In thinking about the structure of a possible journal article presenting the
Thomas mystery-puzzle theory, the material (or argument) seemed to divide
itself into two major parts. The first part consists of drawing attention to
certain seemingly patterned features which only become evident when one
numbers the lines and the occurrences of the name of Jesus in the text. The
second part consists of presenting certain non-anachronistic strategies and
conceptual bases for moving sayings and parts of sayings - not, however, as
any kind of "proof" in itself, but rather to give _some_ indication of what
_might_ have constituted the original basis for such movement. Thus, the
second part is more speculative than the first, and is meant to "flesh out"
the mere suggested possibility of textual reordering, by indicating the kind
of "rules" that may have governed it. Without this second part (which
includes such matters as what "male" and "female" probably meant when
applied to chunks of text), not only is the first part rather sterile, but
the impression might be given either that (1) there's no way for us moderns
to "solve" it, or (2) there is/was no real "solution" as such, hence while
it's puzzling, it's not a real puzzle. So I think the second part of the
presentation is necessary, but equally necessary is to understand the
_logical force_ of the first part, which I may previously have failed to
make explicit.

Think what it means that _our_ numbering of lines and occurrences of 'IS'
reveals certain manuscribal (for want of a better word) patterns _not
otherwise knowable_. For example, if we hadn't numbered the lines, we
wouldn't have known that the "watcher saying" ("Behold! I watch over the
world") was on lines 67-68, and that it _itself_ "watches over" the
remaining 600 lines of text. Now of course, this could be a coincidence, and
so if this is the only one, we oughtn't to make anything of it. But if, on
the other hand, the number and/or type of such "coincidences" significantly
exceeds the probable results of random distribution, we may have hit upon
the fact (and of course I believe that we have) that these features were
_intentional_, and that the originators of the text _themselves_ numbered
the lines and the occurrences of 'IS', in the process of structuring the
puzzle - and that it was thus necessary that the reader also perform such
numbering (a type of  "measuring") in order to solve the puzzle.

My claim is that, while there is as yet no clear "smoking gun", and while
the number of pattern-like features so far discovered is relatively small,
the nature of those features is such as to be extremely unlikely to have
resulted from random distribution. Consider, for example, the "divider
saying" (#72). This occurs on a natural boundary - the beginning of a new
block of text at the top of page 46. The 400-line segment of text which
precedes it begins at line 71, immediately after the two-line statement
"this heaven will pass away, and she who is above her will pass away", and
culminates with the two-line saying 71 ("I will destroy this house and no
one will be able to build him up again". ) For reasons adduced in earlier
notes, it appears that the "divider saying" _itself_ divides the text
between a 400-line "world" and two 100-line "heavens". So, just as in the
case of the "watcher saying", we seem to have a case of self-reference -
which is only apparent if we "measure" the text. The implication again
being: _they_ did too.

Again, consider line 280 ("Come into being as you pass away"). What is the
probability that this saying would occupy any single line all by itself?
(And, no, there aren't any other sayings small enough to fit on one line;
the next smallest saying is 42 letters and the number of letters on the
longest line is 31.) Given that the saying contains 24 letters, is it a
1-in-24 chance that all those letters would be written on the same line?
Probably somewhat smaller, since the number of logical line-breaks (i.e.,
between words or syllables) would be less than 24. Still, the probability of
this happening randomly has got to be at least 1-in-10, I would think. Now
add to that the probability of this saying randomly occurring on a line
number divisable by 10. Another 1-in-10 shot, so we're up to 1-in-100
according to my reckoning. Now add to that that the word 'PARAGE' at the end
of line 280 _also_ occurs at the end of another line (line 70) whose number
is a factor of 280, and that that word is not at all common in the text (it
occurs only one other time - split between lines 69 and 70). It seems to me
that the combination of these factors sans intentionality is unlikely in the
extreme. But in order to make that one saying come out on a single line all
by itself, the rest of the text would have had to be strictly controlled as
well - so that the end of the previous text wouldn't be forced down onto
line 280. Obviously, this scenario is a far cry from our normal
presuppositions about a text. But then again, how do our "normal
presuppositions" fare against the intentional acrostics known to have been
written into some Christian texts?

It's not yet at all clear _how much_ textual movement was required to solve
the puzzle - or whether it had/has to proceed "outside-in" as it were (as in
"The heavens and the earth will be rolled up in your presence"), with
respect to the 24 blocks of text. Nor is it yet clear to me how to combine
the questions in saying 6 with their answers in saying 14 - which surely
must be done at some point. But with respect to the plausibility of the
theory, if it weren't for the fact that we have no known exemplar of a
"puzzle-text" of this magnitude, it seems to me that there wouldn't be any
question at all about its being taken seriously.

Mike Grondin
The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm

In a message dated 12/03/2002 13:43:12PM, mwgrondin@... writes:

<<  But with respect to the plausibility of the
theory, if it weren't for the fact that we have no known exemplar of a
"puzzle-text" of this magnitude, it seems to me that there wouldn't be any
question at all about its being taken seriously.

  John Asks>

    You refer to other puzzle texts? What is the Largest and smallest puzzle
text known?
    And is there any Pattern between the known texts and Thomas.

                 John Moon
                 Springfield, Tenn.

                          regards johnmoon3717@...
-----------------------------

Sorry, John, but when I wrote the phrase 'of this magnitude', I was thinking of
the Christian acrostics I had mentioned earlier. I believe these were generally
poetic works, in which the series of first letters of each stanza spelled out a
short pious message, and/or the writer's name. I don't see anything like that in
Thomas as it stands now. It would be nice to have some precedent, but I haven't
been able to find one yet. When I talked with David Trobisch at the SBL meeting,
he mentioned some kind of "columnization" of Pauline material (as I recall - it
was a hurried conversation covering several different subjects). He said he
would send me further info, but I haven't heard from him yet. I also have a
vague recollection of someone "decoding" an obscure ancient mystery text some
years ago, but I haven't been able to track that down. Any help that you or
anyone else would be able to provide would be greatly appreciated.

Mike

Mike,

There are numerous possibilities in Thomas which would suggest some form of
alignment to a model, or acrostic matrix.  But which model?  There is also the
possibility that the arrangement of the GThom is to generate attempts at
figuring out its hidden matrix so the "Spirit of Thomas" himself can laugh at us
from the grave trying to do it. I would not put it past him.

I have submitted a lot of posts to this group suggesting there may be ties to
Oriental philosophies common to all of the Orient by the time of Christ. 
Especially the theme of "Heaven and Earth" is all pervasive in Oriental
philosophy, the terms 'tao' and 'logos' mean the same thing, and concepts of
spirit and chi are identical in many ways. By the time of Jesus the ties of
Hellenized society and the philosophical concepts of the East had been long
shared due to the exploits of Alexander, and the established silk trade routes.

You cannot discount the possibility that the GThom was meant as an instrument of
evangelism for not just one type of Gentile.  Thomas, may have had the East in
mind since his trek from the Apostles village. This would mean that the context
of the text at least in part was meant to conform with the generally held
conceptions, 'heaven and earth, rest and motion' of the Orient rather than
Jewish or Pagan models. This would allow for the use and suggest knowledge a
very broad range of acrostic tools including those related to koans, and Taoist
edicts.

There is one relative and shared characteristic of form in Oriental philosophies
in application of theory to practice from a model.  Regardless of the country or
culture, yin and yang concepts always intersect with notions of movement and
rest.  Therefore, any model (form) be it a posture or a written saying, is seen
in terms of its phases, structure, and analysis, "in all ways."

