Re: [GTh] editors & compilers
- Jim Bauer writes:
> Are you using the term "monad" in the sense defined by Leibnitz?No - in the sense defined (if you can call it that) in the Apocryphon of
John (p.106-7 of Robinson's NHLe, e.g.). As I recall, Leibnitz had a system
of multiple monads with the God-monad at the top, whereas in AoJ, there's
only one monad.
- --- In gthomas@y..., "Tom Saunders" <tom@c...> wrote:
> Philo wrote:filled by a material form, secondly that of the Divine Word, which
> "Now "place" has a three-fold meaning, firstly that of a space
God Himself has completely filled throughout the incorporeal
potencies.... There is a third signification, in keeping with which
God Himself is called a place, by reason of His containing things,
and being contained by nothing whatever, and being a place for all to
flee into, and because He is Himself the space which holds Him; for
He is that which He Himself has occupied, and naught encloses Him but
Great quote, Tom, do you have a full reference for it? Interesting
that he identified 'place' with 'logos.' While translating GTh from
Mike's interlinear version I kept coming across "in the place which",
which can easily be, and usually is, rendered as simply 'where.' It
struck me as another technical term in GTh, but I hadn't come across
or remembered any interpretation of 'place' meaning an internal place.
e.g. In the following it is something that we are to aim for,
18, "for the end will be in the place where the Beginning is." or
67 "lacks that place within himself" or "that place where moths do
not consume nor worms destroy." In 68 "you are blessed when... you
are not found within the place where you are persecuted", that place
being the heart, we are told in #69.
- Tom Saunders writes:
> An internal system does not negate the outside or external, it just makesit work differently. Sometimes it is a subtle difference. Not to confuse
anyone but the saying and idea the "Kingdom is inside you and outside you"
is in effect perfectly compatible with an internal system.
I've since discovered a way to make it compatible that differs from what I
suggested earlier, and also differs from the way you choose below:
> It is the portal which makes the distinction. In this case it is theSMSB. This is where man is connected with the universe and the light. And
this pathway is through the internal self of man. In an external system God
has a seperate portal outside the intrinsic whole of the individual. In the
external system both God and demons are externally based outside the soul,
spirit, and body. They are a seperate entity.
I can't make much sense of this idea of "portals". Do you mean that man has
by nature an in-built "piece of God", as it were - as opposed to having no
connection at all with God at birth? If so, I don't know how you could
defend the claim that such a view is inconsistent with the gospels. The
"SMSB" is there, too, and they agree with GTh that the innocent babe enters
into "the Kingdom", and that couldn't be so if man had no connection with
God at birth.
But I have been doing some thinking about this "internal/external" thingy.
Take minds, for example. We would say that they're internal - as opposed to
such external objects as hands and feet - but yet most minds are outside of
me, i.e., external TO ME. So minds are the kind of thing that's both inside
you and outside you. Or take a quality like wisdom - I have some, you have
some, we all have some. The thing itself is inherently internal (except in
Platonic thought, which postulates an external object of perfect Wisdom),
but a lot of it is outside myself. So again, one could say of wisdom that
it's both inside you and outside you. The problem posed by "the Kingdom",
however, is that it's seemingly not like either of these examples. It's not
multiple things, like minds, nor is it (unless McCoy is right, which I don't
admit) a quality like wisdom. If, however, it's a belief or set of beliefs
(call it 'B'), then it could be said that B is inside me, and that B is
inside others, who themselves are external to me, hence that the
intrinsically-internal B is both inside me and outside me.
> The interanl system accounts for God and demons being as they aredescribed in Mary, Phillip and the A of J., what we would call psychological
today. The following from A of John:
>who belongs to desire, Nenentophni, who belongs to grief, Blaomen, who
> "The four chief demons are: Ephememphi, who belongs to pleasure, Yoko,
belongs to fear. ...
Clearly, the description of these "demons" ties into human attributes. That
is probably what a "demon" was for the AoJ Gnostics. But in order to support
your claim that the _entire_ cosmology is "internal", you have to account
for the _major_ beings (the Monad, Barbelo, Ialtabaoth, et al).
> One example of the A of J being rightfully a description of an internalepistemology is this paragragh which in effect describes what in the Dao is
known as Wu ji, limitless energy. Wu ji is the next concept after Dao,
which means exactly the same thing as logos. 'He' in this case translates
References to Eastern philosophy are probably unilluminating to most
list-members, so it's best to stay away from that.
