I got a note from Henry yesterday suggesting that I expand on a statement that is riding along the right side of the Thomas site. It’s the third paragraph under the heading “WHY THOMAS W(H)ISPERED” and reads:
The great discovery we find in his writings is not the ‘truthiness’ of his words (I leave to each of you your own understanding) but rather it is in the existence of his writings at all.
The portion of that sentence he asked me to talk to is the portion in parentheses. On many occasions I’ve jotted down what I’ve thought on a saying or on the gospel as a whole and every entry I’ve made on the topic can be found by clicking on the title of a post (this post for instance) and then at the bottom of the page that title linked to you’ll see the word “THOMAS’. Click that link and they will all, through the magic of the intertubes, come up. What you’ll read in every instance is a poorly written demonstration of how my mind grapples with words first written in Coptic, buried for almost 2000 years, and then resurrected and translated into English within a society that has long since forgotten (if they ever knew them) the traditions of the time. The number of different English translations in and of itself is a great obstacle to understanding just what the original author intended to reveal AND took pains to conceal.
This, of course doesn’t quite scratch Henry’s itch who suggested I address the un-addressable: ‘I leave to each of you….”. to which I say; “If I do, then I didn’t.” Or in other words: I leave you to your own understanding.
The presence of the brackets in the middle of the sentence was meant in no way to exclude the latter phrase in the sentence from consideration. The first part of the sentence address ‘truthiness’ of the Sayings while the second notes the miraculous (regardless of how you attribute the miracle) appearance of the Gospel of Thomas.
Outside of the words therein, is the appearance, or more appropriately disappearance, something worthy of consideration? The vast majority of Christians view the gospel as a stumbling block and a quiet few call it a needed light: two truths? Was the revelation of the volume (regardless of the words therein) in and of itself the message?
I think that’s about as well as I can address this without rendering null my ‘leave to you’ statement made years ago.