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

Re: [GTh] Proto-Thomas

Expand Messages
  • fmmccoy
    INTRODUCTION In some past posts, I have postulated that, within GThomas, is an earlier gospel that can be called Proto-Thomas. It is hypothesised that it
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 27, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      INTRODUCTION

      In some past posts, I have postulated that, within GThomas, is an earlier
      gospel that can be called Proto-Thomas.

      It is hypothesised that it consists of three sections. (1) 2-10, which is a
      nine unit segment (SsssDsssS), (2) 31-48 + 61-65 + 89-90, which is a 25 unit
      segment (SsssssDsssssDsssssDsssssS) and (3) 91-99, which is a nine unit
      segment (DsssSsssD).
      (Note: s = saying unit, d = dialogue unit, S = significant saying unit, D =
      significant saying unit).

      In this post, it is pointed out that the significant units (i.e., the S and
      D units) form a mirror symmetrical pattern by topic.

      The existence of this mirror symmetrical pattern by topic increases the
      probability that the postulated Proto-Thomas really did exist.

      THE SIGNIFICANT UNITS

      In the postulated Proto-Thomas, the signicant units are (1) unit 2, an S
      unit, (2) unit 6, a D unit, (3) unit 10, an S unit, (4) unit 31, an S unit,
      (5) unit 37, a D unit, (6) unit 43, a D unit, (7) unit 61, a D unit, (8)
      unit 90, an S unit, (9) unit 91, a D unit, (10) unit 95, an S unit, and (11)
      unit 99, a D unit.

      The proposed mirror symmetrical arrangement of these eleven significant
      units by topic is this:
      1. (1) and (11), i.e., units 2 and 99: each regards those who are rewarded
      2. (2) and (10), i.e., units 6 and 95: each regards ethics
      3. the interior seven, i.e., units 10, 31, 37, 43, 61, 90, and 91: each one
      that is a dialogue unit has one or more people asking Jesus for information
      about himself, while each one that is a sayings unit has Jesus speaking
      about himself.

      THE REWARDED ONES UNITS 2 & 99

      The two outer significant units, il.e., units 2 and 99, both regard those
      who are rewarded. Unit 2 speaks of how those who seek until they find will
      be rewarded by ruling over the All. Unit 99 speaks of how those who do the
      will of God will be rewarded by becoming members of Jesus' true family and
      by entering into the Kingdom.

      2.Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he
      finds he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be
      astonished, and he will rule over the All."

      99. The disciples said to Him, "Your brothers and Your mother are standing
      outside." He said to them, "Those here who do the will of My Father are My
      brothers and My mother. It is they who will enter the Kingdom of My Father

      THE ETHICAL UNITS 6 & 95

      The next two significant units, i.e., units 6 and 95, both regard ethics.
      In unit 6, we learn, what is important is to be truthful and observe the
      Golden Rule. In unit 95, we learn, we should help the poor by lending them
      money that, we know, they cannot pay back.

      6. His disciples questioned Him and said to Him, "Do You want us to fast?
      How shall we pray? Shall we give alms? What diet shall we observe?" Jesus
      said, "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are
      plain in the sight of heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest,
      and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered."

      95. [Jesus said,], "If you have money, do not lend it at interest, but give
      [it] to one from whom you will not get it back."


      THE INNER UNITS: THE FOCUS IS ON JESUS

      In the inner significant units, i.e., units 10, 31, 37, 43, 61, 90, and 91,
      the focus is on Jesus.

      In each of the dialogue units, a request is made to Jesus for information
      about himself. So, in 37, we have, "When will you become revealed to us
      and when shall we see You?". Again, in 43, we have, "Who are You, that You
      should say these things to us?" Also, in 61, we have, "Who are You, man,
      that You, as though from the One, have come up on my couch and eaten from my
      table?" Finally, in 91, we have, "Tell us who You are so that we may
      believe in You."

      In each of the sayings units, i.e., units 10, 31, and 90, Jesus speaks about
      himself.

      10. Jesus said, "I have cast fire upon the world, and see, I am guarding it
      until it blazes."

      31.Jesus said, "No prophet is accepted in his own village; no physician
      heals those who know him."

      37. His disciples said, "When will you become revealed to us and when shall
      we see You?" Jesus said, "When you disrobe without being ashamed and take
      up your garments and place them under your feet like little children and
      tread on them, then [will you see] the Son of the Living One and you will
      not be afraid."

      43. His disciples said to him, "Who are You, that You should say these
      things to us?" "You do not realize who I am from what I say to you, but you
      have become like the Jews, for they (either) love the tree and hate its
      fruit (or) love the fruit and hate the tree."

      61. Jesus said, "Two will rest on a bed: the one will die and the other will
      live." Salome said, "Who are You, man, that You, as though from the One
      (or: as <whose son>, that You) have come up on my couch and eaten from my
      table?" Jesus said to her, "I am He who exists from the Undivided. I was
      given some of the things of My father." <Salome said,> "I am your
      disciple." "Therefore I say, if he is <undivided>, he will be filled with
      light, but if he is divided, he will be filled with darkness."

      90. Jesus said, "Come unto me, for My yoke is easy and My lordship is mild,
      and you will find repose for yourselves."

      91. They said to Him, "Tell us who You are so that we may believe in You."
      He said to them, "You read the face of the sky and of the earth, but you
      have not recognized the one who (or: that which) is before you, and you do
      not know how to read this moment."

      (Note 1: It is not explicitly clear that Jesus speaks of himself in 31.
      However, we know from the canonical gospel parallels that, in this saying,
      Jesus is referring to himself.)

      (Note 2: Outside of 61, the request to Jesus for information about himself
      begins the dialogue unit. This leads me to suspect that, in the postulated
      Proto-Thomas, 61 was shorter and did not contain the initial sentence.
      Also, the last two sentences in 61 might be later additions as well. So, I
      think that the original 61 in Proto-Thomas likely read, "Salome said, 'Who
      are You, man, that You, as though from the One (or: as <whose son>, that
      You) have come up on my couch and eaten from my table?' Jesus said to her,
      'I am He who exists from the Undivided. I was given some of the things of
      My father.'" )

      A LOGOS CHRISTOLOGY

      In the seven significant units where the focus is on Jesus, the Christology
      appears to be that of Jesus being the Logos.

