Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [GTh] editors & compilers

Expand Messages
  • Grondin
    ... 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
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 24, 2002
      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.

    • smithand44
      ... filled by a material form, secondly that of the Divine Word, which God Himself has completely filled throughout the incorporeal potencies.... There is a
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 24, 2002
        --- In gthomas@y..., "Tom Saunders" <tom@c...> wrote:
        > Philo wrote:
        > "Now "place" has a three-fold meaning, firstly that of a space
        filled by a material form, secondly that of the Divine Word, which
        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.


        Andrew Smith
      • Grondin
        ... it 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
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 24, 2002
          Tom Saunders writes:
          > An internal system does not negate the outside or external, it just makes
          it 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 the
          SMSB. 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 are
          described in Mary, Phillip and the A of J., what we would call psychological
          today. The following from A of John:
          > "The four chief demons are: Ephememphi, who belongs to pleasure, Yoko,
          who belongs to desire, Nenentophni, who belongs to grief, Blaomen, who
          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 internal
          epistemology 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
          to Wu-ji.

          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 that
          Jesus 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.

        • Ron McCann
          Jack, 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
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 28, 2002

            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.

            Best Regards,

            Ron McCann
            Saskatoon, Canada

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
            To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
            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
            > perfected."
            > 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.
            > Jack
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.