Category: Thomas

“I took my place in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh. I found all of them intoxicated; I found none of them thirsty.

And my soul became afflicted for the sons of men, because they are blind in their hearts and do not have sight; for empty they came into the world, and empty too they seek to leave the world.

But for the moment they are intoxicated. When they shake off their wine, then they will repent.”

This paper by Stefan Bolea really gets the synapse firing. I don’t agree with the underlying premise (in our own image) but the philosophical exercise that flows from considering it is refreshing.

So, Feuerbach is the source of the ‘man created God in his own image‘ phrase: never has a man been so oft repeated without anyone having known his name!

Those who enjoy the highbrow wit of Nietzsche (you sick bastards) can find a lesser known work by him, titled ‘Gay Science’, referenced here as well.

This is a little circular and I’m not certain the words I’ve strung together well represent my thoughts (or if my thoughts make sense for that matter). Bear with me.

I’m up to my Richard in gardening projects and can see no relief near term. Every task I’ve undertaken came with a series of predecessor tasks that, while unknown at the outset, became necessary prerequisites.

For example: I needed to till a planting area in the garden. I’ve a big Cub Cadet tiller that weighs a couple hundred pounds. I roll it from the barn to the garden and begin tilling. 5 minutes in and I see that the tires had deflated enough over the winter to pull away from the rims. The requisite predecessor task became (1) air up the tires, which had it’s own predecessor task (2) remove tires from tiller, with the accompanying task of (3) locate/collect tools and (4) move air compressor to the house (where there is electricity) which, of course, required me to remove the rack I had on the back of my Jeep and hook up the trailer (5 and 6) to move the compressor. Now, when I go to add air the tires won’t seal against the rim. I’ve got to take the rims and tires to a tire shop (7) to be remounted.

All of the predecessor task being accomplished, the tiller and I were able to knock out the ultimate task in half an hour. At first glance the value obtained from all that I did was achieved after I tilled. In other words the value in all that I did rested in a tilled plot. I’m going to suggest that this is not so.

Consider this: when I move from a chair in an upstairs room and walk down the stairs and out the door downstairs there is no living in the beginning state (in a chair upstairs) or the end state (downstairs and outside). The living took place with each minor thought, each small movement of the arm that balances me and the leg that propels me. (Not to mention the mind that guides.) It is in the many little supporting or predecessor tasks necessary to cause me to ‘be outdoors’ where living existed. Physical beginning states and end states are like punctuation marks in life; they are not life in-and-of themselves. This is the same with the plot I tilled: un-tilled =reference point, tilled = reference point. All that occurred between those two points were where the value lays.

Perhaps the second half of Thomas 77 tells us that the act of doing (vice the act of having done) is where the value lays as well. It reads:

“Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.”

Is it the seeking that brings value and not the discovery?

Here is what the the first 10 sayings in Thomas have to say about ‘seeking’:
1 Why seek (avoid death)
2 To Seek (continue seeking)
3 Where to seek (take your own council)
4 Where to seek (everywhere)
5 How to seek (recognize)
6 How to seek (when 5 is merged with the last half of 6)
7 To seek (first half when the lion is truth)
8 What to seek
9 How to seek (when seeds are thoughts)
10 Where to seek (‘and see’)

The value of my garden comes from gardening. In the end I enjoy the fruits of that labor. For the Gospel of Thomas I believe the value comes from seeking. In the end I hope to enjoy the fruits of those labors. We’ll see.

Samuel Zimmer, an owner of one of the brighter minds on Thomas, has published a number of great videos that tangle with some pretty complex and enlightening philosophical topics. Few of us have the ability to compare and contrast not only Paul V Thomas, but also understand those differences in a framework that challenges the Gnostic moniker most historians ascribe to Thomas.

Enjoy

Here is a link to a great resource. On the front page it styles itself thus: “This page explores modern interpretations of the Gospel according to Thomas, an ancient text preserved in a Coptic translation at Nag Hammadi and Greek fragments at Oxyrhynchus. With no particular slant, this commentary gathers together quotations from various scholars in order to elucidate the meaning of the sayings, many of which are rightly described as “obscure.”

It is an excellent reference on the Gospel of Thomas.  For each ‘Saying’ it provides:
–The Coptic text that was found at Nag Hammadi (prolog + 114 sayings)
–Three different translations of the text (by Blatz, Layton, and Doresse)
–The Greek text (Oxyrhynchus fragment) if it exists
–Two different translations of the Greek text (by Doresse and Attridge)
–‘Funks Parallels’ that associates the saying to other sayings, the New/Old testament(s), and other religious sources.
‘–Scholarly Quotes’ that provide ‘expert’ analysis of the saying and what it may mean.
–And ‘Visitor Comments’ that were placed by laypersons over time.