Generally all oriental or related structures (postures, edicts, koans, etc.)
will tend to conform to work with more than one model or for the benefit of more
than one purpose.  Both oriental meditation postures and martial postures are
expressed (illustrated) as symbols of the acts of the transition of rest or
composure to offensive and defensive, (yin-yang) motion. One symbol, is meant to
symbolize multiple interpretations or actions at once, to be applied.

Certainly the GThom was written from more than one model, (Q, Mk, Lk. the
parables, etc.) and was meant for more than one kind of Gentile.  It stands to
reason that you could fit the form of the text to a number of models.  I like
the cross, and 'tree of life.'  And, there is the ancient Oriental edict (shared
by all oriental philosophies generally) , "Man is the Same as Heaven and Earth."

You should in no way be discouraged from molding the GThom to a model. Go for
it!

Tom Saunders
Platter Flats. OK

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Tom Saunders]:
> You should in no way be discouraged from molding the GThom to a model. Go
for it!

Sorry, but I'm not trying to mold GThom to a model, Tom. I don't much care
what "model" it ends up conforming to. I just wanna know for sure, so I can
get this albatross off from around my neck.

Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, Mi

I have just entered this list and haven’t figured out yet whether you just
discuss the scriptures and texts like exegetics, or if you also dicuss
around the matter and include the gnostics themselves, their teachings,
etc. But since I read some interesting notes I would like to add some of
my thoughts regarding the subject of the gnostic marriage.

As all mystic cults have their initiations in order to recieve higher
spiritual ”secrets” there should be no wonder if also the gnositc
association followed this. Maybe that’s why the heavenly (read spiritual)
marriage beteween man and woman aren’t written down in early christian
(gnostic) scriptures. (One additional reason should be the patrialkal
system.) The initiations are regarded as very important when it comes to
proceeding in the spiritual path. Some Buddhists have (or had, I don’t
know for sure) a learning time of nine years before next spiritual
initiation. One did’t want the sublime teachnings to end up in the wrong
hands or be misunderstud. These misunderstanings occured anyway, why
threre are so many different gnostic movements with similar, yet
different, ideas.
The gnostic marriage is the process of alchemy, (not only accoring to
Jung), where the substences made into gold are the substances in the man
and the woman. The gnostic language are, as you might know, to be
interpreted symbolical. To create the cubic stone, the philosophers stone,
as the alchemists speak of, is a nother saying for the incarnation of
Christ in yourself. The gnostics of today say that in order not to
misunderstand the gnostic teachnings one should start with grounds, work
with oneself for a time, before the initiation to the alchemy can begin.
So today the Bible can be read as a start to understand the gospel of
Thomas.
Do I make any sence?!

Malin, Nilsson
Student at University of Karlstad, Sweden
-------------------------------------------

Ed note: Yes, you make sense. I should point out, however, that any discussion
of gnosticism should be confined to ancient gnosticism prior to, say, 4th
century. Furthermore, it should be supportable on the basis of texts found at
Nag Hammadi. Is there any text in that collection which speaks of alchemy as you
do? (MWG)

Malin,

I just finished Crossan's chapter in "The Birth of Christianity" where he states
that the GThom is far too early to be Gnostic.  I tend to agree. Gnosticism and
what we call Gnostic is a development in Christianity that is diverse and more
of a species rather than genus in its nature.

Gnosticism developed later in Christianity and took too many forms to equate
Thomas as more than a sympathetic document used later by diverse Gnostic sects,
(and others).  But there may be some basis for equating mysticism to it.  This
is in regard to the apocalyptic type of diversity seen in the Q Gospel.  This
difference may represent an early rift between epistemologies before or about
the Pauline era in very early Christianity.

The conflict between Jewish law or ideals in general had to be made clear to
early Christians. Thomas may actually be an attempt to clarify this position, as
well as establish the belief system to Gentiles. The Jewish model formulates God
as a force who can control from the cosmos.  This is somewhat the model Paul
proposed.

Thomas constructs another picture of the cosmic force.  God does not come out of
the cosmos and smite you down. You just die and are assimilated to darkness. 
Salvation is a tool learned and practiced as you gird your loins from the world
and guide your soul back to the light from which you came.

Tom ( I write 'Christian Thomist' on my name badge) Saunders
Platter Flats, OK

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 12/04/2 6:19:04 PM, Tom wrote:

<<the terms 'tao' and 'logos' mean the same thing
[snip]
  This would allow for the use and suggest knowledge a very broad range of
acrostic tools including those related to koans, and Taoist edicts.>>

One would never say of a man that he is the tao, and I think the koans proper
start back only to the 9th century or so when zen was taking shape.  The idea
is cool though; Clement mentions the Brahmins but not the Chinese; first I
know of any interaction is with the Huns in the 4th and 5th centuries, and
the Battle of Sogogard or whatever its name was in Persia when some Romans
ended up slaves to the Chinese.

Bill Foley
Woburn

Bill Foley writes:

One would never say of a man that he is the tao, and I think the koans proper
start back only to the 9th century or so when zen was taking shape.  The idea
is cool though;

Information about the relationship of Chinese philosophy and the Western Med.
Christian movement keeps changing.  Budhism was well established in India by the
time of J. and there is new archeological evidence to suggest that the Brahmans
and Chinese were more closely related than previously thought.  Chinese
Confuscianism, Taoism and Budhism were all embraced in most parts of China
before Budhism was adopted by Emperor Ashoka in India 273 B.C.

Clement mentions the Brahmins but not the Chinese; first I
know of any interaction is with the Huns in the 4th and 5th centuries, and
the Battle of Sogogard or whatever its name was in Persia when some Romans
ended up slaves to the Chinese.

Martin Palmer's "The Jesus Sutras" reveals a series of Chinese bits of
information as to Christianity developing in China all the way up to North
Eastern China, Xian 341 A.D.  Palmer's work suggests that Christians as far back
a Tatian established a Christian network all accross China.  By the time of
Eusebius they had been wiped out.  No doubt the Eastern sects related to
expansion to China had long fallen out of favor with the Western Orthodox croud
from Rome.  Rome probably did not know they existed past Tatian.

A common relic of these Eastern sects is an equalateral cross found in India and
China all along the Silk Routes.  Tatian seems to be connected with them but
more than one Syrian sect was thought to have established missions in India, not
to mention the Thomas church in Madras.

By the time Thomas was written one caravan a month was arriving at points west,
like Damascas,  some established by Alexander.  It is logical that the author of
Thomas knew what was needed to make Jesus marketable to Easterners and with
their Oriental philosophy.  The sayings of Thomas are very much like the
precepts of Lau Zi and his followers from the fourth century B.C.  However, it
must also be understood that Hellenized cultures had shared this type of 
knowledge and put it in their own terms.

The acrostic tricks of both East and West would have been appreciated as shared
forms of amusement between cultures.  Thomas as an instrument is meant to be a
Gospel, or tool of evangelism to Gentiles, an idea known to have been
implemented in the First Century.  And of course, Thomas became heretical as it
definately failed to meet up to many expectations of 'church fathers' who wanted
to take control of salvation through the church.

Tom Saunders
Platter Flats, OK

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In some past posts, I have advanced the hypothesis that GThomas can be
divided into three strata: (1) Proto-Thomas, the earliest strata and a
gospel that contained what is now GTh 2-10, 31-48, 61-65, and 89-99, (2)
Pre-Thomas, the intermediate strata and a gospel that contained what is now
GTh 1, 25-30, 53-60, 66-79, and 105-111, and (3) the Latest Strata, the
latest strata that consists of what is now GTh 11-24, 49-52, 80-88, 100-104,
and 112-114.  The locale for the Thomas community is hypothesised to be
Tyre, with Proto-Thomas reflecting the perspective of upper class Gentile
Tyrians, Pre-Thomas reflecting the perspective of middle to lower class
Jewish Tyrians, and the Latest Strata reflecting the perspective of middle
to lower class Gentile Tyrians.

