Re: [GTh] Mike's Thomas Puzzle
- Andrew Smith writes:
> well, thirteen if you count Codex XIII as having been a separateJames Robinson has proven that the so-called Codex XIII was in fact a
> volume, which is the standard numbering
separate tractate (The Trimorphic Protennoia) that was removed from a codex
in antiquity and tucked inside one of the twelve that was put in the jar.
> Somehow the Thomas puzzle is idea is easier for me to accept if itNow that's interesting. I would have thought the opposite. In fact, I've
> extends throughout Codex II.
been hesitant to mention what I see as an interconnected trilogy of AoJ,
GTh, and GPh precisely because I thought folks would more easily accept my
intuitions about Thomas alone, than if I brought in other texts. I haven't,
in fact, looked very closely at the other four tractates of Codex II, BTW.
> ... *we know* that some of the sayings have been moved.Well, two things here. For one, I don't yet know _how_ to restore the major
> If you use those sayings to begin with then there's less for the
> reader to object to, and you have more chance of convincing the
> reader. i.e., we can agree that those *should* be moved because they
> *have* been moved already.
dislocation between the POxy fragments and Coptic Thomas - which is the
placement of "Split the timber; lift the rock". For another, I'm not
confident that it's _possible_. Look at it this way: the Greek POxy
fragments ALSO have the four questions of the disciples separated from their
answers, and this is undoubtedly the most noticeable indication of
puzzlehood in the Thomas text. So I'm not confident that the Greek Thomas
wasn't ITSELF a puzzle. It would make sense that the Copts got this idea
from the Greek version, and then extended it to larger scope in Codex II,
BUT the problem for us is that IF that is what happened, then the POxy
fragments can't be used as a control text. (A Greek puzzle would have had to
have been different because of differences in words, letter-counts, etc.,
and maybe _that's_ what accounts for differences between the texts.)
> Well, I get the idea, but I'm unable to read the sayings in the wayWell, I've been going at this for a long time now, off and on. I had the
> that you are reading them, as referring to the rearrangement of
> Thomas. Possibly I'm just too used to reading them in the usual ways,
> but it would take a lot more convincing to get me to read Thomas
> sayings in the way that you are doing. I need to be spoon fed the step
> by step arguments that lead you to the point of interpreting the
> sayings in this way.
idea very early on, but it's taken this long to get to the point where I
have some confidence that the theory is provable - i.e., that the puzzle is
solvable by us. It does require an entirely different mindset to interpret
the sayings as self-referential (maybe that's why the first saying talks
about _discovering_ the meaning of the words), but I can tell you from my
own experience that if one has but a little faith in this theory, one starts
to see astonishing features in the text. And the beauty of it is, there's
evidently a mathematical basis to it!
- Oh, one more thing, Andrew. If you haven't done so already, you (or anyone
else who wants to understand where I'm coming from) absolutely MUST print
out my page-by-page pdf
If one doesn't look at it the way the original reader did, there's no hope
of understanding the nature of the beast, and my discussions of it will make
very little sense.