> The Dao ... does not recognize the soul. This may be the flaw thatJesus saw in the Daoist philosophy.
Umm - he probably didn't know anything about Dao at all. Do you have any
reason for assuming so, other than chronology and an uncertain degree of
ideational similarity? Again, I'd stay away from this entirely. Unless you
can demonstrate that the folks we're talking about had definite and explicit
knowledge of Dao, it's just an irrelevant complication.
Although your comments didn't seem too me to be precisely on point here,
since you raised this issue, I thought I should address it.
As you know, I subscribe to the view that Mark, The Q people, and Thomas all
took some of their material from a common earlier source document- a Loggia
Collection allegedly assembled and written down by the Apostle Matthew in
Aramaic. There are several attestations to the existence of such a document
in early writings, and Eusebius comments that "everyone (Greek speakers)
translated it as best he could". Naturally then, sayings taken from it and
converted to Greek, might retain some of the original Aramaic form and
flavor which you seem to find in them. A double or triple attestation in
Mark, Q, or Thomas suggests to me an origin in this Aramaic collection; some
variations attributable to translation variances and/or editing. On this
view, Markan-Thomas parallels, nay, even the occasional Markan-Thomas
"exclusive", are not surprising.
Although I am over-simplifying, Thomas itself, seems to be a combination of
material from this collection, (whenever a Thomas saying has a Synoptic
parallel) and material from another collection with no Synoptic parallels-
the so called 'secret" stream. Whereas about a dozen of the latter's sayings
are probably intrusive- added about AD 95 or even later, say, the rest of
them may comprise a genuine core of material provided by the Apostle Thomas-
his "take" so to speak. It seems odd that this Gospel and this material
would be attributed to Thomas if he provided nothing for it. And the Gospel
itself attests he did. If all the material, as you have suggested, came from
Peter, why not call it Peter's Gospel? If anything, the Gospel seems
anti-Petrine, but of course those may be late additions.
It seems to me that it would be most productive to examine the
non-Synoptic-parallel material of Thomas, the so-called "hidden" or "secret"
stream for any indications that some of this had originally been written in
Aramaic. All examples I have seen from you, where you explore this, have
been sayings with Synoptic parallels, mostly Mark, as I recall. If I am
right about Thomas (who likely spoke and wrote in Aramaic) providing these
sayings, these non-Synoptic-parallel sayings should preserve some of that
Aramaic flavor and may disclose evidence of being in an early written form.
One might begin with such sayings as the Parable of the Woman with the Jar,
or the Parable of the Killing of the Powerful Man. I lack the expertise to
do this myself. I have no Greek or Aramaic. Have you by any chance done this
with any of the non-Synoptic-parallel sayings in Thomas (Thomas
"exclusives')? Has anyone?
It strikes me that if none exhibit any Aramaic flavor or provenance, then
*all* the so called "secret" sayings of Thomas are likely late additions,
and were not part of the early core.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: [GTh] editors & compilers
> The GoT is essentially a list of "Jesus saids..." and according to various
> references by the patristics there may have been several floating around
> the latter half of the first century. Most scholars postulate "Q" as a
> common sayings source document used by Matthew and Luke (although I
> Luke used an Aramaic "Q" while the Matthean scribe used a Greek
> and some believe that GoT had its origins in the "Logia/Q" trajectory. I
> have always been fascinated by the Markan/Thomas parallels. Cllement in
> Letter to Theodosius that discusses "Secret Mark" says:
> "But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both
> his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former
> books the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge.
> Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were
> Could this be a clue to the origins of Thomas? Mark's and Peter's notes
> would certainly include a list of "Jesus saids..." I can well understand
> how Peter/Kefa's own list of "Jesus saids...." could take on a life of its
> own. Translated from Peter's Aramaic notes to a Greek document (P. Oxy
> trajectory) and then into Coptic when Gnostics adopted and slightly
> the list that was, after all, "wisdom stuff." If I read my Goulder
> correctly, a Petrine origin would explain the preservation of Logion 12
> (which I believe is genuinely Yeshuine). Although the canonical Mark is
> the same edition, it still contains materials from the Alexandrian edition
> noticeable in the Thomas parallels.
> OK, that's my wild, rabid speculation on the origin of GoT and how it got
> Egypt and that it was not originally Syrian but Palestinian Aramaic.