In this post, I propose the additional hypothesis that Proto-Thomas and
Pre-Thomas were combined into a single gospel, to be called Paleo-Thomas:
with GTh as we now have it consisting of Paleo-Thomas and the Latest Strata.
Further, a copy of Paleo-Thomas made its way by ship from Tyre to
Egypt--where it was heavily redacted by an Egyptian Christian community and
circulated in Greek language.

I was led to this hypothesis by the observation that the Oxyr papyrus
fragments, written in Greek and circulating in Egypt, contain, as far as I
can tell, *only* material from Proto-Thomas and Pre-Thomas.  That is to say,
they are devoid of any Latest Strata passages.  Further, while the order of
the passages in these fragments closely follows the order of the GTh
passages, some have radically different wording and there is some shifting
of material (e.g., part of GTh 77 is shifted into GTh 30).

The simplest explanation ISTM, is that Proto-Thomas and Pre-Thomas were
combined into one single document at Tyre.  There was little or no redaction
done.  This is the hypothesised Paleo-Thomas.  Then this gospel took two
diverging developments.  In the first development, a copy of it was sent to
Egypt, where it was heavily redacted into the document that survives only in
Greek language papyrus fragments.  In the second development, at Tyre, it
was expanded by the addition of the Latest Strata material.  Then, a copy of
it went to Egypt, where it was translated into Coptic--a copy of which we
possess.

Does anyone else have an explanation as to why the Oxyr. papyrus fragments
apparently contain only passages from the hypothesised Proto-Thomas and
Pre-Thomas?

Frank McCoy
1809 N. English Apt. 17
Maplewood, MN USA 55109

Frank McCoy asks:

> Does anyone else have an
> explanation as to why the Oxyr.
> papyrus fragments apparently
> contain only passages from the
> hypothesised Proto-Thomas and
> Pre-Thomas?

Maybe the fragments don't contain them because
they are, um, fragments?  :-)

How can you argue that the missing parts
didn't contain substantially the same content
as the coptic text?

(Note that for this argument to be used
as evidence for your stratification,
it must be independent from your arguments
for that stratification.)

-Randy Helzerman

The search for strata in Thomas
presupposes that Thomas is indeed
stratified.  Can we assume this?
Is there any incontrovertable evidence
which shows that GTh _must_ be stratified?

By way of comparison, I ran across a
modern "Logoi Sophon" from a great teacher
in my own field (computer science)
on the web:

http://www-pu.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/users/klaeren/epigrams.html

It is a list of epigrams of Alan Perlis, a recently
deceased Yale university professor.  It was collected
after his death by his students who wanted to remember him.
It strikes me that it has all the trappings of the
Gospel of Thomas:  An incipit, a semi-random
list of sayings, catchword association, even scribal errors.

It was collected after his death by his students who wanted to
remember him.

But there's no thought of stratification here!  Even
though the sayings range from rather literal to rather
metaphorical, they are all (discounting a few which are
no doubt apocryphal) from the same person and from the same
few decades.  Non-computer scientists will find some of them
easy to understand, and some of them totally meaningless--but
that wouldn't lead us to postulate a "gnostic redaction"
by a later community--just some specialized lingo understandable
only to his students.

So my question is:  why should we assume that GTh is stratified?
Why couldn't the sayings have been collected all at once,
shortly after Jesus's death by people who wanted to remember him?

Is there any incontrovertable evidence that GTh _has_ strata?

-Randy Helzerman

----- Original Message -----
From: <rahelzer@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [GTh] Paleo-Thomas


> Frank McCoy asks:
>
> > Does anyone else have an
> > explanation as to why the Oxyr.
> > papyrus fragments apparently
> > contain only passages from the
> > hypothesised Proto-Thomas and
> > Pre-Thomas?
>
> Maybe the fragments don't contain them because
> they are, um, fragments?  :-)
>
> How can you argue that the missing parts
> didn't contain substantially the same content
> as the coptic text?

Dear Randy Helzerman:

Here are what I understand to be the three main fragments: (1) 654--which
contains all or part of GTh 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. (2) 1--which contains
all or part of GTh 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33, and (3) 655--which
contains all or part of GTh 36, 37, and 39.

Now, in GTH 1-39, the hypothesised Paleo-Thomas (which consists of the
postulated Proto-Thomas and Pre-Thomas) is found in 1-10 and in 25-39.

In the first segment of ten sayings (i.e., GTh 1-10), seven (i.e., 70%) of
the sayings are found in the fragments.  In the second segment of 15 sayings
(i.e., GTh 25-39), ten (i.e., 67%) are found in the fragments.  In the
segment of 14 sayings *not* assigned to Paleo-Thomas (i.e., GTh 11-24), none
(i.e., 0%) are found in the fragments.

Why is it that roughly 2/3 of the sayings in *each* of the two segments of
the postulated Paleo-Thomas  are found in the fragments, whle not a single
saying is found in the segment not assigned to Paleo-Thomas?  While I grant
that this might be a statistical fluke without meaning, I think it more
likely that it is meaningful.

Randy, you also state:
> (Note that for this argument to be used
> as evidence for your stratification,
> it must be independent from your arguments
> for that stratification.)
>
:Could you amplify on this statement?  Why must it be completely
independent?

Frank McCoy
1809 N. English Apt. 17
Maplewood, MN USA 55109

Frank McCoy Asks:

> Why is it that .... not a single
> saying is found [in the Oxyr.
> fragments] in the segment not
> assigned to Paleo-Thomas?

I don't know if that is the right
question to ask.  It seems to me
that the question should be
"did the _entire_ documents, of which
the Poxy fragments are fragements of,
contain nothing which is not assigned
to Paleo-Thomas?"  right?

I think its likely that the original documents
which the Poxy fragments are from contained
substantially the same contents as the coptic
Thomas.  Here's how I would argue for that.
First, notice something interesting about the
Poxy. fragments (as described by you below):

> Here are what I understand to be the three main fragments:
> (1) 654--which contains all or part of GTh 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
> and 7. (2) 1--which contains all or part of GTh 26, 27, 29,
> 30, 31, 32, and 33, and (3) 655--which
> contains all or part of GTh 36, 37, and 39.

Notice that the statements on the fragements are:
1.  substantially the same as their corresponding coptic statements.
2.  in substantially the same order as their corresponding coptic
statements.

(I use the weasle-word "substantially" because there are differences
in both order and content, but these are minor).

Since the _remaining_ Poxy. fragments contain substantialy the same
content in substantially the same order as the coptic, why wouldn't
it be reasonable to conclude that the _missing_ parts of the
greek gospel would _also_ contain substantialy the same content in
substantially the same order?


> Randy, you also state:
> > (Note that for this argument to be used
> > as evidence for your stratification,
> > it must be independent from your arguments
> > for that stratification.)
> >
> :Could you amplify on this statement?  Why must it be completely
> independent?

Suppose you wanted to make the following argument:

1.  the original document, of which the Poxy fragments are fragments
of, contained only/mostly Paleo Thomas
2.  therefore, paleo thomas is a stratum of Thomas.

Obviously, you can't use your conclusion (statement #2) to
argue for its premise (statement #1) or you'd have a circular
argument.

Randy Helzerman

Randy presents....

Notice that the statements on the fragements are:
1.  substantially the same as their corresponding coptic statements.
2.  in substantially the same order as their corresponding coptic
statements.

I have to agree that this indicates Thomas was copied faithfully over time.  I
think those that copied it must have had every reason to think it was the real
thing.

