same sage who advocates giving both of
one's everyday garments to someone who sues for one; who advises his followers
to give to every beggar and to lend to those who cannot repay; who humorously
suggests that a rich person can no more get into God's domain than a camel can
squeeze through the eye of a needle; who sends his disciples out on the road
without money, food, change of clothes, or bag to carry them in; who claims that
God observes every sparrow and counts the hairs on every head. This bundle of
sayings, all of which commanded red or pink designations by the Fellows of the
Jesus Seminar, indicate why they also believe the heart of this collection on
anxieties originated with Jesus, although not precisely in the words preserved for

us in Q. When these sayings are taken together, a portrait of the historical Jesus
begins to emerge." (p. 340)
On Lk 13:6-9
"On the other hand, it has a paratactic structure, suggesting that it retains, even in
Luke's text, a form typical of an orally transmitted story. (Paratactic means the
spare use of dependent clauses and complicated constructions; the storyteller
tends to link simple sentences together with 'and.') Its ending is contrary to what
one would expect from a tree so hopelessly barren, and it lacks specific
application. An exaggerated hope of some sort is implicit, but not specified. A
majority of the Fellows found these features sufficient to warrant a pink
designation." (p. 345)
On Lk 13:20-21 (// Mt 13:33, Th 96:1-2)
"Like the mustard seed, the parable of the leaven makes light of an established
symbol. Leaven was customarily regarded as a symbol for corruption and evil.
Jesus here employs it in a positive sense. That makes his use of the image
striking and provocative. "The mustard seed and the leaven are picture parblaes:
they paint a simple but arresting picture that depends, for its cogency, on the
juxtaposition of contrary images. To compare God's imperial rule to leaven is to
compare it to something corrupt and unholy, just the opposite of what God's rule
is supposed to be. This reversal appears to be characteristic of several of Jesus'
sayings, such as 'the last will be first and the first last.' The Fellows included the
parable of the leaven in that small group of sayings and parables that almost
certainly originated with Jesus." (p. 347)
On Lk 14:16-24 (// Mt 22:1-14, Th 64:1-12)
"The original parable was probably the story of an anonymous host who gave a
dinner party. He sent invitations to three potential guests, who may have some
social standing in the community. They refuse for quite legitimate reasons, in
accordance with the regulations that allow those conscripted to complete
essential tasks. At banquet time, the host sends the servant around with a courtesy
reminder that the feast is ready; this was established practice in the period. All
the guests refuse to come. That is a surprising twist. The host then dispatches the
servant to collect the more socially marginal, who are urged to come and fill the
hall. These secondary guests are as surprised to be included as the listeners were
surprised that those first invited all rejected the invitation. The parable, thus
conceived, has all the earmarks of a genuine Jesus story." (p. 353)
On Lk 15:11-32
"On the other hand, several features of the parable suggest that it can probably be
traced to Jesus: (1) Jesus' reputation as one who chose to fraternize with 'sinners'

is not a motif peculiar to Luke, but is attested in both Mark (2:15-17) and Q
(Luke 7:33-34//Matt 11:18-19). The reception given to the feckless son in the
parable is thus consistent with the attitude of Jesus depicted in other independent
sources. (2) The vocabulary of the story exhibits a mixture of Lukan and nonLukan terms. This is consistent with Luke's habit of retelling a story he did not
create: he tends to tell it in his own language. (3) The parable is not a mirror
image of Luke's theology, according to which the gospel is rejected by the
Judeans and then offered instead to the gentiles (compare Acts 28:17-18). Rather,
at the end of the parable the elder brother is being invited to join in a celebration
that the father urges him to understand as his party too. The parable represents
the reconciliation of Judaean with Judean, not the replacement of Judeans with
pagans. The return of the prodigal signifies the restoration of the family, and that
means it's party time, if the older sibling can find it within himself to join in." (p.
357)
On Lk 16:1-8a
"This story does not moralize, unlike so much edifying teaching in both
hellenistic Judean religion and early Christianity, and that exceptional quality
became a large factor in the decision to attribute the parable to Jesus. To be sure,
it does not commend crooked dealing, or encourage embezzlement and false
accounting, and it does not belong to the same category of parable as the story of
the rich man and Lazarus that Luke is about to record (16:19-31). It does
commend the manager for shrewdness in the management of his worldly affairs,
even under dubious circumstances, and that appealed to the Fellows as reason
enough to warrant its inclusion among those stories that Jesus probably told." (p.
359)
On Lk 17:20-21 (// Th 113:2-4)
"It is undisputed that John the Baptist, the apostle Paul, and the early Christian
community generally espoused the view that the end of the age was at hand. The
question is: Did Jesus share this outlook or did he think of God's imperial rule as
something more subtle, something already present in and among people? The
saying recorded at Luke 11:20 would appear to support the second, nonapocalyptic view: 'But if by God's finger I drive out demons, then for you God's
imperial rule has arrived.' The rule of evidence invoked in this instance is that
Luke 17:20-21//Thom 113:1-4 does not fit the tendencies of the unfolding
tradition, which were predominantly apocalyptic. The best explanation for the
presence of sayings like these in the gospel record is that they originated with
Jesus, who espoused a view unlike that of his predecessors and successors." (p.
365)

On Lk 17:33 (// Mt 10:39, Mk 8:35, Mt 16:25, Lk 9:24, Jn 12:25)

