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

Re: [GTh] "Kingdom of heaven" in Thomas

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    Could it have been that malkutha d alaha and malkutha d shemaya were used interchangeably in eschatological literature and exchange? Matthew 19:23 and 24 seem
    Message 1 of 19 , May 20, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Could it have been that malkutha d'alaha and malkutha d'shemaya were used
      interchangeably in eschatological literature and exchange? Matthew 19:23
      and 24 seem to indicate so. I have maintained that Jesus was steeped in the
      Danielic/Enochian subset given his bar nasha eschatology and Daniel 2:41;
      6:26 and Enoch 41:1 refers, IMO, to the Kingdom of God.

      Best

      Jack

      Jack Kilmon
      San Antonio, TX

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mark Goodacre
      Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 2:36 PM
      To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [GTh] "Kingdom of heaven" in Thomas

      Thanks, Jack. I agree that "kingdom of heaven" is Matthean redaction.
      That rather focuses the question when it comes to its use in Thomas.
      On an Aramaic Q, I can see that Q could have been translated from
      Aramaic to Greek, but Matthew and Luke *must* have had access to it in
      Greek given the high verbatim agreement between them in Greek.
      Cheers, Mark
      --
      Mark Goodacre
      Duke University
      Department of Religion
      Gray Building / Box 90964
      Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
      Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

      http://www.markgoodacre.org


      ------------------------------------

      Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
      Coptic-English translation: http://www.gospel-thomas.net/x_transl.htm
      Related Biblioblogs:
      PEJE IESOUS (Chris Skinner) http://pejeiesous.com
      Judy's Research Blog (Judy Redman) http://judyredman.wordpress.com
      The Forbidden Gospels (April DeConick) http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com
      ------------------------------------
      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • smithandp
      Hi Mark, I d say that more hasn t been made of Thomas use of kingdom of Heaven because Thomas 20 and 54 are in other ways closer to the Markan and Lukan
      Message 2 of 19 , May 23, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Mark,

        I'd say that more hasn't been made of Thomas' use of "kingdom of Heaven" because Thomas 20 and 54 are in other ways closer to the Markan and Lukan versions respectively.

        We might ask how Matthew has come up with his redactional tendency towards "kingdom of heaven". Matthew is unlikely to have invented the term himself as it occurs in rabbinical literature. Patterson suggests (The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, p.27-28) that "kingdom" of Heaven" merely indicates a common Jewish background to both Matt and Thomas. Matthew avoids "kingdom of God" while Thomas avoids "God" completely. GThomas is found of both "kingdom" (mostly commonly by itself) and "heaven/sky" separately and has "kingdon of Heaven" in 114 which has no parallels.

        Thomas has made a dialogue of the saying, Jesus' response is actually closer to Mark's version, "It is like a mustard seed..."

        Matthew's parable of the mustard seed is followed by the parable of the leaven, which also occurs in Thomas 96 which is widely separated from the mustard seed in Thomas 20 and uses "kingdom of the father" rather than Matthew's "kingdom of heaven". For Matt. 5.3 Thom. 54/Luke 6:20 apart from the "kingdom of Heaven" Thomas's version is much closer to Luke's. Thus a straightforward literary dependency of Thomas on Matthew, or vice versa, is unlikely.

        Surely Thomas and Matthew may know of a "kingdom of Heaven" version of the parable of the mustard seed from oral tradition. It may even be Mark who is redacting it to "kingdom of God".

        Matthew may be redacting other Mark/Q sayings to "kingdom of Heaven" because he knows the phrase is used in oral tradition in other Jesus sayings.

        If you appeal to secondary orality then, as Steve Davies points out, it's just as likely that Matthew is getting "kingdom of Heaven" from Thomas as it is that Thomas is getting it from Matthew.