Crossan ("Birth of Christianity") provides some justification for thinking that
Thomas was a product which corresponded with a central authority in the very
beginnings of Christian writing. He points out that even the Coptic version of
Thomas has signs (abbreviations) which correspond to Q, and the 'Sayings
Tradition" which seem to have been composed under a literary model.

Codex vs. scroll is another sign of an effort to institutionalize a literary
form, at least with a structural symbolism.  The first sayings that correspond
to the earliest known Jesus sayings represent a stratification.  The problem is
how you justify the rest of Thomas?  Did it too come from different sources?

Using the 'T' model, all those sayings that correspond with Q are T-1, including
the parables, and all the others are T-2.  We must consider that T-1 was written
from a source which was not conceptualized for the same purpose as Thomas, but
perhaps similar. T-1 is not the mystery that T-2 presents. Thomas started out as
a conception outside but perhaps similar to the purpose of Q.

How does T-2 correspond to its parallels, its parallels having been composed
from different sources with different criteria, at presumably different times,
by different people? It may not be possible for that scenario.  One possibility
is that T-2 was composed within the same time period by/with all its other
sources.  This would mean the sources had to have been developed  in the
Apsotle's Village and other early Christian communities developed before 43 C.
E.

The next possibility is that T-2 was developed by combining parts of T-2 with
all its counterparts in different places and times. As we know that Papias did
not have all the complete sources in 110 C.E. we can assume that Thomas had to
have come from the earliest possible sources of its counterparts, or was written
from a collection of sources but we know texts were scattered.  Not likely.

It is likely that original texts were destroyed in 70 when the Romans destroyed
Jerusalem.  T-2 has sources, (parallel sayings) that simply cannot have evolved
from itinerant development, as these sources would have to have been gathered
from a very wide range of sources after the destruction of Jerusalem.  Thomas
therefor almost has to have been composed T-1 + most of T-2 by the death of
James the Just, unless the saying about him was written before his death. Most
likely if this is true Thomas was the author.

I think Crossan is right about Q reflecting dissent among the first Christians,
and some of Acts reflects there may have been. This may be the motive for
combining T-1 to T-2(+) in developing Thomas. (Thomas wrote Thomas so he could
hit the road like Philip.) This argues for a very early Thomas which almost has
to be, otherwise you have to explain how it developed in a scattered Christian
environment suddenly oppressed to larger and larger degrees.  This includes
greater internal threats as well as huge outside threats.

There are most certainly indications of a varied ideology between all the
Gospels.  I think it is likely that after the first writings done while the
Apostles were together in Jerusalem the differences Peter and others experienced
drove them to start their own followings using their own criteria. I do not
think this had to be a bitter parting, and may have been at least somewhat a
goal from the start for some.  This happened before 43 C.E.

I think that any who had early Thomas would have seen it as a real treasure,
authentic, and very dangerous from the earliest of time.  Due to increasing
ideological differences, especially over control of the church, not to mention
the Holy Spirit, Thomas was secret from all but a select secular group. From
that point it was probably not even known but from a select few that expanded
independently of those that split, even as early as Paul's time.  Lucky for us
it got to Egypt, Luxar was an end town of the silk routes.

Tom Saunders
Platter Flats, OK

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Saunders" <tom@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 05:33 AM
Subject: Re: [GTh] Paleo-Thomas


> Randy presents....
>
> Notice that the statements on the fragements are:
> 1.  substantially the same as their corresponding coptic statements.
> 2.  in substantially the same order as their corresponding coptic
> statements.
>
> I have to agree that this indicates Thomas was copied faithfully over
time.  I think those that copied it must have had every reason to think it
was the real thing.
>
> Crossan ("Birth of Christianity") provides some justification for thinking
that Thomas was a product which corresponded with a central authority in the
very beginnings of Christian writing. He points out that even the Coptic
version of Thomas has signs (abbreviations) which correspond to Q, and the
'Sayings Tradition" which seem to have been composed under a literary model.
>
> Codex vs. scroll is another sign of an effort to institutionalize a
literary form, at least with a structural symbolism.  The first sayings that
correspond to the earliest known Jesus sayings represent a stratification.
The problem is how you justify the rest of Thomas?  Did it too come from
different sources?
>
> Using the 'T' model, all those sayings that correspond with Q are T-1,
including the parables, and all the others are T-2.  We must consider that
T-1 was written from a source which was not conceptualized for the same
purpose as Thomas, but perhaps similar. T-1 is not the mystery that T-2
presents. Thomas started out as a conception outside but perhaps similar to
the purpose of Q.
>
> How does T-2 correspond to its parallels, its parallels having been
composed from different sources with different criteria, at presumably
different times, by different people? It may not be possible for that
scenario.  One possibility is that T-2 was composed within the same time
period by/with all its other sources.  This would mean the sources had to
have been developed  in the Apsotle's Village and other early Christian
communities developed before 43 C. E.
>
> The next possibility is that T-2 was developed by combining parts of T-2
with all its counterparts in different places and times. As we know that
Papias did not have all the complete sources in 110 C.E. we can assume that
Thomas had to have come from the earliest possible sources of its
counterparts, or was written from a collection of sources but we know texts
were scattered.  Not likely.
>
> It is likely that original texts were destroyed in 70 when the Romans
destroyed Jerusalem.  T-2 has sources, (parallel sayings) that simply cannot
have evolved from itinerant development, as these sources would have to have
been gathered from a very wide range of sources after the destruction of
Jerusalem.  Thomas therefor almost has to have been composed T-1 + most of
T-2 by the death of James the Just, unless the saying about him was written
before his death. Most likely if this is true Thomas was the author.
>
> I think Crossan is right about Q reflecting dissent among the first
Christians, and some of Acts reflects there may have been. This may be the
motive for combining T-1 to T-2(+) in developing Thomas. (Thomas wrote
Thomas so he could hit the road like Philip.) This argues for a very early
Thomas which almost has to be, otherwise you have to explain how it
developed in a scattered Christian environment suddenly oppressed to larger
and larger degrees.  This includes greater internal threats as well as huge
outside threats.
>
> There are most certainly indications of a varied ideology between all the
Gospels.  I think it is likely that after the first writings done while the
Apostles were together in Jerusalem the differences Peter and others
experienced drove them to start their own followings using their own
criteria. I do not think this had to be a bitter parting, and may have been
at least somewhat a goal from the start for some.  This happened before 43
C.E.
>
> I think that any who had early Thomas would have seen it as a real
treasure, authentic, and very dangerous from the earliest of time.  Due to
increasing ideological differences, especially over control of the church,
not to mention the Holy Spirit, Thomas was secret from all but a select
secular group. From that point it was probably not even known but from a
select few that expanded independently of those that split, even as early as
Paul's time.  Lucky for us it got to Egypt, Luxar was an end town of the
silk routes.
>
> Tom Saunders
> Platter Flats, OK
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
> To unsubscribe from this group,
> send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

[Randy]:
> Notice that the statements on the fragements are:
> 1.  substantially the same as their corresponding coptic statements.
> 2.  in substantially the same order as their corresponding coptic
> statements.
[Tom]:
> I have to agree that this indicates Thomas was copied faithfully over
time.

Not so. Randy's "substantially the same" covers a number of significant
differences. The evidence from POxy, as well as Hippolytus, indicates that
Thomas was _not_ "copied faithfully".

Mike Grondin
p.s. Apologies for my previous note, which resulted from hitting the Send
key prematurely.