      The first clue is that there are seven of these units: for there is a
      linkage between the Logos and the number seven. So, in L.A. i (16), Philo
      states, "Whenever there comes upon the soul the holy Logos of which Seven is
      the keynote, six together with all mortal things that the soul sems to make
      therewith comes to a stop."

      Very important is the center unit, 43: His disciples said to him, "Who are
      You, that You should say these things to us?" "You do not realize who I am
      from what I say to you, but you have become like the Jews, for they (either)
      love the tree and hate its fruit (or) love the fruit and hate the tree."

      Pears are the fruit of a pear tree. Apples are the fruit of an apple tree.
      What Jesus says, i.e., the words of God, are his fruit. Therefore he is the
      Word of God "tree": the "tree" whose "fruit" consists of the words of God.
      What he is telling his disciples, then, is they fail to recognize from his
      fruit, i.e., the words of God he speaks, that he is the Word of God.

      Again, in 37, Jesus declares himself to be the Son of the Living One and, in
      61, speaks of God as my Father. Similarly, the Logos is a Son of God.

      Too, in 31, Jesus speaks of himself as being a prophet and a physician.
      Similarly, the Logos is both a prophet and a physician. So, in Deus (138),
      Philo speaks about "that Logos which is the Interpreter and Prophet of God."
      Again, Wisdom 16:12 declares, "It was neither herb, nor mollifying plaster,
      that restored them to health; but Thy Logos O Lord, which healeth all
      things."

      Also, in 90, Jesus speaks of how easy is his lordship and how one can have
      repose with him. Compare Som i (129), where Philo states, "He does so...to
      repose upon the divine Logos and lay his whole life, lightest of burdens,
      thereon."

      Finally, in 10, Jesus speaks of the fire he has cast on the world and how he
      is guarding it until it blazes. This is, I suggest, the "fire" of Wisdom
      that can set the mind ablaze. So, in Heres (309), Philo states, "Yet great
      thanks are due to Him who sowed these flickering sparks, to the end that the
      mind should not be chilled by passion like dead bodies but warmed and heated
      by the glowing coals of Virtue (i.e., Wisdom) be quickened into flame, till
      it finds its its full conversion into sacred fire". In this case, what
      Jesus is saying is that he has cast Wisdom into human minds and he is
      guarding her within these minds until they are set ablaze. The Logos
      possesses this Wisdom, and can sow her into our minds, so, if this
      suggestion is correct, then Jesus speaks as the Logos in 10.

      CONCLUDING REMARKS

      The significant units in the postulated Proto-Thomas form a mirror
      symmetrical pattern by topic. This increases the probability that
      Proto-Thomas once was a real document.

      Together, they give you a rudimentary understanding of the basics. What
      must I do to be saved? You must seek [Wisdom] until you find [Wisdom] and
      you must do the will of God. How ought I act in everyday life? You ought
      to speak truthfully, obey the Golden Rule, and lend to those who cannot pay
      you back. Who is Jesus? He is the Logos of God.

      Frank McCoy
      1809 N. English Apt. 17
      Maplewood, MN USA 55109
    • Jim Bauer
      ... From: fmmccoy To: Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 5:51 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Proto-Thomas ... a ... unit
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 28, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "fmmccoy" <FMMCCOY@...>
        To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 5:51 PM
        Subject: Re: [GTh] Proto-Thomas


        > INTRODUCTION
        >
        > In some past posts, I have postulated that, within GThomas, is an earlier
        > gospel that can be called Proto-Thomas.
        >
        > It is hypothesised that it consists of three sections. (1) 2-10, which is
        a
        > nine unit segment (SsssDsssS), (2) 31-48 + 61-65 + 89-90, which is a 25
        unit
        > segment (SsssssDsssssDsssssDsssssS) and (3) 91-99, which is a nine unit
        > segment (DsssSsssD).
        > (Note: s = saying unit, d = dialogue unit, S = significant saying unit, D
        =
        > significant saying unit).
        <snip>

        ISTM, IMHO, that Thomas is pretty much totally random & not really
        mathematically organized, like you attempt to do here. As Stevan Davies
        pointed out in a reply to one of my posts awhile ago, Thomas looks like it
        was written by "a bunch of people sitting around trying to remember things
        Jesus said, or was supposed to have said". If the author(s) of Thomas went
        so far as to go to all this elaborate math, why didn't they also include a
        narrative? One of the chief arguments for early dating is that the thing
        lacks the birth. ministry & passion/resurrection material found in the
        canonical gospels. If s/he went to such great lengths as to distribute
        sayings around in square multiples of numbers &c, why didn't s/he include
        some kind of supporting narrative framework?

        Also, even for number mystics, you don't go around encoding things with no
        hope of decoding them. If Thomas were really meant to be read as a sequence
        of square numbers, arrangement of sayings in mirror image groups, &c, why
        nothing to say this is going on? Number mysticism generally works by having
        some sort of preexistent code, like the number 7 or 4 (if you're a Jungian)
        or whatever, but it has to be something the person reading it sees as
        fitting into a pattern _which is to be recognized by the reader_; for
        example, I think it's more logical that these sayings would be distributed
        around in groups of seven, as that _was_ recognized as a magic number.
        There were seven metals, seven planets, seven this, seven that, because it
        was a magic number. Even as late as the time of Newton, (he being an
        alchemist), there were seven colors, but I've never been able to distinguish
        a separate "indigo" between blue & violet, he added this color because there
        _had_ to be seven colors!

        Besides this, I know of no usage of square numbers in mysticism by peoples
        of this time frame. though I must admit I'm no expert on the subject. I'm
        not even sure the concept of square numbers existed at this time. True,
        anyone can think of multiplying a number by itself, but I'd really have to
        consult a historian of mathematics on this one, though I'm not acquainted
        with anyone I could ask, offhand.

        If you're going to make the kind of arguments you do, you'd have to show
        that these "magic numbers" were, indeed, part of a known system of number
        mysticism existing during the 1st Century, & you'd probably have to do it
        for both Greek & Hebrew cultures, assuming that Proto-Thomas preceded the
        earliest Greek versions.

        Jim Bauer
        Havre, MT
      • fmmccoy
        ... From: Jim Bauer To: Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Proto-Thomas ... (Frank
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 28, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Jim Bauer" <jbauer@...>
          To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 3:30 PM
          Subject: Re: [GTh] Proto-Thomas


          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "fmmccoy" <FMMCCOY@...>
          > To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 5:51 PM
          > Subject: Re: [GTh] Proto-Thomas
          >
          (Frank McCoy)
          In some past posts, I have postulated that, within GThomas, is an earlier
          gospel that can be called Proto-Thomas.