        Best Wishes,

        Andrew



        --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, Mark Goodacre <Goodacre@...> wrote:
        >
        > One of the most distinctive Matthean redactional phrases is "kingdom
        > of heaven", 32 times in the Gospel, never in Mark, never in Luke or
        > Acts, often found in Matthew's redaction of Mark (e.g. Matt. 4.17,
        > 13.11). The same phrase occurs three times in the Gospel of Thomas,
        > twice in parallels to Matthew (Matt. 13.31 R // Thom. 20, Matt. 5.3 QD
        > // Thom. 54)** and once on its own (114). One of the criteria usually
        > applied in discussions of Thomas's familiarity with the Synoptics is
        > the presence (or absence) of Synoptic redactional elements in Thomas.
        > Here we seem to have something pretty striking. What I am wondering
        > is why so little is made of this example in the literature. Do others
        > think that it might be a useful indication of Thomas's familiarity
        > with Matthew?
        >
        > Best wishes
        > Mark
        >
        > ** For those unfamiliar with the symbols, R = wording is redactional
        > addition to Mark (on the assumption of Marcan Priority); QD = double
        > tradition material, wording different from Luke.
        > --
        > Mark Goodacre
        > Duke University
        > Department of Religion
        > Gray Building / Box 90964
        > Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
        > Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530
        >
        > http://www.markgoodacre.org
        >
      • Mark Goodacre
        Hi Andrew, Thanks for your helpful comments. I agree that Thom. 54 is a little closer to Luke in the main. I argued in Case Against Q that Thomas is
        Message 3 of 19 , May 23, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Andrew,

          Thanks for your helpful comments.   I agree that Thom. 54 is a little closer to Luke in the main.  I argued in Case Against Q that Thomas is familiar with the Lucan version.  I must admit that at that time I had not seen so clearly that Luke might also be influenced by the Matthean version too.  I also agree that there are elements with parallels to Luke and Mark in Thom. 20.  

          I think there is a tendency, though, to play down "kingdom of heaven" as a Mattheanism.  It is in Matthew alone in the early Christian tradition -- not in Paul, not in Hebrews or Revelation.  In Christian works, it only starts to come in in the second century, in Justin Martyr and the Pseudo-Clementinesm perhaps under the influence of Matthew.  Although it is often stated that Matthew might have taken this over from Jewish tradition, the phrase is in fact absent from the Old Testament, the apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls and so on.  Our first known usage of it is in Matthew's Gospel, where it occurs 32 times, frequently in redactional changes to Mark.

          Patterson's suggestion that Thomas avoids "kingdom of God" language is a symptom of what one might call the Coptic priority fallacy.  P.Oxy. 1 (Thom. 27) has kingdom of God, and P.Oxy. 654 (Thom. 3) may have it too.  And even if Thomas is trying to avoid "kingdom of God", there are plenty of other options that he uses elsewhere, kingdom, kingdom of the father etc.  

          Cheers
          Mark
          --
          Mark Goodacre           
          Duke University
          Department of Religion
          Gray Building / Box 90964
          Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
          Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

          http://www.markgoodacre.org


        • Stephen Carlson
          ... It s also not in Q. ;-) Stephen -- Stephen C. Carlson Graduate Program in Religion Duke University
          Message 4 of 19 , May 23, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Mark Goodacre <Goodacre@...> wrote:
            I think there is a tendency, though, to play down "kingdom of heaven" as a Mattheanism.  It is in Matthew alone in the early Christian tradition -- not in Paul, not in Hebrews or Revelation.  In Christian works, it only starts to come in in the second century, in Justin Martyr and the Pseudo-Clementinesm perhaps under the influence of Matthew.  Although it is often stated that Matthew might have taken this over from Jewish tradition, the phrase is in fact absent from the Old Testament, the apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls and so on.  Our first known usage of it is in Matthew's Gospel, where it occurs 32 times, frequently in redactional changes to Mark.

            It's also not in Q. ;-)

            Stephen
            --
            Stephen C. Carlson
            Graduate Program in Religion
            Duke University
          • Mark Goodacre
            ... How could I have forgotten that? :-) That s quite right, of course. It never appears in the Critical Text. Where it occurs in the double tradition, the
            Message 5 of 19 , May 23, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              On 23 May 2011 21:11, Stephen Carlson <stemmatic@...> wrote:
              >
              > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Mark Goodacre <Goodacre@...> wrote:
              >>
              >> I think there is a tendency, though, to play down "kingdom of heaven" as a Mattheanism.  It is in Matthew alone in the early Christian tradition -- not in Paul, not in Hebrews or Revelation.  In Christian works, it only starts to come in in the second century, in Justin Martyr and the Pseudo-Clementinesm perhaps under the influence of Matthew.  Although it is often stated that Matthew might have taken this over from Jewish tradition, the phrase is in fact absent from the Old Testament, the apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls and so on.  Our first known usage of it is in Matthew's Gospel, where it occurs 32 times, frequently in redactional changes to Mark.
              >
              > It's also not in Q. ;-)