> Not so. Randy's "substantially the same" covers a number of significant
> differences. The evidence from POxy, as well as Hippolytus, indicates that
> Thomas was _not_ "copied faithfully".
>
Mike,

How "not faithfully" are you talking about, & how does this fit in with your
puzzle hypothesis?  Are you talking about "not faithful" copying in the
Greek, as well as the Coptic?  & if the text needs to be rearranged re your
puzzle hypothesis, how free were the translators to move things around?
Also, to what extent do you have to "not faithfully" copy something before
it's moved from the category of "scribal error" to outright "redaction"?

Jim Bauer
Havre, MT

Mike says,

Not so. Randy's "substantially the same" covers a number of significant
differences. The evidence from POxy, as well as Hippolytus, indicates that
Thomas was _not_ "copied faithfully".

We are talking about a matter of degree here. Can you determine as to why
scribes would make alterations?  What were they trying to do with these
differences?

Tom Saunders
Platter Flats, OK


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 12/14/2002 14:49:38PM, tom@... writes:

<< Not so. Randy's "substantially the same" covers a number of significant
differences. The evidence from POxy, as well as Hippolytus, indicates that
Thomas was _not_ "copied faithfully".

We are talking about a matter of degree here. Can you determine as to why
scribes would make alterations?  What were they trying to do with these
differences?
  >>

  John observes

   Perhaps the essential concepts and Sayings list could be maintained and
Placed in Puzzle form by using Clever wording? Remaining faithful to the
meaning on the surface and yet using cleverness to hide a Second meaning.(
And keys to a secret)
    For example the idea of the moving stone in Saying 77 I believe. That
might be considered a Coptic only (clever way of hiding part of a Puzzle)
Merely by choosing the right set of words in a particular order?

     In such an Instance there might be an allusion to the Stone that is moved
away.
( which would occur in the Gospel accounts).

      The Coptic Writer knew these things and perhaps used carefully chosen
words and concepts to paint word pictures to be discovered within the Text.

       The Question would be I suppose, is was this clever word play within
the Greek
or Original Text or did it actually come into being within the Coptic
Compilers
Pen?
                                 Regards John Moon
                                               Crescent DR
                                               Springfield, TN

                               johnmoon3717@...

Mike Grondin writes:

> Not so. Randy's "substantially the
> same" covers a number of significant
> differences.

I suppose it is incumbent upon me to
clarify what I meant by "substantially
the same".  I'll try to do it
ostensively.  Two other texts which
I would consider to be "substantially
the same" would be the KJV version of
the bible and the NIV version of the bible.

Even though there are some significant
differences between the NIV and the KJV
in both content (e.g. the ending of Mark)
and in order (e.g. the location of the
woman-caught-in-adultery story),
not to mention differences in
spelling, grammar and wording, I would
say the two texts are substantially the
same in both content and order.  The
differences between them are no more
than what you'd expect of two translations
produced centuries apart from two
different originals.

Same for the Poxy. and the N.H. witnesses.
They were produced centuries apart, in
two different languages, so we'd naturally
expect significant differences.  But
I think it would be fair to say they
are substantially similar in both content
and order, don't you?

-Randy Helzerman

P.S. In my original post, I was making a
rather narrow point--that the differences
which are between the Greek & Coptic
witnesses are not the right kind of
differences to prove that GTh is stratified.
Surely this is a rather uncontroversial
point?

[Tom]:
> Can you determine as to why scribes would make alterations?
> What were they trying to do with these differences?

Giving my short answer first, I think that the differences were largely due
more to adaptation than anything else. Adaptation to the time and place of
its retranslation, that is. Let's say, for example, that a Syriac version of
Thomas found its way to Alexandria, and fell into the hands of someone
skilled in both Syriac and Greek. One thing such a person _might_ have done
was merely to translate the text from Syriac into Greek, more or less
faithfully. But the limited evidence we have doesn't seem to support that
scenario. What it seems to show is that the earlier text, though left much
the same, was nevertheless significantly altered to fit the needs and
interests of the group which had received it and now claimed it as its own.

In addition to the differences between the POxy fragments and the Coptic
version, consider the saying which Hippolytus attributed to the Naassenes,
in the first known reference to a gospel 'according to Thomas':

"He who seeks me will find me in children of seven years upward, for there,
hidden in the fourteenth aeon, am I revealed."
(Hennecke/Schneelmelcher, _New Testament Apocrypha_, v.I, p.280)

Assuming that Hippolytus' quotation was substantially correct,  the part
about "hidden in the fourteenth aeon" must have been meaningful and
important to the Naassenes, but not to others who handled this gospel. We
don't know, of course, whether the Naassenes added it to some earlier
version in another language, or whether it was dropped when and if the
Naassene version was translated into other languages - or both. What we do
know is that similar significant differences turn up between the Greek
fragments and the Coptic version. It seems likely that there must have been
cases of faithful translation from one language into another, but we don't
have one, and we don't know whether that's a statistical fluke due to the
small number of extant texts, or not.

I'm not sure whether a _scribe_ could have made such alterations. I guess I
tend to think of a scribe as a copyist, and it seems that copyists would not
have had the freedom to make alterations. So I'll take the question to be:
"Why would a translator/redactor ('T/R') make alterations (to the source
text)?" In the first place, I think we have to assume that the T/R would
have seen a great deal in the source text that he liked, and that he would
thus have preserved the core meaning of the text, as he understood it. If
there were, however, details that he didn't like, or which weren't relevant
to his own community, he may well have left them out. Similarly, he may have
taken the occasion to add material, for a variety of reasons, not least to
tack on certain ideas that were important to his own community, but weren't
addressed in the text. So why would a T/R change the text? Trying to collect
all the possibilities under one heading, I would say: in general, to adapt
it for the use he had in mind for his own community.

The situation can be contrasted with the distribution of the NT. There is
one class of texts that were apparently tightly controlled, as they show
little difference between one exemplar and another. On the other hand, the
so-called "Western" class of texts show quite a bit of variation. Which of
these patterns would we likely find for Thomas, if we had more exemplars?
Well, its own ideology seems to count against its having been
tightly-controlled by a central authority, and that is borne out by the
limited evidence available to us, so I would say that it would be likely to
exhibit the "Western" tendency. I'm also reminded of the comment of Papias
(as quoted by Eusebius) that everyone translated the logia of Matthew (which
I take to be a sayings-source) "as best they could". I think what's _behind_
that comment - i.e., what Papias likely actually observed - was simply that
there were versions of this Matthean sayings-source in different languages
that had significant differences in content. He may have _assumed_ that the
reason for this was the difficulty of translation, but it seems more likely
that it was due to differences between the using environments. Had Papias
considered this possibility, he might have been loathe to admit it in any
case. So I take his statement to be reflective of an actual historical
situation, but his suggested cause of that situation to be unlikely in
general.

All of which doesn't exactly answer the question, because we don't know the
exact answer to the question. We would have to know what the source text
looked like, to determine what changes were made to it by the T/R in
question. But we don't know, for example, whether the POxy fragments
represent the source text from which the Coptic T/R was working, and we
don't know what the source text for the POxy fragments looked like. In order
to begin to determine _why_ a given T/R did what he did, we first have to
determine _what_ he did, but that's exactly what we don't know for any
individual case. About the only thing we do know is that there were
significant (but not extreme) differences between versions of the text in
different languages - thus that its transmission must have allowed for a
significant (but not extreme) degree of translational/redactional freedom
from one community to the next.

Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI

[Randy Helzerman]:
> The differences between [the NIV and the KJV] are no more
> than what you'd expect of two translations produced centuries
> apart from two different originals.
>
> Same for the Poxy. and the N.H. witnesses. They were produced
> centuries apart, in two different languages, so we'd naturally
> expect significant differences.  But I think it would be fair to say they
> are substantially similar in both content and order, don't you?