          It is hypothesised that it consists of three sections. (1) 2-10, which is
          a nine unit segment (SsssDsssS), (2) 31-48 + 61-65 + 89-90, which is a 25
          unit segment (SsssssDsssssDsssssDsssssS) and (3) 91-99, which is a nine unit
          segment (DsssSsssD).
          (Note: s = saying unit, d = dialogue unit, S = significant saying unit, D =
          significant saying unit).

          > <snip>

          (Jim Bauer)
          > ISTM, IMHO, that Thomas is pretty much totally random & not really
          > mathematically organized, like you attempt to do here. As Stevan Davies
          > pointed out in a reply to one of my posts awhile ago, Thomas looks like it
          > was written by "a bunch of people sitting around trying to remember things
          > Jesus said, or was supposed to have said". If the author(s) of Thomas
          went
          > so far as to go to all this elaborate math, why didn't they also include a
          > narrative? One of the chief arguments for early dating is that the thing
          > lacks the birth. ministry & passion/resurrection material found in the
          > canonical gospels. If s/he went to such great lengths as to distribute
          > sayings around in square multiples of numbers &c, why didn't s/he include
          > some kind of supporting narrative framework?

          Hi Jim!

          What I am arguing is not that GThomas is mathematically organized, but that
          one of its postulated sources, which I refer to as Proto-Thomas, was
          mathematically organized.

          Too, I think we need to take into consideration 62a, which comes from the
          postulated Proto-Thomas, where Jesus says, "It is those [who are worthy of
          My] mysteries that I tell My mysteries."

          So, in the belief system of the Thomas community, Christianity is a mystery
          religion and its secrets are to be witheld from the unworthy. So, when
          writing a document, like the postulated Proto-Thomas, you make it
          deliberately obscure and unclear and use elaborate safeguards, such as a
          mathematical schema only known to "insiders", so that outsiders cannot learn
          of the mysteries they are not worthy to know.

          (Jim)
          Also, even for number mystics, you don't go around encoding things with no
          hope of decoding them. If Thomas were really meant to be read as a sequence
          of square numbers, arrangement of sayings in mirror image groups, &c, why
          nothing to say this is going on? Number mysticism generally works by having
          some sort of preexistent code, like the number 7 or 4 (if you're a Jungian)
          or whatever, but it has to be something the person reading it sees as
          fitting into a pattern _which is to be recognized by the reader_; for
          example, I think it's more logical that these sayings would be distributed
          around in groups of seven, as that _was_ recognized as a magic number. There
          were seven metals, seven planets, seven this, seven that, because it was a
          magic number. Even as late as the time of Newton, (he being an alchemist),
          there were seven colors, but I've never been able to
          distinguish a separate "indigo" between blue & violet, he added this color
          because there _had_ to be seven colors!

          (Frank)
          The key is that those "on the inside" did know how to decode them. That is
          to say, people deemed worthy to know the mysteries of the religion of the
          Thomas community were taught how to properly read its documents, such as the
          postulated Proto-Thomas.

          Certainly, seven was/is an important number. However, there were other
          important numbers also, such as twelve. Too, Pythagoreans and
          Neo-Pythagoreans saw siginificance in many numbers.

          (Jim)
          > Besides this, I know of no usage of square numbers in mysticism by peoples
          > of this time frame. though I must admit I'm no expert on the subject. I'm
          > not even sure the concept of square numbers existed at this time. True,
          > anyone can think of multiplying a number by itself, but I'd really have to
          > consult a historian of mathematics on this one, though I'm not acquainted
          > with anyone I could ask, offhand.

          (Frank)
          People did know about square numbers. For example, in Op
          (106), while expounding on the marvels of the number seven, Philo states,
          "The following is also mentioned to command the number 7 as occupying a
          wonderful place in nature, since it consists of 3+4: if we multiply by 2, we
          shall find that the third number, counted from 1, is a square, and the
          fourth a cube, while the seventh (and 7 is made up of 3 and 4), is at once a
          square and a cube: for the third number in this multiplication by 2, namely
          4, is a square, the fourth, 8, is a cube; the seventh, 64, is at once a cube
          and a square."

          (Jim)
          > If you're going to make the kind of arguments you do, you'd have to show
          > that these "magic numbers" were, indeed, part of a known system of number
          > mysticism existing during the 1st Century, & you'd probably have to do it
          > for both Greek & Hebrew cultures, assuming that Proto-Thomas preceded the
          > earliest Greek versions.

          (Frank)
          It was well known that a right triangle has two sides and a hypotenuse in
          the ratio of 3:4:5 and that the sum of the squares of these three niumbers
          is 50 (3x3 + 4x4 + 5x5 = 50). This goes back to the Pythagoreans (e.g., the
          Pythagorean theorem), but it was known to Jews also. So, in Cont.(65),
          Philo states, "this is the eve of the chief feast (i.e., Pentecost) which
          Fifty (pentekontas) takes for its own, Fifty the most sacred of numbers and
          the most deeply rooted in nature, being formed from the square of the right
          angled triangle...".

          In Proto-Thomas there are two 3x3 segments and one 5x5 segment. Together,
          they make 43 units. If one deletes the 11 significant units (i.e., the S
          and D units) , this leaves 32 other units (i.e., the s units): which can
          then be divdied into two 4x4 segments. So, in Proto-Thomas, the sginificant
          squares are 3 squared, 4 squared, and 5 squared. These are readily
          recognizable as the squares of the three sides of a right triangle that,
          added together, make 50. Further, as there are two sides, each of the
          squares for one of the sides is doubled in Proto-Thomas (so that there are
          two 3x3 segments and two 4x4 segments) but, as there is only one hypotenuse,
          the square for the hypotenuse remains single (so that there is only one 5x5
          segment).

          So, these numbers are, indeed, part of a known system of number mysticism
          existing during the first century CE and known to both Gentiles and Jews.