"This version of the saying that appears six times in the gospels was judged by
the Fellows to be the closest to what Jesus actually said. It lacks the Christian
additions of other variations found in Mark 8:35 and Matt 10:39; 16:25.
Furthermore, it is paradoxical: how can one save life by forfeiting it? And how
can one lose life by saving it? Such seemingly contradictory remarks appear to be
typical of many things Jesus said. However, Luke has placed the saying in the
context of apocalyptic warnings. His setting is undoubtedly secondary. The pink
vote of the Fellows presupposes a contextless aphorism." (p. 367)
On Lk 18:1-8
"The parable itself, vv. 2-5, has no specific application. It exhibits the kind of
unconventional features that are characteristic of the parables Jesus told: the
judge grants the widow's request not because her case has merit or because he is
impartial and just in his verdicts. He decides in her favor to be rid of her. He
wants to avoid being harassed, perhaps to avoid having his honor or reputation
beaten black-and-blue (such is the implication of the Greek term used here) by
her continual coming to demand vindication. The judge's motives are similar to
those of the friend who is awakened from sleep in the middle of the night by a
request for bread, in Luke 11:5-8: he responds just because she asks. The
assessment of the judge is as unconventional as the commendation of the disonest
manager by the master in another parable (Luke 16:1-9).
"These features of the story inclined most of the Fellows to regard the parable as
similar to one originally told by Jesus. It was given a pink rating. Because the
interpretation of the parable in vv. 6-8 is a Lukan composition, it was voted
black." (p. 368)
On Lk 20:46 (// Mk 12:38-39, Mt 23:5-7, Lk 11:43)
"Earlier in his gospel (11:43), Luke preserved a saying similar to the one in v. 46,
which is derived from Sayings Gospel Q. This time he is copying from Mark. As
a consequence, he joins a second saying (v. 47) to the first, following Mark. The
Fellows designated the first saying pink, on the grounds that Jesus is likely to
have had repeated contact with local petty officials, which is what the scholars
were. These officials undoubtedly opposed him, especially after he began to
attract crowds." (p. 380)
On Th 10 (Lk 12:49)
"Because the saying occurs as a single statement in Thomas and without
Christianizing langauge, the Fellows awarded it a pink vote, whereas the Lukan
version was voted gray. In Luke's version, Jesus is impatient for the fire to be
ignited, suggesting that the fire will occur in the future. The Fellows found this
apocalyptic note alien to Jesus. In Thomas' version, in contrast, the fire is already

ignited, and Jesus is protecting it until it becomes a blaze. This threatening and
subversive image seemed to the Fellows to be more characteristic of Jesus'
language, hence the pink vote." (p. 479)
On Th 20:1-4 (Mt 13:31-32 // Lk 13:18-19, Mk 4:30-32)
"The mustard seed is an unlikely figure of speech for God's domain in Jesus'
original parable. His listeners would probably have expected God's domain to be
compared to something great, not something small and insignificant. As the
tradition was passed on, it fell under the influence of two figures: that of the
might cedar of Lebanon as a metaphor for a towering empire (Ezek 17:22-23);
and that of the apocalyptic tree of Dan 4:12, 20-22. In Daniel, the crown of the
tree reaches to heaven and its branches cover the earth; under it dwelll the beasts
of the field and in its branches nest the birds of the sky. These well-known
figures undoubtedly influenced the transmission and reshaping of the original
parable." (p. 484)
On Th 31:1 (Mk 6:4 // Mt 13:57 // Lk 4:24, Jn 4:44)
"The saying about the prophet has a proverbial ring to it, and there are some
similar sayings in pagan literature, although none about a prophet. There is no
clear precedent or parallel in Israelite or Judean souces. In spite of its seemingly
proverbial character, a majority of the Fellows were of the opinion that the simple
proverb was plausible in the context of Jesus' activity and the rejection of him in
his own village; his rejection is not something the evangelists would have
invented. Accordingly, the saying merited a pink designation." (p. 491)
On Th 39:3 (Mt 10:16b)
"This saying, which may have been proverbial, is a paradox: it advises one to be
both a dove and a snake at the same time, which is a combination of two
incompatible things. Its paradoxical character commended it to the Fellows as
something Jesus might have said. On the other hand, the contexts in both
Matthew (10:16) and Thomas afford no clues to how Jesus may have applied it.
The admonition may refer to the combination of shrewdness combined with
modesty." (p. 495)
On Th 97:1-4
"The structure of this parable, recorded only by Thomas, is similar to that of the
parable of the leaven (Thom 96:1-2//Matt 13:33//Luke 13:20-21). It has a
surprising and provocative ending: the woman comes home with an empty, rather
than a full, jar. A full jar would be the expected metaphor for God's imperial rule,
so this ending is startling. The symbolism may fit with Jesus' tendency to portray
the kingdom as having to do with the unnoticed or unexpected or modest (this is

true also of the parable of the mustard seed, Thom 20:2//Mark 4:31-32//Matt
13:31-32//Luke 13:19)." (p. 524)
On Th 98:1-3
"It appeared to some of the Fellows that the story line of the parable originally
had to do with reversal: the little guy beats the big guy by taking the precautions
a prudent person would take before encountering the village bully. This, together
with the scandalous nature of the image, prompted a majority of the Seminar to
vote red or pink on the third ballot." (p. 525)