I won't quibble with that statement, as long as no one understands it to
mean that the later one (the Coptic) was a "faithful copy" of the earlier
one. In fact, I suspect (mainly because the form of the name 'Didymus Judas
Thomas' is more typical of Syriac than Greek) that the Coptic version wasn't
produced from a Greek source at all, but from a Syriac one.

I would, however, quibble with the statement that the POxy and NH versions
were "produced centuries apart", simply because that statement may be
misunderstood to refer to the date of authorship. What you mean, of course,
is that the extant exemplars were produced (or "printed") about 150 years
apart. While it's true that Codex II was probably produced mid-4th century,
that doesn't tell us when the Coptic version was first written. For all we
know, it _may_ have been written around the same time as the Greek.

Regards,
Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI

Bill Arnal's review of Jacobus Liebenberg's _The Language of the Kingdom and
Jesus: Parable, Aphorism, and Metaphor in the Sayings Material Common to the
Synoptic Tradition and the Gospel of Thomas_ is currently available at
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=1365

Mike Grondin

Both Crossan and Robinson make the claim that "The Book of Thomas The Contender"
is composed from two or more other documents.  It is the first part of the
'Contender' text that most would agree relates to the Gospel of Thomas. I would
like to point out a couple of things which might reflect the general questions
about a Thomas community.

Consider Crossan's point that 'Q' adopts an apocalyptic doctrine related to
community.  'Q' is also reflected in the "Didache" which is certainly an early
text directed primarily at community. First and most important, although there
are sayings in Thomas that reflect community and family concerns, Thomas focus
in Jesus pedagogy is individualist oriented, not community.

Consider the following from "The Book of Thomas the Contender..."

".....I am the knowledge of the truth. So while you accompany me, although you
are uncomprehending, you have (in fact) already come to know, and you will be
called 'the one who knows himself'. For he who has not known himself has known
nothing, but he who has known himself has at the same time already achieved
knowledge about the depth of the all. So then, you, my brother Thomas, have
beheld what is obscure to men, that is, what they ignorantly stumble against."

One, this is written by somebody who knew Thomas or this concept would not be so
clear and reflect the content and intent of so many Thomas sayings in regard to
the self.  Further, this is not the only part of 'Thomas the Contender' which
reflects Thomas sayings, it does seem to reflect a general creed.   There is a
little more which refers to the 'self,' again as a core theme, but specifically
the self's relationship to the "light."

"Yet when the light comes forth and hides the darkness, then the work of each
will appear. And you, our light, enlighten, O lord."
Jesus said, "It is in light that light exists."

A redactional clue may exist in the above quote due to the fact that 'Jesus
said' appears here while all other references to Jesus are as 'Savior."  The
'savior' reference may be indicative of a relationship to the Gospel of Mary. I
think this is likely and the best reason lies below.  (Somebody give this idea a
shot at the side of the barn)

The above quotations are the part of the 'Contender' related to Thomas Gospel. 
All other theories aside about the rest of the 'Contender' text, Woe to it, it
just does not fly as other than community wisdom. Is it Thomas community wisdom?
Remember, Thomas is directed toward individualism. (I do not like the term
ascetic)

Consider the following sayings....(sorry about this particular translation)

(21) (a) Mary said to Jesus : "To who are Your disciples like ?" He said : "They
are like children who have settled in a field which is not theirs. When the
owners of the field come, they will say : 'Let us have our field back.' When
they will let them have the field back they will stand naked in their presence.

(b)Therefore I say to You, if the owner of a house knows that the thief is
coming, he will stay awake till he comes and will not let him break in the house
of his domain to carry away his goods. You, then, be on Your guard against the
world. Gird Your loins with great strength so that the robbers find no way to
come to You, for they will find the advantage which You expect.

(c)Let there be among You a smart man. When the fruit is ripe, he quickly came
with his sickle in his hand and harvests it. He who has ears to hear, let him
hear."

I have divided it into three parts because they seem to have a naturally divided
strata at these places in the body of the saying.  Also there seems to be a
virtual book that can be read between the lines if you consider the concept of
the saying directed toward the concept of individual to community.

In this case the community is who?  The disciples. The individual is the
householder.  The community has who other than disciples "Christ Robbers."  The
answer to this community is to cut your fruit and run. That may be exactly what
Thomas did.  Clearly the trend in the early Christian camps which Thomas does
not reflect is a teaching based upon punishment contingency.  Thomas also sees
an equality in salvation for men and women which may be a central point to why
Thomas went his own way.  I suggest the following.....

"For the males move [...] upon the females and the females upon the males.
Therefore it is said, "Everyone who seeks the truth from true wisdom will make
himself wings so as to fly, fleeing the lust that scorches the spirits of men."
And he will make himself wings to flee every visible spirit." (T the C)  Compare
this to saying 22, and 114 (nl).

(22) Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to His disciples : "These infants
who suck are like those who enter the Kingdom." They said to Him : "Shall we
then enter the Kingdom as infants ?" Jesus said to them : "When You make the two
one, and when You make the inside like the outside and the outside like the
inside, and the above like the below, and when You make the male and the female
one, so that the male will not be male nor the female female ; and when You
fashion eyes in place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in
place of a foot, and a likeness in the place of a likeness ; then will You enter
the Kingdom."

If 'Contender' was a work from a Thomas community then the rest of it will
reflect at least some of what a Thomas community had in terms of its primary
concerns in adjusting Thomas concepts of individualism to working community.  I
am not attempting that here.

There is one other part of the Contender which may give a clue to a Thomas
lineage.....

The secret words that the savior spoke to Judas Thomas which I, even I,
Mathaias, wrote down, while I was walking, listening to them speak with one
another.

Thomas to Jesus...."....before your ascension, and when I hear from......."

Mathias was not Matthew here, it was Mathias who was chosen as an apostle in the
place of Judas,
(Ac.1v15-26.).  The 'Contender' is pre ascension, post Judas. I think the
'Contender' reflects a community who used Thomas, perhaps knew Thomas or
Mathias, and used Mary as well. As to what other texts were used is up for
speculation. I do not think we are looking at communal living but respect for
property, women, and salvation through self discovery.

Tom Saunders
Platter Flats, OK

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tom,

I would certainly agree with you that "The Contender" shows evidence of a
familiarity with GTh. But I would like to focus on your citation of Thom 21
and take it in a different direction.

> (21) (a) Mary said to Jesus : "To who are Your disciples like ?" He said :
"They are like children who have settled in a field which is not theirs.
When the owners of the field come, they will say : 'Let us have our field
back.' When they will let them have the field back they will stand naked in
their presence.
>
> (b)Therefore I say to You, if the owner of a house knows that the thief is
coming, he will stay awake till he comes and will not let him break in the
house of his domain to carry away his goods. You, then, be on Your guard
against the world. Gird Your loins with great strength so that the robbers
find no way to come to You, for they will find the advantage which You
expect.
>
> (c)Let there be among You a smart man. When the fruit is ripe, he quickly
came with his sickle in his hand and harvests it. He who has ears to hear,
let him hear."
>
> I have divided it into three parts because they seem to have a naturally
divided strata at these places in the body of the saying.

There are certainly odd divisions or seams within 21, as you point out. But
before we conclude that these are strata (i.e., historically "horizontal"
divisions, rather than "vertical" ones), we need to look at Thom 35 and 103.

35: "It isn't possible for someone to enter the house of a strong (person)
(and) take it by force unless he binds his hands. Then he will loot his
house."

103: "Blessed is the man who knows where/when the robbers are going to
enter, so that he may arise to gather together his kingdom and gird his
loins before they enter." (Patterson tr, with some emendation)

Thom 103 in particular shares a number of points of contact with 21B: the
robbers, "arising" or staying awake, girding one's loins. If 21b, then, had
been appended to 103, there would be no question but that the intro to 21b
("Therefore I say to you...") made sense. As it stands, however, it doesn't.
Barring some extraordinary stretch of the imagination, 21b simply doesn't
belong with 21a. Nor does 21c have any obvious relationship to either A or B
(to say nothing of the fact that even the parts of 21c seem disparate).