While I’m appreciative of the very informative commentary provided by the ‘Scholars’, they view The Gospel of Thomas through a different lens than others might. One might go so far as to question whether the ‘no particular slant‘ words provided in the introduction are applicable to all of the contributing authors. As a safeguard (of sorts) I suggest that you use their comments as trinkets found along discovery’s path rather than the the chest of gold at rainbows end.   Your conclusions ought to be your own.    

I now realize that article in Oxford press linked in the post immediately below is not the full paper. I have a pdf copy that was taken from the Oxford publication but it is has a copyright so I didn’t (and won’t) post it.

What I will do is do you one turn better than that; a link to the site where I found the article. The site is restricted and password protected, but if you request access for independent research they should grant you access (they did for me). They’ll allow you 100 free visits a month.

Here is the link.

An excellent read

It begins with: “If there is one early Christian gospel that has a career both famous and infamous, it is the Gospel of Thomas. It has been called a ‘direct and almost unbroken continuation of Jesus’ own teaching – unparalleled anywhere in the canonical tradition’…”

And ends with : “I think that the ‘place’ of the Gospel of Thomas within early Christianity has been wrongly identified in the past, but not because it represents a type of Christianity unfamiliar to the canonical tradition or deviant from it. I think it has been wrongly identified for the simple reason that our categories, particularly in regard to mysticism in this period, could not contain it. That Western religiosity has controlled the discourse on this Gospel has not helped matters, since this Western discourse did not possess the conceptual framework to explain it.”

If for some reason it won’t download, let me know.

109: “The kingdom is like a man who had a hidden treasure in his field without knowing it. And after he died, he left it to his son. The son did not know (about the treasure). He inherited the field and sold it. And the one who bought it went plowing and found the treasure. “

When you consider how many times chance played a role in the survival of the Gospel of Thomas, you may begin to believe that a some Higher Power was involved. Why that Power chose to resurrect the volume when He did gives me pause.

It all started in 1945 near Nag Hammadi, Egypt.  A young peasant and his two brothers who were searching for fertilizer to use on their crops and fuel their family’s cooking fires when they  dug up and smashed a large clay pot.  Inside the jar was a cache of old leather books. They gathered them up and took them home and dumped them near their mother’s oven; she began using them to start her fires.

Somehow many of the books escaped from the mother’s hands (and fire) and found their way into collections of various antiquities dealers and private individuals.  Egyptian authorities eventually tracked down and gathered the remaining manuscripts and placed them in the Coptic Museum in Old Cairo

An international team of scholars photographed the manuscripts, published the facsimiles and then began transcribing and translating the texts.  The first English translation of the entire Nag Hammadi collection was published in 1979, thirty-four years after the original find.

In 1988, a completely revised edition of the translation was made available to the public. In total, there are thirteen separate books containing forty previously unknown texts from the early Christian period, literature written almost 2,000 years ago and lost for the last 1,600 years.

Quite by chance a scholar, Henri-Charles Puech, made the connection between fragments of Greek text found in the 1890 and the Coptic Gospel of Thomas found at Nag Hammadi. Because the Coptic is a translation is from an earlier Greek version of the Gospel, and the Greek papyri had been dated to 200 CE, there is manuscript evidence that the Greek fragments are 150 years older than the Coptic.  This means that Thomas can be dated to the late first or early second century but no later than 140. 

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.

Can any necessary message, regardless of how unpleasant, be unwelcome?

Interestingly, this portion of the 21st saying has also been interpreted as: “gird up your loins with a great strength so that the robbers will not discover the way to come towards you, because the advantage you expect, they will discover.”

Have a great Sunday!

If understanding the mysteries coded in the Gospel of Thomas is/was a prerequisite for obtaining the ‘Kingdom’ then its disappearance for more than 1,600 years is truly tragic:  all of those lives without a single salvaged soul.  It’s difficult for me to envision a One God that would let that happen.

I’m thinking that the sayings of that work (as secret as they are) are a gift, of sorts, to bring comfort, provide directions, and impart wisdom to the ‘newly ungrounded’. 

I suppose that we will all find out sooner or later.

When I was a child and began learning to read we were taught by using ‘Dick and Jane’ books.  They went something like:

So, now every time I run into something I don’t understand I try and ‘Dick and Jane’ my way through it.  That’s to say I try and break things down into the simplest possible form, kick the result around a bit, then assess that result against what is logical or rational.