          Frank McCoy
          1809 N. English Apt. 17
          Maplewood, MN USA 55109
        • Jim Bauer
          ... it ... things ... a ... thing ... include ... that ... mystery ... learn ... is ... the ... the ... and ... right ... (Jim) OK, Frank, you ve got me on
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 29, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            > (Jim Bauer)
            > > ISTM, IMHO, that Thomas is pretty much totally random & not really
            > > mathematically organized, like you attempt to do here. As Stevan Davies
            > > pointed out in a reply to one of my posts awhile ago, Thomas looks like
            it
            > > was written by "a bunch of people sitting around trying to remember
            things
            > > Jesus said, or was supposed to have said". If the author(s) of Thomas
            > went
            > > so far as to go to all this elaborate math, why didn't they also include
            a
            > > narrative? One of the chief arguments for early dating is that the
            thing
            > > lacks the birth. ministry & passion/resurrection material found in the
            > > canonical gospels. If s/he went to such great lengths as to distribute
            > > sayings around in square multiples of numbers &c, why didn't s/he
            include
            > > some kind of supporting narrative framework?
            >
            > Hi Jim!
            >
            > What I am arguing is not that GThomas is mathematically organized, but
            that
            > one of its postulated sources, which I refer to as Proto-Thomas, was
            > mathematically organized.
            >
            > Too, I think we need to take into consideration 62a, which comes from the
            > postulated Proto-Thomas, where Jesus says, "It is those [who are worthy of
            > My] mysteries that I tell My mysteries."
            >
            > So, in the belief system of the Thomas community, Christianity is a
            mystery
            > religion and its secrets are to be witheld from the unworthy. So, when
            > writing a document, like the postulated Proto-Thomas, you make it
            > deliberately obscure and unclear and use elaborate safeguards, such as a
            > mathematical schema only known to "insiders", so that outsiders cannot
            learn
            > of the mysteries they are not worthy to know.
            >
            > (Frank)
            > The key is that those "on the inside" did know how to decode them. That
            is
            > to say, people deemed worthy to know the mysteries of the religion of the
            > Thomas community were taught how to properly read its documents, such as
            the
            > postulated Proto-Thomas.
            >
            > Certainly, seven was/is an important number. However, there were other
            > important numbers also, such as twelve. Too, Pythagoreans and
            > Neo-Pythagoreans saw siginificance in many numbers.
            >
            > (Frank)
            > It was well known that a right triangle has two sides and a hypotenuse in
            > the ratio of 3:4:5 and that the sum of the squares of these three niumbers
            > is 50 (3x3 + 4x4 + 5x5 = 50). This goes back to the Pythagoreans (e.g.,
            the
            > Pythagorean theorem), but it was known to Jews also. So, in Cont.(65),
            > Philo states, "this is the eve of the chief feast (i.e., Pentecost) which
            > Fifty (pentekontas) takes for its own, Fifty the most sacred of numbers
            and
            > the most deeply rooted in nature, being formed from the square of the
            right
            > angled triangle...".

            (Jim)

            OK, Frank, you've got me on this one. Credit it to my lack of awareness
            regarding Philo & this particular period in the history of mathematics.
            Many years ago I picked up a book on number mysticism, but it got ripped off
            before I could read it, otherwise, I might have known something about this
            stuff.
            >
            (Frank)
            > So, these numbers are, indeed, part of a known system of number mysticism
            > existing during the first century CE and known to both Gentiles and Jews.

            (Jim)
            You still haven't addressed one of my arguments, which is that, if there was
            some kind of elaborate mathematical scheme for either Thomas or Proto-Thomas
            or both, it seems unlikely the author(s) of Thomas would have left this
            gospel looking like it was composed at random & not gone ahead & added a
            narrative, nativity, ministry, passion, death & resurrection.
            ISTM--although this is a major speculative leap--that their absence in
            Thomas, which I date early because of its randomness, would tend to point
            toward them being fiction or at least containing large amounts of fictitious
            elements. In the canonicals, Jesus prophecies his own death & resurrection;
            nowhere in Thomas does he do this unambiguously. In the canonicals, the NT
            is the fulfillment of the OT, & Jesus is listed as being the fulfillment of
            this, that, or the other prophecy. I see no evidence of this in Thomas, or
            if it is there, could you please point it out to me.

            Jim Bauer
            Havre, MT
          • fmmccoy
            ... From: Jim Bauer To: Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Proto-Thomas ... was ...
            Message 5 of 12 , Oct 30, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Jim Bauer" <jbauer@...>
              To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 3:09 PM
              Subject: Re: [GTh] Proto-Thomas


              > You still haven't addressed one of my arguments, which is that, if there
              was
              > some kind of elaborate mathematical scheme for either Thomas or
              Proto-Thomas
              > or both, it seems unlikely the author(s) of Thomas would have left this
              > gospel looking like it was composed at random & not gone ahead & added a
              > narrative, nativity, ministry, passion, death & resurrection.
              > ISTM--although this is a major speculative leap--that their absence in
              > Thomas, which I date early because of its randomness, would tend to point
              > toward them being fiction or at least containing large amounts of
              fictitious
              > elements. In the canonicals, Jesus prophecies his own death &
              resurrection;
              > nowhere in Thomas does he do this unambiguously. In the canonicals, the
              NT
              > is the fulfillment of the OT, & Jesus is listed as being the fulfillment
              of
              > this, that, or the other prophecy. I see no evidence of this in Thomas,
              or
              > if it is there, could you please point it out to me.

              Hi Jim!

              What I suspect is that the Thomas community viewed Jesus as having been a
              hierophant, revealing, to those close to him, holy mysteries. As a result,
              I suspect, they weren't interested in his birth, they weren't interested in
              his itinerary during the ministry period, they weren't interested in any of
              his alleged miracles, they weren't interested in his death, etc., etc..
              Rather, all they were interested in were his sayings.

              So, that the postulated Proto-Thomas has a sophisticated mathematical
              structure doesn't necessitate that it also have a birth narrative, a
              narrative of Jesus' ministry period, etc.. These topics, I suggest, just
              didn't interest the members of the Thomas community, including the author of
              Proto-Thomas.

              BTW, there are some three parable clusters in the postulated Proto-Thomas
              that occur in accord with its hypothesised mathematical structure.

              To review, this is the hypothesised structure of Proto-Thomas: (1) 2-10,
              which is a nine unit segment (SsssDsssS), (2) 31-48 + 61-65 + 89-90, which
              is a 25 unit segment (SsssssDsssssDsssssDsssssS) and (3) 91-99, which is a
              nine unit segment (DsssSsssD).
              (Note: s = saying unit, d = dialogue unit, S = significant saying unit, D =
              significant saying unit).