How to explain the existence of these seams in Thom 21? General sloppiness?
Some obscure connections between its parts which we can only imagine? Or is
it possible that the fact that Thom 21 is at the end of a 29-line block of
text (comprised of sayings 20 and 21) is of some significance? Could the
reference to "the owner of the field" in 21a have been intended to suggest
that the disciples of 21a were "residing in" a "field" composed of 21b-c,
and that when the owner(s) of _that_ "field" came, then the "disciples"
would "strip off their clothing" in the sense of either 21b-c being removed,
or 21a being replaced? Specifically, should Thom 103 be regarded as "the
owner" of 21b, with the latter perhaps being also represented by a different
metaphor in GPhil as an "orphan" whom "Christ came to ransom"? Furthermore,
if "the heavens and the earth will be rolled up in your presence" is a
reference to textual relocation, should we perhaps understand this as a clue
that such relocations would begin at the _end_ of a block of text (where 21
is located)?

As to 21c: "Let there be a man of understanding among you" (lest the readers
not apprehend that the text they're reading is a mystery puzzle, and that
they thus have to physically interact with it?) "When the fruit ripened, he
came quickly with his sickle in his hand" - implying perhaps that when some
textual segment has been made perfect, it's to be immediately "harvested"
(as Jesus was)? Food for thought, I hope.

Mike Grondin
The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm

Tom Saunders writes:
  > Both Crossan and Robinson make the claim that
  >"The Book of Thomas The Contender" is composed from
  >two or more other documents.
  >It is the first part of the 'Contender' text
  >that most would agree relates to the Gospel of Thomas.
  >I would like to point out a couple of things
  >which might reflect the general questions about a Thomas community.
  >

it could also be of pre-christian (jewish wisdom) origin
and deuterochristianized by apocalyptic christians.

This is suggested by 'contender' which might be the translation of 'esra'
as in 'esra-el' , a pseudonym for the patriarch Yacob who struggled
with the lord, somewhere in the Pentateuch, and was partiallyt paralyzed
through the vigor of the fight. This had consequences for the koshut.


Klaus Schilling

Mike says,

   ("Therefore I say to you...") made sense. As it stands, however, it doesn't.
   Barring some extraordinary stretch of the imagination, 21b simply doesn't
   belong with 21a. Nor does 21c have any obvious relationship to either A or B
   (to say nothing of the fact that even the parts of 21c seem disparate).

   How to explain the existence of these seams in Thom 21? General sloppiness?


   No. I think it was on purpose. And, the connections may actually permeate
Thomas, we do not know the exact original intent for the redaction. But I think
clues that may have an underlying innuendo can be used to figure it out, if we
look at the time Thomas was written. Consider that the  'Woe to the Pharisees'
sayings were written at the Apostle's Village, about the village.

   If they are in fact about the dissent in the early community, then the three
parts of 21 would at least be meant as a secondary reference to those issues at
question in the Village. The Pharisees and scribes are thieves. This could be a
clear message, relevant to 21.  At the same time there is an underlying
requirement to hide that innuendo.

   There is no doubt one saying would by nature of the text itself also appear in
relationship to the other sayings. This literary feature makes distinctions even
harder. This feature also seems to be a staple of its literary style, and
epistemological and structural design.  (It might make most analogies to the
sayings valid as the sayings all relate in some form to all the other sayings.)

   To enforce the integrity of the design as to the body of Thomas, 21 stands out
as contrary to the 'flow' of the rest of the text, as to say, "look here." 
Saying 21 relates issues in the early church that split followers up during the
first five years of Christianity.  This is probably when many of the parts of
what was to become Q and Thomas were written.  Thomas became Thomas from here.

   The events that made Thomas decide to go out of the Village on his own would
have been relevant to his epistemology.  He was thought of as a person who
thought differently from the rest of the Apostles and the conflicts of the
Village may have offended his sensibilities. His idea of individualism simply
seems to clash with anything the Didache and Peter demands upon community.

   Thomas' doctrine is one of self discovery, and the idea of how a community
might work in this picture differs greatly from Peter and Paul, and their sense
of community.  Thomas is pro-house owner, pro women, and not inclined to believe
in Jewish law and dependence on living under that kind of authoritarian rule. 
Peter has demanded strict authoritarian control, which clashes with
individuality and self discovery.

   Paul comes along in 36 C.E. (Crossan's date) and later reveals in his letters
the rifts concerning Jewish law, women, and the dark forces of evil. Q has
already turned apocalyptic and Luke is recording Acts which may actually soften
the reality of social problems of Jerusalem Christians. Christian communities
exist in Antioch, Damascus, Jerusalem, and points in-between.  At this point the
new religion is too big to stop, or control.

   A house system is in place where Peter wants to franchise a common property
doctrine.  Mary owned a house. The "Holy Spirit" in Peter's realm has killed
people over the issue of personal ownership. Very disturbing. The residents are
highly disturbed. Peter has used punishment contingency for social control, and
this is more than some can take. It is a socio-cultural disaster.  Phillip left
on his own first, which set the course for others to up and leave to gather
their own flocks.

   The Mary Gospel reflects self discovery, and refutes Peter's take on women,
like Thomas 114.  Another common thread is how the Holy Spirit and the dark
forces of evil are treated in these texts.  Remember that the first part of
'Contender' is about Thomas. This in reference to obtaining the 'light' referred
to here as the exalted heights of the pleroma.

   "If the deeds of the truth, that are visible in the world are difficult for
you (all) to perform, how indeed, then shall you perform those that pertain to
the exalted height and the pleroma which are not visible. In this respect you
are apprentices, and have not yet received the height of perfection."

   Perfection is wearing the Holy Spirit like Cebes wears the soul. Acts reflects
abundant problems concerning Peter and this phenomena. Paul lists individual
differences in the effect of whatever this phenomena was, and the whole subject
of docetics (spirit power) got out of hand.  Thomas reflects a real
understanding of the idea of knowing yourself, and preparing to meet the light,
by knowing yourself. Thomas became heresy almost the minute it walked away from
'other Christians."

   Thomas saw "robbers coming into the house."  He was gone by 36 because only
James the Just was there upon Paul's first visit.(Crossan)  Thomas was probably
there for the Apostle's Council, and that is also where the last redactions of
the GThom could have been made.  From there Thomas built followings way East,
and they thrived far enough away from the West to develop followings for four
hundred years.

   'Contender' shows an extension or lineage of an original ministry.  It
stresses individualism and I think Tatain's ministry the Encrotites (Masters of
Ourselves) reflects further information relevant to Thomas, especially his
"Letter to the Greeks."  In other words it fills in some of the blanks like
'Contender.'

   Thomas and Tatian's work by that time was heretical, and any communion with
the holy spirit, other than through the organized church was a serious threat of
authority, to the authorities.  Tatian, Marcion, and others, had to become their
own authority.  I think that is exactly what Thomas does.

   The primary issues in conflict are individualism, vs. community control. 
Doctrines of individualism, like Thomas' necessitate a different community value
system.  Thomas made individuals, and would probably laugh at the epistemology
of the Didache as hard as he would at Tammy Faye Bakker.

   These 'individualists' (Thomas Community?) were people who had to have been
realizing an entirely different Christian experience than what Peter had
presented. Peter's was a program of obedience to community, not individualism,
and it had failed before 36.  It had produced the Jesus Robbers and the False
Prophets. Peter's reign produced Thomas in that sense and if the sayings are
read with that in mind I think there will be a lot of possible connections.