Let’s do that just a little bit with the Gospel of Thomas and a simple question of redemption/salvation.  Does that Gospel contain secrets that must be uncovered in order to achieve ‘salvation’.  The obvious short answer is no, but let me caveat that ‘short no’ with a ‘I hope not’ and a ‘maybe’ forward going. 

Why is a historical ‘no’ the right answer to that question?

What happens if the answer to the question ‘Is understanding the secrets in the Gospel of Thomas necessary for salvation’ is yes.  That would mean that (here comes the Dick and Jane part) there was no salvation for the billions of folk that perished over the 1800 to 2000 years that the gospel patiently rested in literal anonymity, not to mention the forthcoming billions more who will never know it’s worth (if there is a worth) because Christendom has left no room for that voice.  Well, if the answer is ‘yes’ then it’s going to take more than just a little reflection to flesh out what our relationship with God is really all about.  ‘Yes’ then becomes unpalatable and we must abandon the ‘yes’ else-wise our understanding of God is a complete misunderstanding. 

It could (not would) also mean that God allowed these billions of folk to pass on un-redeemed.  (Another question for another time:  I wonder where they’ve gone?)  I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, I’m just stating that this could be so and it could be part of God’s plan.  Or it could be so and not part of His plan.  Finally (because I am clearly whipping this pony overly vigorously) it may not be so regardless of the existence or absence of a plan.  In any case the appropriate response by leaders of all religious slants appears to be to either ridicule or ignore the Gospel.  Given the perplexing nature of the volume, both responses seem appropriately styled.

So is ‘no’ the hope of all mankind?  Actually, ‘no’ is the hope of that subset of all mankind that ‘hopes’.  This subset is quite happy where they are at with God and would really, really prefer that no new late to the party Gospel upset their neatly ordered little afterworld.  With that said, there is an alternative instantiation where ‘yes’ becomes an acceptable response for this group:  when the solutions to the secret sayings are thought to be found in the religious practices the ‘faithful’ currently adhere to.

So, what about the ‘maybe going forward’ as an answer to the question?  This response allows all of the faithful to keep the God they have (along with the salvation of the generations past and future) and introduces new potential paths for others.  It would sorta work like all of our Old Testament hero’s get in along with the 1^st covenant crowd, and all of the ‘saved’ from the New Testament adherents, and then now this new ‘Third Testament’ riddle solvers have earned a spot on the roster as well.  

Now, the Dick and Jane approach to all of these hypotheticals leaves us utterly without answers.  We are more empty at the conclusion of our quest than at the outset.  It seems that it’s that emptiness that may be what we need in order to be filled. So, be filled with empty for a moment.  Be in the desert. While in that desert consider what Jesus says in the 78th Saying:

In a book chocked full of metaphors could the desert of 78 be in our mind or soul or spirit. Perhaps empty is a good place to be sometimes.

One of my few neighbors fell over (aged 50 years) earlier this month.  He, to his surprise and the surprise of his friends and family, had a massive heart attack.  The folk at Huntsville Hospital were able to keep him alive for a few days, but he passed on none-the-less. 

Lynn was a good man.

I’ve never met a more kind hearted and industrious man than Lynn.  He worked anywhere between 40 and 70 hours a week for TVA, worked nights and weekends tending roughly 80 head of his cattle on several different fields.  As a guess Lynn mowed, raked, and bailed hay for 8 or 10 different folk several times a year.  He had 6 or 7 tractors that could be reliably counted on not to start without divine intervention and the application of bailing wire and ether.  It never slowed him down in the least.  He restored/rebuilt classic muscle cars, reloaded his own ammo, took his daughter hunting religiously.

Lynn weighed 4 lbs and some odd ounces at birth.  A veteran of the Gulf War and member of the Army Reserves, Lynn stood about 5’1 or so and clocked in at 115 lbs on a good day.  His momma tried to baby him his entire life.  If Lynn was mowing a field you could count on his mother either being at the edge of it or in a tractor lending a hand.  She can run a tractor (and other farm implements) as well as any man.  I suppose that in this part of rural Alabama/Tennessee when your husband dies (as hers did) that you pick up real quick on how to make shit work or you starve.  Lynn was her only son and I am told that she is devastated.