              How could I have forgotten that? :-)

              That's quite right, of course. It never appears in the Critical Text.
              Where it occurs in the double tradition, the IQP always give
              preference to the Lucan parallel. (For Q sceptics, this is what is
              known as the Matthean Vocabulary Fallacy, but that's a story for
              another day).

              Mark
              --
              Mark Goodacre
              Duke University
              Department of Religion
              Gray Building / Box 90964
              Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
              Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

              http://www.markgoodacre.org
            • smithandp
              Hi Mark, That s an excellent point about the Coptic priority fallacy. However the divergence between P.Oxy. 1 and Coptic Thomas 27 underlines that, whether
              Message 6 of 19 , May 24, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Mark,

                That's an excellent point about the Coptic priority fallacy. However the divergence between P.Oxy. 1 and Coptic Thomas 27 underlines that, whether "kingdom of Heaven" or "kingdom of the Father" was more original to Thomas 27, there's textual corruption in Thomas and hence we have the complication of knowledge of the synoptics, or other factors, influencing a scribe at the stage of translation or elsewhere in transmission. A "kingdom of Heaven" version of the parable of the mustard seed seems more memorable to me because of the birds of Heaven in the branches of the mustard tree, even if "Heaven" is plural in the former and singular in the latter in both Greek and Coptic.


                I've always felt that Thomas is at a disadvantage as a Johnny-come-lately to the game. There's an awful lot of scholarship about synoptic relationships and dating, forming a relative consensus, but relatively little about Thomas, and no consensus. So Thomas scholarship has to fit itself around the synoptics. For instance, in commenting that "kingdom of Heaven" is "is in Matthew alone in the early Christian tradition" you've already ruled out the possibility of Thomas's use of it preceding Matthew's or even being more or less contemporaneous and independent.

                "Kingdom of Heaven" occurs in the Mishnah, and is attributed to Gamaliel, a first century figure. Unless you want to propose that later rabbinical use of "kingdom of Heaven" derives from Christian usage, and hence from the Gospel of Matthew (which is obviously a possibility) or that later rabbis came up with it independently (which they may have) you have to allow that the phrase may have been circulating in pharisaic/rabbinical circles in the first century, from whence Matthew may have appropriated it, and Thomas too.

                Best Wishes,

                Andrew

                --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, Mark Goodacre <Goodacre@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hi Andrew,
                >
                > Thanks for your helpful comments. I agree that Thom. 54 is a little closer
                > to Luke in the main. I argued in Case Against Q that Thomas is familiar
                > with the Lucan version. I must admit that at that time I had not seen so
                > clearly that Luke might also be influenced by the Matthean version too. I
                > also agree that there are elements with parallels to Luke and Mark in Thom.
                > 20.
                >
                > I think there is a tendency, though, to play down "kingdom of heaven" as a
                > Mattheanism. It is in Matthew alone in the early Christian tradition -- not
                > in Paul, not in Hebrews or Revelation. In Christian works, it only starts
                > to come in in the second century, in Justin Martyr and the
                > Pseudo-Clementinesm perhaps under the influence of Matthew. Although it is
                > often stated that Matthew might have taken this over from Jewish tradition,
                > the phrase is in fact absent from the Old Testament, the apocrypha, the
                > Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls and so on. Our first known usage of it
                > is in Matthew's Gospel, where it occurs 32 times, frequently in redactional
                > changes to Mark.
                >
                > Patterson's suggestion that Thomas avoids "kingdom of God" language is a
                > symptom of what one might call the Coptic priority fallacy. P.Oxy. 1 (Thom.
                > 27) has kingdom of God, and P.Oxy. 654 (Thom. 3) may have it too. And even
                > if Thomas is trying to avoid "kingdom of God", there are plenty of other
                > options that he uses elsewhere, kingdom, kingdom of the father etc.
                >
                > Cheers
                > Mark
                > --
                > Mark Goodacre
                > Duke University
                > Department of Religion
                > Gray Building / Box 90964
                > Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
                > Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530
                >
                > http://www.markgoodacre.org
                >
              • M.W. Grondin
                Hi Mark, Andrew, et al: I ve enjoyed reading this discussion. The only thing I would have to add is that to my mind the reference to Matthew in Th13 appears to
                Message 7 of 19 , May 24, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Mark, Andrew, et al:
                  I've enjoyed reading this discussion. The only thing I would have to add is that to
                  my mind the reference to Matthew in Th13 appears to indicate that at some point in
                  its development, GTh became aware of GMt at some point in its development. Others
                  may wish to push the point further, but beyond that the evidence seems inconclusive.
                   