              In Studies in The Gospel of Thomas (p. 90), R. McL. Wilson states, "It may
              be added that there are signs of grouping even in Thomas: twice we have
              three parables in succession (logion 63 the Rich Fool, 64 the Great Supper,
              63 the Wicked Husbandmen--which is Luke's order, although there they are
              widely separated; logion 96 the Leaven, 97 the Jar of Meal, 98 the
              Megistanos),..".

              Note that 63, 64, and 65 are the central three s units of the only DssssssS
              sequence in the 5x5 segment. For purposes of mirror symmetry, then, the
              expectation is that there should be another group of three parables in the
              central three s units of the only SsssssD sequence in the 5x5 segment. That
              is to say, for purposes of mirror symmetry, there should be another cluster
              of three parables in 33, 34, and 35.

              Again, note that 96, 97, and 98 are the three s units of the only SsssD
              sequence in the final 3x3 segment. For purposes of mirror symmetry, then,
              the expectation is that there should be another group of three parables in
              the three s units of the only DsssS sequence in the first 3x3 segment. That
              is to say, for purposes of mirror symmetry, there should be another cluster
              of three parables in 7, 8, and 9.

              Are there, as expected in terms of mirror symmetry, two more groups of three
              parables--one in 33, 34, and 35 and the other in 7, 8, and 9?

              Well, let us look at 33, 34, and 35::
              33. Jesus said, "Preach from your housetops that which you hear hear in your
              ear (and) in the other ear. For no one lights a lamp and upts it under a
              bushel, nor does he put it in a hidden place, but rather he sets it on a
              lampstand so that everyone who enters and leaves will see its light."
              34.Jesus said, "If a blind man leads a blind man, they will both fall into a
              pit."
              35.Jesus said, "It is not possible for any one to enter the house of a
              strong man and take it by force unless he binds his hands; then he will (be)
              able to ransack his house."

              A parallel to 33 is found in Mark 4:21-23: which is in Mark's special
              parable section of 4:1-34. So, Mark deemed it to be a parable.

              A parallel to 34 is found in Luke 6:39: which, Luke explicitly states, is a
              parable, "He also told them a parable, 'Can a blind man lead a blind man?
              Will they not both fall into a pit?'"

              A parallel to 35 is found in Mark 3:27, which is a part of a sequence of
              sayings, in 3:23-27 that, Mark explicitly states, are parables. So, Mark
              deemed it to be a parable.

              To conclude, there does indeed appear to be another group of three
              parables in 33, 34, and 35.

              Next, let us look at 7, 8, and 9:
              7.Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man;
              and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."
              8. And he said, "The man is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the
              sea and drew it up from the sea full of small fish. Among them the wise
              fisherman found a fine large fish. He threw all the small fish back into the
              sea and chose the large fish without difficulty. Whoever has ears to hear,
              let him hear."
              9. Jesus said, "Now the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), and
              scattered them. Some fell on the road; the birds came and gathered them up.
              Others fell on rock, did not take root in the soil, and did not produce
              ears. And others fell on thorns; they choked the seed(s) and worms ate
              them. And others fell on the good soil and produced good fruit: it bore
              sixty per measure and a hundred and twenty per measure."

              Of these two (i.e., 8 and 9) are obvious parables and are called,
              respectively, the Parable of the Fisherman and the Parable of the Sower.
              The third (i.e., 7) is a parable in the sense given in Psalm 48(49):4, "I
              will incline mine ear to a parable, I will open my riddle on the harp.", and
              in Psalm 77(78):2, "I will open my mouth in parables: I will utter dark
              sayings which have been from the beginning."

              So, as respects 7, 8, and 9, two are well-recognized as being parables and
              the third is a parable in the sense of being a dark saying or riddle.

              To summarize: The mathematically regulated structure of the postulated
              Proto-Thomas is illustrated in the groupings of three parables. Four of
              these groupings of three parables can be identified and they occur in this
              mirror symmetical fashion in Proto-Thomas:

              1. the three s units in a DsssS sequence (7,8,9)
              2. the central three s units in an SsssssD sequence (33,34,35)

              ----mirror plane----

              3. the central three s units in a DsssssS sequence (63,64,65)
              4. the three s units in a SsssD sequence (96,97,98).

              Frank McCoy
              1809 N. English Apt. 17
              Maplewood, MN 55109
            • Jim Bauer
              ... From: fmmccoy To: Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:04 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Proto-Thomas ...
              Message 6 of 12 , Oct 31, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "fmmccoy" <FMMCCOY@...>
                To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:04 PM
                Subject: Re: [GTh] Proto-Thomas


                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: "Jim Bauer" <jbauer@...>
                > To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 3:09 PM
                > Subject: Re: [GTh] Proto-Thomas
                >
                >
                > > You still haven't addressed one of my arguments, which is that, if there
                > was
                > > some kind of elaborate mathematical scheme for either Thomas or
                > Proto-Thomas
                > > or both, it seems unlikely the author(s) of Thomas would have left this
                > > gospel looking like it was composed at random & not gone ahead & added a
                > > narrative, nativity, ministry, passion, death & resurrection.
                <snip>
                > Hi Jim!
                >
                > What I suspect is that the Thomas community viewed Jesus as having been a
                > hierophant, revealing, to those close to him, holy mysteries. As a
                result,
                > I suspect, they weren't interested in his birth, they weren't interested
                in
                > his itinerary during the ministry period, they weren't interested in any
                of
                > his alleged miracles, they weren't interested in his death, etc., etc..
                > Rather, all they were interested in were his sayings.
                >
                > So, that the postulated Proto-Thomas has a sophisticated mathematical
                > structure doesn't necessitate that it also have a birth narrative, a
                > narrative of Jesus' ministry period, etc.. These topics, I suggest, just
                > didn't interest the members of the Thomas community, including the author
                of
                > Proto-Thomas.

                But the most important thing about the man, something that started a whole
                world religion, was the belief that he rose from the dead. No one would
                have noticed him were these stories not circulating from an early date. It
                would be sort of like, let's say some movement grew up around Martin Luther
                King & will become in the next few centuries a major world religion & nobody
                noticed he was black. For this reason GTh seems more like somebody's
                notebooks on J's sermons--which might be what you were trying to say about
                Proto-Thomas & its community--than something highly structure &, at least
                for me, makes the entire mathematization you propose mere coincidence.