Wifey and I went to the funeral and I can reliably report that folk in this neck of the woods don’t spend a whole lot of time in mourning.  With the exception of Lynn’s mom and one or two of his friends it seems that every one of the 70 or so attendees had ulterior motives.  The Baptist minister mistook the funeral for an opportunity to save wayward souls and spent 95 percent of his time in the limelight trying to bring folk to Jesus.  Unwed/newly divorced girls dressed provocatively in sheer strips of black dresses that highlighted their breasts and tattoos while drawing attention away from the missing teeth and extra pounds.  All the aunts, uncles and distant relatives leveraged the occasion to convene a family reunion that, considering the laughing, joking, and introductions, they clearly have not enjoyed in decades.  Life goes on uninterrupted.

Meanwhile a good and simple man has passed beyond this life and I can’t help but think that heaven is better for having received him.

I woke up this morning with one of those ear-bugs that just won’t go away. Not a song or lyric this time but rather the first true saying in the Gospel of Thomas (I choose to count saying 1 as a portion of the prologue). Here is the Blatz translation:

“He who seeks, let him not cease seeking until he finds; and when he finds he will be troubled, and when he is troubled he will be amazed, and he will reign over the All.”

If you were to go here, you’d find four other interpretations from the 4 source documents found in two different locations and in two different languages. Some of the interpretations demonstrate interesting alternative readings of certain portions of the short saying, for instance the last few words of each translation from the Coptic are:

reign over the all
reign over the entirety
reign over the universe

What I find so interesting about the saying is both what I think it means and, given what it means, that it would be the first saying. What do I think it means? I don’t think that in this instance the saying is talking to the seeking of the kingdom of God, rather that we discover and wonder at the world that God created. It is an explicit call for scientific discovery.

This text with it’s 114 sayings was lost for a couple of thousand years. The first saying urging man to discover this world. Meanwhile, for many of those two thousand years the leaders of the christian movement did what they could to diminish the importance of understanding our world.

This saying perfectly tee’s up the saying that immediately follows it.

You’ve gotta know what you know in order to know what you don’t.

An abstraction of Saying 5.

If those who lead you say to you: See, the kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of the heaven will go before you;

If they say to you: It is in the sea, then the fish will go before you.

But the kingdom is within you, and it is outside of you.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will know that you are the sons of the living Father.

‘Become passers-by. ‘ (Gospel of Thomas #42)

It’s pretty tough trying to find something in the dark. There maybe landmarks but they are near impossible to find. That’s the way I feel sometimes when I search for information on the Gospel of Thomas; like I’m stumbling around in the dark looking for direction and finding nothing but the scribes/pharisees characterized in Saying 39.

Despite the challenges, stumbling, and false starts, sometimes, just sometimes, a little light shines and,, forever how briefly, we are able to see a little clearer. Even if that clarity moves us along just a short ways, it is a welcomed and worthy reward.

I stumbled across a great article that examines the relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the synoptic gospels with an emphasis on the Gospel of John . The author (Seth Clark) also examines the most probable time of it’s writing and explains that the purpose of Thomas is significantly different than the synoptic writings. His concluding remarks are:

I propose that the dating for the majority of GTh is between 55 and 90 AD. The
composition of the text is based on teachings of Jesus collected in Jerusalem after Jesus’ death. This core was developed on the road by itinerant Christians who spent time in Damascus, Syria and took the text to Egypt, where it was translated into Coptic.

If the dating of GTh is correct, then the idea that Jesus was fully divine and fully human who granted access to the Divine is much earlier than most scholars think. If this is paired with the radical offer to become the “twin of the living Jesus” and effectively achieve deification, then GTh represents a variety of Christianity that engaged people outside of ecclesial authority and provided a spiritual path with the greatest reward of all: being a complete reflection of God and sharing in Divine perfection as a “twin of Jesus.”

The paper by Clark is available here.

Many of the writings of the new and old testament can be dated by the authors awareness (or lack thereof) of events related to the construction and destruction of the First and Second Temples. Here is the timing on those two events:

After the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BCE, the Jews of the Kingdom of Judea went into exile. In 538 BCE during the reign of Cyrus the Great, the Jews returned to Jerusalem and were able to build the Second Temple on the site of the original one that had been destroyed.

Secular accounts place the completion of the Second Temple in approximately 516 BCE but some Jewish sources date the completion much later in 350 BCE. Herod the Great rebuilt the Temple in 20-18 BCE.

The Jews led a revolt and occupied Jerusalem in 66 CE initiating the first Roman-Jewish war. In 70 CE the Romans reclaimed Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple with only a portion of the western wall remaining (though recent archeological discoveries date portions of the wall to later periods).

I was reading through a fairly complex narrative by Pierluigi Piovanelli titled “Thomas in Edessa? Another look at the original setting of the Gospel of Thomas” and ran across an interesting observation made by April D. DeConick on page 451 of this PDF File.