                  A couple of points in Andrew's notes:
                  > ... the divergence between P.Oxy. 1 and Coptic Thomas 27 underlines
                  that, whether
                  > "kingdom of Heaven" or "kingdom of the Father" was more original
                  to Thomas 27...
                   
                  I think you meant L20 (as immediately preceding remarks indicate). L27 has neither of
                  the phrases in question.
                   
                  > A "kingdom of Heaven" version of the parable of the mustard seed
                  seems more memorable
                  > to me because of the birds of Heaven in the branches of the
                  mustard tree, even if "Heaven"
                  > is plural in the former and singular in the latter in both Greek
                  and Coptic.
                   
                  Not sure what 'former' and 'latter' are in this context, but the Coptic text uses the plural
                  'kingdom of the heavens' in all three occurrences. I seem to recall someone saying that
                  GMt uses the plural also, but I can't locate that at the moment.
                   
                  Also: CGTh doesn't avoid 'god' completely. See http://www.gospel-thomas.net/htmfiles/god.htm
                  Best,
                  Mike G.
                • smithandp
                  ... No, it was the right reference, pointed out originally by Mark, but I glanced at Valantasis translation which glosses it as the
                  Message 8 of 19 , May 24, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "M.W. Grondin" <mwgrondin@...> wrote:

                    >
                    > A couple of points in Andrew's notes:
                    > > ... the divergence between P.Oxy. 1 and Coptic Thomas 27 underlines that, whether
                    > > "kingdom of Heaven" or "kingdom of the Father" was more original to Thomas 27...
                    >
                    > I think you meant L20 (as immediately preceding remarks indicate). L27 has neither of
                    > the phrases in question.

                    No, it was the right reference, pointed out originally by Mark, but I glanced at Valantasis' translation which glosses it as "the <father's domain", and assumed that "<father>" was a lacuna, but as you point out isn't in Coptic Thomas 27. The pOxy 1 version has "kingdom of God".

                    >
                    > > A "kingdom of Heaven" version of the parable of the mustard seed seems more memorable
                    > > to me because of the birds of Heaven in the branches of the mustard tree, even if "Heaven"
                    > > is plural in the former and singular in the latter in both Greek and Coptic.
                    >
                    > Not sure what 'former' and 'latter' are in this context, but the Coptic text uses the plural
                    > 'kingdom of the heavens' in all three occurrences. I seem to recall someone saying that
                    > GMt uses the plural also, but I can't locate that at the moment.
                    > Ref: http://www.gospel-thomas.net/htmfiles/kingdom.htm
                    >

                    By latter I meant "heaven/sky" in "the birds of the sky/heaven". I was suggesting that the reference to Heaven in "birds of heaven/sky" might have prompted the "kingdom of Heaven" usage at the beginning.
                    > Also: CGTh doesn't avoid 'god' completely. See http://www.gospel-thomas.net/htmfiles/god.htm

                    Good point, particularly in Thom 100. These fellas are never consistent! I love the way that in the parable of the two sons, Matt 21:28–32, which is special Matthew, Matthew uses "kingdom of God" not "kingdom of Heaven".