                Also, how often in your scheme do you suggest Thomas was redacted? ISTM
                that, even if the Proto-Thomas community wasn't interested in anything but
                his sayings, later writers would have tampered with it & inserted some of
                the material we encounter in the canonicals, be it fact or fiction.

                To me it looks like there are clearly Neoplatonic & Gnostic elements, which
                I believe were inserted by a translator. This view springs from the
                translation of Plato in the NHL, which is so bad it wasn't even recognized
                as being the Republic until after several years. True, we don't know if the
                same guy translated GTh, but if there's even one terribly bad translation in
                the book it seems plausible there may be others. The NHL community may
                very well have had a Neoplatonist bias, if they were translating Plato.

                Tell me--how do you see Thomas as fitting into the Gnostic movement? For
                them, the resurrection occurred _before_ death, ie, it was a symbol--but J
                still gets resurrected. If I remember correctly (correct me if I'm wrong),
                you date the final version of GTh to 90 CE. This was late enough to have
                been exposed to some of the earliest Gnostics, &/or their precursors. In
                any case, since Gnosticism evolved out of Jewish apocalypticism (among other
                things), the laws of parallel evolution could have independently created
                Gnostic-like myths. This is a tentative statement on my part because there
                wouldn't have to be a resurrection myth even if they paralleled other
                elements of Gnostic myth.

                It still seems to me that, whether the sources are Gnostic or Christian, the
                resurrection myth was central to the entire J movement. For this reason I
                still think it unlikely that all narrative would be missing from GTh unless
                it was extremely early, ie, most of the material composed during J's
                lifetime, or at least an oral tradition begun around HJ, which would explain
                why the narrative is absent. However, this could still point to the
                narrative as being late-dated, even though this contradicts what I said
                above, that no one would have noticed him without those stories.

                It's late & I'm having trouble thinking so I think I'll end this post here.

                Jim Bauer
                Havre, MT
              • klaus schilling
                ... What prevents monachs from nearby monastry Chenoboskion from having translated and bound all the NHL stuff and some other coptic heretic manuscripts found
                Message 7 of 12 , Oct 31, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jim Bauer writes:
                  > the book it seems plausible there may be others. The NHL community may
                  > very well have had a Neoplatonist bias, if they were translating Plato.

                  What prevents monachs from nearby monastry Chenoboskion from having
                  translated and bound all the NHL stuff and some other coptic heretic
                  manuscripts found not far from there a few centuries ago?

                  Klaus Schilling
                • Grondin
                  ... result, ... in ... of ... Hi Frank- While you and I are on separate paths, I would like to second this suggestion that the GThomists saw Jesus as a
                  Message 8 of 12 , Nov 2, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    [Frank McCoy]:
                    > What I suspect is that the Thomas community viewed Jesus as having been a
                    > hierophant, revealing, to those close to him, holy mysteries. As a
                    result,
                    > I suspect, they weren't interested in his birth, they weren't interested
                    in
                    > his itinerary during the ministry period, they weren't interested in any
                    of
                    > his alleged miracles, they weren't interested in his death, etc., etc..
                    > Rather, all they were interested in were his sayings.

                    Hi Frank-

                    While you and I are on separate paths, I would like to second this
                    suggestion that the GThomists saw Jesus as a hierophant, and to tie together
                    several sayings as a bundle of reasons for thinking so. I think that several
                    interpretational quandries may draw closer to solution in the process.

                    First, I want to draw some connections between #43 and #13, which is not
                    often done. Thom 43 talks about the disciples having become "like those
                    Jews" (or "like those Judaeans"), in that they either love the tree and hate
                    (or ignore) its fruit, or love the fruit and hate (or ignore) the tree. In
                    Thom 13, we are presented with the alleged views of two purported "Jews" -
                    Matthew and Peter. Matthew is made to say that Jesus is like a wise
                    philosopher, and in so doing it seems that he is being made to express a
                    love for the "fruit" of Jesus (i.e., his wise sayings), but an ignoring of
                    the presumed divine nature of the "tree" (Jesus) itself. On the other hand,
                    Peter is made to say that Jesus is like a "righteous" (DIKAIOS) angel (or
                    messenger), thereby seemingly being made to express a love for the "tree",
                    but an ignoring of its "fruits". Thomas is thus positioning itself in
                    opposition to these two alleged Jewish views of Jesus. It seems to regard
                    itself as a third force that incorporates a portion of (but not the whole
                    of) the other two views. Jesus is wise, as Matthew says, but his wisdom is
                    divine wisdom, not the practical or earthly wisdom of a human philosopher.
                    Peter is right to regard Jesus is a messenger from heaven, but he's wrong to
                    think of him as "righteous" in the sense of either or both (1) being an
                    advocate of Jewish Law and (2) bringing punishment for sinners.

                    Now then, I have to confront some seemingly contradictory evidence. Peter's
                    statement in 13 echoes the title of Jacob contained in 12. The word DIKAIOS
                    is used only twice in GThom - in 12 and 13. While #12 must be regarded as a
                    commendation of Jacob, the fact that Peter is clearly supposed to be wrong
                    in #13 must be taken, I think, to indicate that "righteousness" is _not_ to
                    be considered a divine quality of Jesus, in the final judgment of the
                    authors. A host of GThom sayings attests to that. So what about #12? I want
                    to suggest that it's a "weed" sown by "his enemy" among the "good seed", and
                    that it is the one who will "die" between the "two resting on a bed" (in
                    this case, 12 & 13, with the word DIKAIOS serving to conjoin the two). As
                    may be seen, this analysis reeks of my self-referential puzzle theory, but
                    there's no help for that - it has too much explanatory power to ignore. In
                    this case, it explains why Jacob's views (as presumably echoed by Peter) are
                    only partially correct, even though he's praised in #12. GThom is seemingly
                    aware of the claims that both Peter and Jacob saw the risen Jesus, and thus
                    that they have the status of important "witnesses" to J's divine nature (as
                    opposed to Matthew), but the text seems to criticize them for expecting him
                    to return to earth in a fiery (and righteous) apocalypse - and for
                    suggesting that the kingdom may not be here and now. Thus, GThom may be seen
                    as intermediary between the hypothetical non-narrative (and non-apocalyptic)
                    logia attributed to Matthew by Papias, and the narrative (and apocalyptic)
                    canonical view (which I do not presume to have been fully developed at the
                    time of origin of GThom, BTW).