   Tom Saunders
   Platter Flats, OK

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Early Christian Writings has received a mention in the Monday (Dec. 23)
edition of the Wall Street Journal, in an editorial column titled "Thinking
it Over" by Robert L. Bartley.  A copy of it can be found online here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=110002809

--
Peter Kirby (Student at Fullerton College, CA)
9:46pm up 7:39, Mandrake Linux 9.0, kernel 2.4.19-16mdk on AMD Athlon 750
Web Site: http://www.outofprintbooksearch.com/
Web Site: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Let us look at GTh 76,  "Jesus said, 'The Kingdom of the Father is like a
merchant who had a consignment of merchandise and who discovered a pearl.
That merchant was shrewd.  He sold the merchandise and bought the pearl
alone for himself. You too, seek his unfailing and enduring treasure where
no moth comes near to devour and no worm destroys."

I suggest that the image is that of a merchant of a very expensive fabric
that came to him by ship.

The merchandise appears to be a fabric because it can be eaten by moths and
worms (i.e., caterpillars).  It  appears to be expensive because, with the
commission from selling it, the merchant could afford to buy a pearl--a
luxury item..

The presence of a pearl in the merchandise suggests that it came to the
merchant by sea: with the person caring for the merchandise during its
sea-voyage either finding the pearl himself or else buying it in a port
where the boat was temporarily moored and then hiding it in the merchandise.

As for the sitz im leben of this parable, I suggest that it is Tyre.  It was
a port city.  Further, as a Phoenician city, it was a center for the trade
in silk--a very expensive fabric.  In Hellenistic Civilisation (p. 257),
W.W. Tarn states that "there must already have been a large silk industry in
Phoenicia (which worked up 'Arabian' imports), for silk became so common
that in 91 (BCE) the women at Messene had to be prohibited from wearing
transparent dresses during initiation."

Indeed, we know that there were Babylonian Jewish silk merchants residing in
Tyre.  So, W.H.C. Frend, in The Rise of Christianity (p.31), states, "Tyre
on the Mediterranean coast and Edessa in the upper valley of the Eupharates
were two cities which contained groups of Babylonian Jewish silk merchants."

So, I suggest, GTh 76 likely has a has a Tyrian sitz im leben, with the
merchant assumed to be a Babylonian Jewish silk merchant residing there.  In
this case, the merchandise on consignment was silk from "Arabia" (note:
there was a wild silkworm in Western Asia), probably come from the Arabian
peninsula largely by boat, i.e., a leg by boat up the Red Sea and another
leg by boat from Egypt to Tyre.  The buyers would have been other Tyrians
who worked the silk into garments and likely dyed some of these garments
Tyrian purple so as to get a higher price for them.  The finished garments
would then have been shipped by Tryian traders elsewhere, particularly Rome,
for sale as luxury items.

In support of this suggestion, GTh 76 appears to come from the postulated
Pre-Thomas: which, as I have pointed out in some previous posts, reflects a
Jewish orientation.  So, that the merchant would be a Babylonian *Jewish*
silk merchant fits well with the apparent placement of 76 in the Jewish
stratum of GTh.

Now it is noteworthy that a group of Babylonian Jewish silk merchants also
resided at Edessa.  So, if some of the Babylonian Jewish silk merchants
residing in Tyre had become members of the Thomas Church, then the
expectation is that they had proselytized their comrades in Edessa.

So, if Edessa had become a major center of  the Thomas tradition, then this
would provide support for this suggestion.

Indeed, this is the case!

So, in The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics (p. 140), Jean Doresse
states. "Now, this precise district (round Edessa) seems to have given rise
to swarms of various kinds of apocryphal works; and on the subject of
Thomas, it is remarkable that they seem to spring from the same tradition as
that found in the *incipit* of our Coptic gospel and more clearly still in
our *Book of Thomas*.  For example, they call him by the same peculiar and
reptitive name, 'Didymus Jude Thomas'.  He is already given the double name
of 'Jude thomas' by authors as closely linked to Edessa as Tatian, Ephraem,
the fictitious correspondence of Abgar king of Edessa with Jesus, or the
*Doctrine of the Apostles*.  In the apocryphal *Acta* devoted to him (and
which were written at Edessa, in Syriac, in the third century), he is also
currently called 'Jude Thomas', and, in the first chapter, also 'Jude Thomas
Didymus'.  Further, in Chapter 39 of these apocryphal *Acts of Thomas*, we
find the phrase: 'Twin of Christ, apostle of the Most-High, thou who art
also initiated into the hidden teaching of Christ and hast received his
secret words!': which corresponds exactly to the claims made by our *Gospel
According to Thomas* and by our *Book of Thomas written by Matthias*.
Moreover, these same *Acta* contain a precise reference to a characteristic
passage of the new Gospel--the three words which the Saviour said to the
Apostle and which he could not reveal..."

  So, I suggest, the Thomas community at Edessa was founded by Babylonian
Jewish silk merchants living there who had been converted to Thomas
Christianity by some of their Tryian brethern.

A further thought: From Edessa, two major trade routes ran to India--one
going south and east to the Red Sea and from there eastwards through the
extreme northen Indian Ocean, the other going mainly east over land.  Along
these trade routes, ideas might have flowed from India to Edessa.  These
ideas, in turn, might have been picked up by the Babylonian Jewish silk
merchants at Edessa and then spread to their brethren in Tyre,  So, if this
suggestion is correct,  then it increases the probability that there is an
influence of Indian thought on the Thomas tradition.

What do you think of this suggestion?

Frank McCoy
1809 N. English Apt. 17
Maplewood, MN USA 55109

> Let us look at GTh 76,  "Jesus said, 'The Kingdom of the Father is like a
> merchant who had a consignment of merchandise and who discovered a pearl.
> That merchant was shrewd.  He sold the merchandise and bought the pearl
> alone for himself. You too, seek his unfailing and enduring treasure where
> no moth comes near to devour and no worm destroys."
>
>  So, I suggest, the Thomas community at Edessa was founded by Babylonian
> Jewish silk merchants living there who had been converted to Thomas
> Christianity by some of their Tryian brethern.
>
> A further thought: From Edessa, two major trade routes ran to India--one
> going south and east to the Red Sea and from there eastwards through the
> extreme northen Indian Ocean, the other going mainly east over land.
Along
> these trade routes, ideas might have flowed from India to Edessa.  These
> ideas, in turn, might have been picked up by the Babylonian Jewish silk
> merchants at Edessa and then spread to their brethren in Tyre,  So, if
this
> suggestion is correct,  then it increases the probability that there is an
> influence of Indian thought on the Thomas tradition.
>
> What do you think of this suggestion?

Frank,

It seems to me that both the "pearl" & the "merchandise" may be
metaphorical, & not at all linked to Tyre or Indian trade routes.  It
certainly is true that much of the scriptures--from whatever religion--is
intended to be taken symbolically.  However, symbolic analyses often run
into problems with individual bias: a Freudian & a Jungian will come to
radically different understandings of the same image.

The pearl as a symbol appears in both Gnostic & Christian literature--"do
not throw your pearls before swine" pops into my mind immediately.  So my
question is, could the pearl mentioned here be part of the same tradition
that gave us the "Hymn of the Pearl" & the pearl mentioned in the Acts of
Thomas?  Would this make of Thomas a Gnostic document?  What does the pearl
_mean_ as a symbol?  Could the "moth" & "worm" which consume also be figures
of speech?  More importantly, could these latter 2 acts of destruction be
just a common idiom, & not at all intended to refer to the "merchandise"?

Jim Bauer
Havre, MT