                    Best Wishes,

                    Andrew

                    > Best,
                    > Mike G.
                    >
                  • Mark Goodacre
                    ... Thanks, Andrew. On Logion 27, the choice we have is Kingdom vs. Kingdom of God, but I take the general point about being aware of issue of textual
                    Message 9 of 19 , May 24, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 24 May 2011 05:56, smithandp <andrew@...> wrote:

                      > That's an excellent point about the Coptic priority fallacy. However the divergence between P.Oxy. 1 and Coptic Thomas 27 underlines that, whether "kingdom of Heaven" or "kingdom of the Father" was more original to Thomas 27, there's textual corruption in Thomas and hence we have the complication of knowledge of the synoptics, or other factors, influencing a scribe at the stage of translation or elsewhere in transmission. A "kingdom of Heaven" version of the parable of the mustard seed seems more memorable to me because of the birds of Heaven in the branches of the mustard tree, even if "Heaven" is plural in the former and singular in the latter in both Greek and Coptic.

                      Thanks, Andrew. On Logion 27, the choice we have is Kingdom vs.
                      Kingdom of God, but I take the general point about being aware of
                      issue of textual corruption. Of course textual corruption could occur
                      in both away from as well as towards the Synoptic texts, though, so it
                      does not help us a great deal in speculating about what may have been
                      present in the now non-extant witnesses. You make a good point about
                      the Kingdom of the heavens / birds of the sky, a link also present in
                      Matthew.

                      > I've always felt that Thomas is at a disadvantage as a Johnny-come-lately to the game. There's an awful lot of scholarship about synoptic relationships and dating, forming a relative consensus, but relatively little about Thomas, and no consensus. So Thomas scholarship has to fit itself around the synoptics. For instance, in commenting that "kingdom of Heaven" is "is in Matthew alone in the early Christian tradition" you've already ruled out the possibility of Thomas's use of it preceding Matthew's or even being more or less contemporaneous and independent.

                      The point you make is an extension of the general point about
                      canonical bias and it is well taken. However, I think it's easy to
                      underestimate just how pervasive a concept kingdom of heaven is in
                      Matthew -- it's driven all the way through Matthew and seems to be a
                      key element in the evangelist's thought. Given the absence of the
                      term in other early Christian texts, it seems more likely, on balance,
                      that the flow is from Matthew to Thomas and not vice versa.

                      > "Kingdom of Heaven" occurs in the Mishnah, and is attributed to Gamaliel, a first century figure. Unless you want to propose that later rabbinical use of "kingdom of Heaven" derives from Christian usage, and hence from the Gospel of Matthew (which is obviously a possibility) or that later rabbis came up with it independently (which they may have) you have to allow that the phrase may have been circulating in pharisaic/rabbinical circles in the first century, from whence Matthew may have appropriated it, and Thomas too.

                      Good points. Few creations are truly ex nihilo, though, and even if
                      the Mishnah witnesses to precedents for the usage of the term, we
                      still have to reckon with the theme as a pervasive Matthean
                      redactional interest.

                      All best
                      Mark
                      --
                      Mark Goodacre
                      Duke University
                      Department of Religion
                      Gray Building / Box 90964
                      Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
                      Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

                      http://www.markgoodacre.org
                    • Mark Goodacre
                      Thanks, Mike. Yes, Matthew s usage is always plural -- kingdom of the heavens. The fact that he does often have God in his gospel urges caution about the
                      Message 10 of 19 , May 24, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thanks, Mike.  Yes, Matthew's usage is always plural -- kingdom of the heavens.  The fact that he does often have "God" in his gospel urges caution about the traditional argument that Matthew uses "kingdom of the heavens" as a reverential circumlocution for "kingdom of God".  There's an excellent study of the issue in Matthew by Jonathan Pennington, _Heaven and Earth_, which I found informative.  All best, Mark
                        --
                        Mark Goodacre           
                        Duke University
                        Department of Religion
                        Gray Building / Box 90964
                        Durham, NC 27708-0964    USA
                        Phone: 919-660-3503        Fax: 919-660-3530

                        http://www.markgoodacre.org


                      • M.W. Grondin
                        ... I see that Valantasis used the so-called Scholar s Version , which of course was the creation of Meyer and Patterson within the Jesus Seminar. Valantasis
                        Message 11 of 19 , May 24, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          [Andrew S.]:
                          > ... I glanced at Valantasis' translation which glosses it as "the
                          <father's> domain",
                          > and assumed that "<father>" was a lacuna, but as you point
                          out [it] isn't in Coptic
                          > Thomas 27. The pOxy 1 version has "kingdom of God".
                           