                    Mike Grondin
                    The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
                    http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm
                  • Grondin
                    ... non-apocalyptic) ... Let me spell this out a little more. I believe that the original GThomists were responding to two texts that they had before them -
                    Message 9 of 12 , Nov 2, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > ... GThom may be seen
                      > as intermediary between the hypothetical non-narrative (and
                      non-apocalyptic)
                      > logia attributed to Matthew by Papias, and the narrative (and apocalyptic)
                      > canonical view (which I do not presume to have been fully developed at the
                      > time of origin of GThom, BTW).

                      Let me spell this out a little more. I believe that the original GThomists
                      were responding to two texts that they had before them - the Sayings of the
                      Lord according to Matthew, and a version of the Gospel of Peter that
                      preceded the canonicals. Presumably, they incorporated material from both
                      sources, which explains two things: (1) the mixture of narrative
                      ("Matthean") and non-narrative ("Petrine") material, and (2) the parallels
                      to later canonical material - caused by the fact that that material was
                      itself based on the sources available also to the GThomists. The GThomists
                      chose the "Matthean" sayings genre, probably because that was the older one,
                      but they incorporated elements of GP that would later show up in the
                      canonicals as well.

                      Mike Grondin
                      Mt. Clemens, MI
                    • Grondin
                      ... Sorry, I got this backwards. Basically-narrative material would be Petrine and basically-non-narrative would be Matthean . If I may add two hypotheses:
                      Message 10 of 12 , Nov 2, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > ... the mixture of narrative
                        > ("Matthean") and non-narrative ("Petrine") material ...

                        Sorry, I got this backwards. Basically-narrative material would be "Petrine"
                        and basically-non-narrative would be "Matthean". If I may add two
                        hypotheses: (1) the "Sayings of the Lord according to Matthew" = Q, and (2)
                        the later "Gospel of Matthew" was so-named because it incorporated the
                        earlier sayings-source attributed to Matthew - and was presumably the first
                        to do so. However, it joined that source (in the same way I'm positing that
                        GThomas joined two sources) with the narrative of Mark's gospel. This
                        hypothetical textual strategy common to GThom and GMatt, to "marry" two
                        sources (left-and-right? male-and-female? gentile-and Jewish?), can be seen,
                        I think, as a reflection of GThom 33 - "That which you will hear in BOTH
                        ears, shout from your housetops!" In other words, "if two [sources] make
                        peace with each other in this [textual] house" (in Jewish terms, if there's
                        two witnesses), they can "move mountains". (BTW, the second "ear phrase" in
                        GTh 33 is _not_ dittography, as Valantasis and others assert. Compare the
                        Greek version to see that this cannot be the case.)

                        Mike Grondin
                        Mt. Clemens, MI
                      • fmmccoy
                        ... From: Jim Bauer To: Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 2:16 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Proto-Thomas ... It ...
                        Message 11 of 12 , Nov 2, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Jim Bauer" <jbauer@...>
                          To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 2:16 AM
                          Subject: Re: [GTh] Proto-Thomas


                          > But the most important thing about the man, something that started a whole
                          > world religion, was the belief that he rose from the dead. No one would
                          > have noticed him were these stories not circulating from an early date.
                          It
                          > would be sort of like, let's say some movement grew up around Martin
                          Luther
                          > King & will become in the next few centuries a major world religion &
                          nobody
                          > noticed he was black. For this reason GTh seems more like somebody's
                          > notebooks on J's sermons--which might be what you were trying to say about
                          > Proto-Thomas & its community--than something highly structure &, at least
                          > for me, makes the entire mathematization you propose mere coincidence.

                          Hi Jim!

                          There is no question but that the type of Christianity found in the New
                          Testament, the type of Christianity that has bcome a world religion, is
                          anchored in the belief that Jesus rose from the dead and then ascended into
                          heaven, from whence he shall return someday. (Just the resurrection from
                          the dead would have been insufficient, e.g., the alleged resurrection of
                          Lazarus from the dead, even if real, did not make Lazarus worthy of worship
                          because he later died).

                          Still, there remains the possibility that, in early Christianity, there was
                          another type of Christianity that thought of Jesus as a hierophant and/or
                          teacher and/or sage and/or heavenly Revealer and that rejected the whole
                          idea of a bodily resurrection. Such early Christians would have rejected
                          the truthfulness of the claims that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the
                          dead and would have treasured the sayings attributed to Jesus.

                          Evidence for just such a variety of early Christianity is found not only in
                          GTh but, if it is real, also the postulated Q.

                          Certainly, if what Jesus said was highly esteemed even when he was still
                          alive, then some notebooks of his sayings might have been made, even before
                          his death, by some of his followers and later incorporated into GTh and/or Q
                          and/or antecedents of them like the postulated Proto-Thomas.

                          (Jim)
                          > Also, how often in your scheme do you suggest Thomas was redacted? ISTM
                          > that, even if the Proto-Thomas community wasn't interested in anything but
                          > his sayings, later writers would have tampered with it & inserted some of
                          > the material we encounter in the canonicals, be it fact or fiction.

                          (Frank)
                          What I envison is that, c. 85-90 CE, someone took two documents, i.e.,
                          Proto-Thomas and Pre-Thomas, and some oral traditions and combined them into
                          GTh. In this process, I assume, there was some redacting of the earlier
                          material, both written and oral, by the author of GTh.

                          (Jim)
                          > To me it looks like there are clearly Neoplatonic & Gnostic elements,
                          which
                          > I believe were inserted by a translator. This view springs from the
                          > translation of Plato in the NHL, which is so bad it wasn't even recognized
                          > as being the Republic until after several years. True, we don't know if
                          the
                          > same guy translated GTh, but if there's even one terribly bad translation
                          in
                          > the book it seems plausible there may be others. The NHL community may
                          > very well have had a Neoplatonist bias, if they were translating Plato.

                          (Frank)
                          Oh, I agree that there probably was redacting done to GTh after it was
                          completed.

                          Certainly, GTh has Neoplatonic and proto-Gnostic characteristics. Also,
                          they do seem to become more overt and common in what appear to be later
                          strata. However, they do appear to be present even in the earliest strata.