While the paper is about describing the efforts undertaken to see if Thomas was in Edessa, it produces an amazing ‘hidden’ detail about the Gospel: It seems that the Gospel of Thomas has 5 ‘chapters’ or discourses. Each begins by telling the audience to seek the truth and each ends with a saying or statement about the end of the world. To see how Ms DeConick arrived at this conclusion you’ll need to read the article or, as a short cut, here are the 5 discourses she has has discovered.

Saying #’s Discourse On
2-16: eschatological urgency
17-36: eschatological challenges
38-61: exclusive commitment
62-91: the worthy few
92-111: the imminent Kingdom of God

We know 1 is the opening, so that would leave 4 ‘orphan’ sayings: 37 and 112 through 114.

Oh, by the way: eschatological means:
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with the end of the world or of humankind.
2. A belief or a doctrine concerning the ultimate or final things, such as death, the destiny of humanity, the Second Coming, or the Last Judgment

A rare good article from the WSJ here. Excerpt below

The experience is new and disorienting. Life had been deceptively easy until now. Our ancestors’ lives, by contrast, were guaranteed to be short and painful. The lucky ones survived birth. The luckier ones made it past childhood. Only in the past 200 years has humanity truly taken off. We now float through an anomalous world of air conditioning, 911 call centers, acetaminophen and pocket-size computers containing nearly the sum of human knowledge. We reduced nature to “the shackled form of a conquered monster,” as Joseph Conrad once put it, and took control of our fate. God became irrelevant.

This taken from the Blatz translation of the Coptic. There is a lot of ‘stuff’ packed into the third saying and some wisdom to be gained by unpacking it.

I had cause to think of the 50th Saying today. I was floating down the Elk and kinda/sorta got into that mental state where the gray of the sky, surrounding landscape, and even the water blended together. Subtle variations in the density of the clouds resulted in large splotches of white patches throughout the sky. No sun, just splashes of white.

I guess it was the interplay between gray and white that got me thinking of ‘things concealed’ and what might be concealed in the 50th Saying. I won’t twist things much further than the experts have (at link immediately below) but I want to note three things: 1) symbols are meant to conceal as well as reveal and so images may too be used to conceal as well as reveal. 2) Saying 49 extends a small part of 50 (and may have originally followed it). and 3) Saying 51 further discusses the last part of 50.

I’ve copied it and a pretty exhaustive discussion on this saying by ‘experts’ from here.

Detail and expert discussion on all Sayings is located here.

Jesus said, “If they say to you (plur.), ‘Where are you from?’ say to them, ‘It is from light that we have come – from the place where light, of its own accord alone, came into existence and [stood at rest]. And it has been shown forth in their image.’

If they say to you, ‘Is it you?’ say ‘We are its offspring, and we are the chosen of the living father.’

If they ask you, ‘What is the sign of your father within you?’ say to them, ‘It is movement and repose.'”

Enjoy what is left of the weekend!

Originally posted on June 9 of this year. The note from Bob J. earlier today reminded me that I intended on reposting this from time to time.

I suppose that there are some few folk that are intrigued by the sayings within the Gospel of Thomas as I am. Like others in this search I’ve scoured the web looking for what I could find; some of those findings I’ve posted on this site. In some postings I provided attribution and in other I just let them stand on their own. It occurs to me that I might have have been a little bit selfish by not sharing one of the better sources for ‘technical’ or ‘scholarly’ assessment of the writing.

I don’t want to resemble the bad guys (Pharisees) in Saying 102 (Woe unto the Pharisees. For what they resemble is a dog sleeping in the manger of some cattle, for it neither eats nor lets the cattle feed). So, I thought I’d provide a link to the resource. It is here.

A short note (for those of you that have not yet dashed over to the linked site): Don’t take the ‘Scholarly Quotes’ as gospel. Over time I’ve realized that some of the scholars are biased. That is to say they may be pushing an agenda or may be trying to influence the reader to come to a conclusion that the scholar champions. They themselves may have come to resemble the ‘bad guy’ in 102 !

Enjoy. OBTW, my plan is to occasionally re-post this so others will be aware of the resource.

For those of you that have an interest in the Gospel of Thomas, Bob J. sent along a link to another resource that may be helpful in understanding the somewhat cryptic sayings. That Link is here.

When I went to the link I got the warning below. I clicked on ‘Advanced’ and Firefox told me the site had an expired security certificate. I pushed on and found that the site appears to be secure and legit.

Thanks Bob for the kind words.