                          I see that Valantasis used the so-called "Scholar's Version", which of course
                          was the creation of Meyer and Patterson within the Jesus Seminar. Valantasis
                          explains the pointed brackets as indicating "a word implied in the original language
                          and supplied by the translators of the Scholars Version".
                           
                          Of course, if the JSem had used the word 'kingdom', there would have been no need
                          for adding "<Father's>". But since they used the unfamilar language of 'domain' (or
                          'imperial rule') instead of 'kingdom', they then had to add something to the unfamiliar
                          locutions to make sense of them when they appear in the subject texts without a qualifier. 
                          So in all 12 cases where the Coptic text has simply 'kingdom', the SV (and hence Valantasis)
                          has either '<Father's> domain' or '<Father's> imperial rule'. Pretty ugly, IMO - and in
                          this case (where we're interested in the exact wording), downright misleading.
                           
                          Best wishes,
                          Mike G.
                        • sarban
                          ... From: M.W. Grondin To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: Kingdom of heaven in Thomas Hi Mark, Andrew, et
                          Message 12 of 19 , May 25, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                             
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:46 PM
                            Subject: Re: [GTh] Re: "Kingdom of heaven" in Thomas

                             

                            Hi Mark, Andrew, et al:
                            I've enjoyed reading this discussion.
                             
                            <SNIP>
                             
                             
                            Also: CGTh doesn't avoid 'god' completely. See http://www.gospel-thomas.net/htmfiles/god.htm
                            Best,
                            Mike G.

                             

                            Hi Mike

                            The references in CGTh are rather ambiguous.

                            It is not clear (at least to me) whether God in CGTh refers to the Heavenly Father of Jesus or to some other being eg the demiurge.

                             

                            Andrew Criddle 

                          • Mike Grondin
                            ... Yes, I agree that this is an open question. In L30.1, the definite article isn t used, and for that and other reasons, I don t know what to make of it. On
                            Message 13 of 19 , May 25, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              [Andrew C.]:
                              > The references in CGTh are rather ambiguous. It is not clear (at least to me) whether God
                              > in CGTh refers to the Heavenly Father of Jesus or to some other being eg the demiurge.
                               
                              Yes, I agree that this is an open question. In L30.1, the definite article isn't used, and for
                              that and other reasons, I don't know what to make of it. On the interpretation you suggest,
                              though, it would appear to be good to be "one or two" but not good to be "three", which
                              seems a mite odd, but perhaps that could be worked out. As to L100.3, the definite
                              article is used there (thus big-G 'God'), and the suggested interpretation would make sense
                              of the addition of the non-canonical "give me what's mine" clause (100.4), which is in its
                              favor, but I'm rather intrigued with the fact that if the clause is removed, it leaves a
                              symmetrical structure of 4 lines totalling 100 letters. Of course, it could be just a coincidence
                              that L100 would be reducible to a 100-letter structure with the removal of the non-canonical
                              portion, but given the design of the prologue and other features, I have to wonder if it was.
                               
                              Be that as it may, I should point out for our readers, that you aren't the Andrew who has so far
                              contributed to this thread. We have in fact three prominent Andrews on our list: yourself and
                              Andrew Bernhard are moderators and bloggers (in your case, a contributor to Stephen Carlson's
                              blog), while Andrew Phillip Smith (the "Andrew" who has participated up to this point) is also
                              well-known here as a publisher and blogger widely-versed in gnosticism.
                               
                              I should also mention that I've changed a folder name at my site. The sublogia-display  for
                              the word 'god', e.g., is now http://www.gospel-thomas.net/keywords/god.htm
                              (It was previously 'htmfiles' instead of 'keywords'). The main directory (which is slowly
                              nearing completion) is still http://www.gospel-thomas.net/keywords.htm
                               
                              Best wishes,
                              Mike Grondin
                            • steve
                              I had always interpreted this extra bit [in L100] over and above the other versions as a request for the reader s support in his opposition to the romans and
                              Message 14 of 19 , May 26, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I had always interpreted this "extra" bit [in L100] over and above the other versions as a request for the reader's support in his opposition to the romans and the Sanhedrin. Remember, Jesus was regarded as a heretic of the Jewish faith.

                                [Steve Oxbrow]
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.