                          Could you give one or two examples of sayings, in GTh, where, you suspect,
                          a later redactor added Neoplatonic and/or Gnostic characteristics?

                          (Jim)
                          > Tell me--how do you see Thomas as fitting into the Gnostic movement? For
                          > them, the resurrection occurred _before_ death, ie, it was a symbol--but J
                          > still gets resurrected. If I remember correctly (correct me if I'm
                          wrong),
                          > you date the final version of GTh to 90 CE. This was late enough to have
                          > been exposed to some of the earliest Gnostics, &/or their precursors. In
                          > any case, since Gnosticism evolved out of Jewish apocalypticism (among
                          other
                          > things), the laws of parallel evolution could have independently created
                          > Gnostic-like myths. This is a tentative statement on my part because
                          there
                          > wouldn't have to be a resurrection myth even if they paralleled other
                          > elements of Gnostic myth.

                          (Frank)
                          I see GThomas as giving us a look into an early phase of a Christian
                          movement that evolved into Gnosticism. I don't think that GThomas is
                          Gnostic--which is why, earlier in this post, I refer to it as having
                          proto-Gnostic elements rather than as having Gnostic elements.

                          How do you see Gnosticism as evolving out of Jewish apocalypticism?

                          (Jim)
                          > It still seems to me that, whether the sources are Gnostic or Christian,
                          the
                          > resurrection myth was central to the entire J movement. For this reason I
                          > still think it unlikely that all narrative would be missing from GTh
                          unless
                          > it was extremely early, ie, most of the material composed during J's
                          > lifetime, or at least an oral tradition begun around HJ, which would
                          explain
                          > why the narrative is absent. However, this could still point to the
                          > narrative as being late-dated, even though this contradicts what I said
                          > above, that no one would have noticed him without those stories.

                          (Frank)
                          I don't see a contradiction in what you say. Stories about Jesus must have
                          been present from the begiinning, but this doesn't necessitate that they got
                          written down right away. My own investigations into Q lead me to think that
                          the latest additions to it regard John the Baptist and related topics and
                          are quasi-narrative in format. From this, it is but one step to the
                          development of the first narrative gospel, i.e, GMark. So, as I perceive
                          it, the earliest Christian documents, such as the postulated Proto-Thomas,
                          were basically sayings gospels,. and only later did the narrative gospels
                          evolve into being.

                          Also, I don't see the resurrection as being central to the thought in
                          GThomas . Can you cite any passages, in GThomas, in which, you think, the
                          resurrection is alluded to?

                          Frank McCoy
                          1809 N. English Apt. 17
                          Maplewood, MN USA 55109
                        • Jim Bauer
                          ... recognized ... translation ... strata. ... suspect, ... Neoplatonism: 11) On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what
                          Message 12 of 12 , Nov 3, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > (Jim)
                            > > To me it looks like there are clearly Neoplatonic & Gnostic elements,
                            > which
                            > > I believe were inserted by a translator. This view springs from the
                            > > translation of Plato in the NHL, which is so bad it wasn't even
                            recognized
                            > > as being the Republic until after several years. True, we don't know if
                            > the
                            > > same guy translated GTh, but if there's even one terribly bad
                            translation
                            > in
                            > > the book it seems plausible there may be others. The NHL community may
                            > > very well have had a Neoplatonist bias, if they were translating Plato.
                            >
                            > (Frank)
                            > Oh, I agree that there probably was redacting done to GTh after it was
                            > completed.
                            >
                            > Certainly, GTh has Neoplatonic and proto-Gnostic characteristics. Also,
                            > they do seem to become more overt and common in what appear to be later
                            > strata. However, they do appear to be present even in the earliest
                            strata.
                            >
                            > Could you give one or two examples of sayings, in GTh, where, you
                            suspect,
                            > a later redactor added Neoplatonic and/or Gnostic characteristics?

                            Neoplatonism:
                            11) On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two,
                            what will you do?
                            The Neoplatonists believed that the world was created thru a process of
                            emanation from the One, the Beautiful, & the Good (as Plotinus hypostatized
                            God) into the Nous, or Mind, followed by the World Soul. This passage seems
                            to reflect that view. However, I cannot state this unambiguously as it is
                            also part of the Johannine tradition: "the Logos became flesh and dwelt
                            among us".

                            Gnosticism:
                            22) Jesus said to them: When you make the two one, and when you make the
                            inside like the outside and the above like the below and the male and female
                            one and the same, so that the male not be male and the female not be female;
                            and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and hands in place of a
                            hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness,
                            then you will enter the Kingdom.
                            The theme of "making the two one" is more characteristic of Gnostic (and
                            Oriental) thought than it is of Christianity, even though this idea was
                            central to the alchemical tradition and hence to many Christians up to the
                            point where the system was finally disproved. The Gnostic scriptures are
                            full of "making the two one" but I don't believe there's a single reference
                            to it in the canonicals.
                            >
                            > (Jim)
                            > > Tell me--how do you see Thomas as fitting into the Gnostic movement?
                            For
                            > > them, the resurrection occurred _before_ death, ie, it was a symbol--but
                            J
                            > > still gets resurrected. If I remember correctly (correct me if I'm
                            > wrong),
                            > > you date the final version of GTh to 90 CE. This was late enough to
                            have
                            > > been exposed to some of the earliest Gnostics, &/or their precursors.
                            In
                            > > any case, since Gnosticism evolved out of Jewish apocalypticism (among
                            > other
                            > > things), the laws of parallel evolution could have independently created
                            > > Gnostic-like myths. This is a tentative statement on my part because
                            > there
                            > > wouldn't have to be a resurrection myth even if they paralleled other
                            > > elements of Gnostic myth.
                            >
                            > (Frank)
                            > I see GThomas as giving us a look into an early phase of a Christian
                            > movement that evolved into Gnosticism. I don't think that GThomas is
                            > Gnostic--which is why, earlier in this post, I refer to it as having
                            > proto-Gnostic elements rather than as having Gnostic elements.
                            >
                            > How do you see Gnosticism as evolving out of Jewish apocalypticism?

                            This belief is what Kurt Rudolph expressed in _Gnosis_. I personally
                            believe that Hans Jonas' assessment is more accurate: he dates the
                            beginnings of Gnosticism to "the acute Hellenization of Oriental thought"
                            during the time of the Alexandrian Empire.
                            >
                            Jim Bauer
                            Havre, MT
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.