Ha, tell me about it. I'm a handy guy and when I had a bit of study left after the money ran out I did a bit of handy work here and there: painting, plastering, bathroom / toilet renovation and such. About a fourth of the customers just wanted to squeeze everything out of it, it was their moment to feel important. Terrible, that didn't go very well with me LOL
The fun stuff always pays least hey, isn't that true?
There's solid money in covid now, and it'll be a few years before it stops being hot - I reckon at least 10 years. I wish her luck!
The gospel of Thomas.
Moderator: andrewcriddle
Re: The gospel of Thomas.
Saying 14 has puzzled me for some time, because in the Gospels Jesus gives them the Lord's prayer (and pray in private, not for show), but here it's like he's saying don't pray. I know Martijn's solution is that it could be a different guy, or the canonical Gospels are wrong. But is there another solution in Thomas? It is interesting that in Martijn's translation, "they" is referred to in that first phrase ("their sin").
I know nothing of Coptic, but doesn't this verb conjugation chart suggest that
ⲛⲏⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ is 3rd person plural "affirmative optative"?
I don't know much about "affirmative optative" but I guess it's used in blessings,
so you might imagine this means "if you (bless them for) fasting" or maybe "(bid them) to fast".
This still works with the ending, where what comes out of your mouth can defile you. Another thought is the "they" that keeps appearing may refer to the people who accept you in the foreign land. Possibly it's saying you should not pray and fast and give alms in a foreign land.
-WB
I know nothing of Coptic, but doesn't this verb conjugation chart suggest that
ⲛⲏⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ is 3rd person plural "affirmative optative"?
I don't know much about "affirmative optative" but I guess it's used in blessings,
so you might imagine this means "if you (bless them for) fasting" or maybe "(bid them) to fast".
This still works with the ending, where what comes out of your mouth can defile you. Another thought is the "they" that keeps appearing may refer to the people who accept you in the foreign land. Possibly it's saying you should not pray and fast and give alms in a foreign land.
-WB
Re: The gospel of Thomas.
Hi Willy,WillyB wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 8:25 pm Saying 14 has puzzled me for some time, because in the Gospels Jesus gives them the Lord's prayer (and pray in private, not for show), but here it's like he's saying don't pray. I know Martijn's solution is that it could be a different guy, or the canonical Gospels are wrong. But is there another solution in Thomas? It is interesting that in Martijn's translation, "they" is referred to in that first phrase ("their sin").
I know nothing of Coptic, but doesn't this verb conjugation chart suggest that
ⲛⲏⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ is 3rd person plural "affirmative optative"?
I don't know much about "affirmative optative" but I guess it's used in blessings,
so you might imagine this means "if you (bless them for) fasting" or maybe "(bid them) to fast".
This still works with the ending, where what comes out of your mouth can defile you. Another thought is the "they" that keeps appearing may refer to the people who accept you in the foreign land. Possibly it's saying you should not pray and fast and give alms in a foreign land.
-WB
there is no verb conjugation in Coptic: what you have linked is a chart of Tenses which basically are merely auxiliary verbs, e.g. the have and was and had of Perfect tense, Imperfect, and so on.
Coptic is noun-based and verbs are secondary and adhere to nouns, and not vice versa. What verbs can do is change form when the immediately adjacent word is a noun, pronoun or anything else, and most verbs also have a Stative form, reminiscent of the Old Egyptian Perfect
Let me be brief, however: what you clearly are doing is trying to make Thomas work for the perception that you have of the Jesus in your mind - which basically is fine, as we all do something similar on a daily basis: we test new events against the preconceptions that we have.
Where you go into the woods is with verification of your new ideas in this regard: you mistake ⲛⲏⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ to be 3rd person plural "affirmative optative" and not only do you fail to verify that, you even concede that "affirmative optative" isn't clear to you either - which doesn't impede you from using it in yet another assumption, which again you don't verify
It's your world and life Willy, and you may do with it whichever you want, and the consequences are entirely yours. I see you struggling with the meaning of Thomas and it is obvious that it confuses your existing perception of Jesus - and it did likewise for me, and after a few months of reading Thomas it was evident that indeed his IS "a different guy, AND the canonical Gospels are wrong"
You will not succeed to convincingly mould the "Jesus" of Thomas into the context of the NT unless you completely neglect the abundance of contradictions and resort to building Babylonian Towers of Assumption as you do right here. You are free to do so but I will be no part of it as I have far more constructive things to do
By the way, I knew nothing of Coptic 2.5 years ago. Read my Commentary and you'll achieve a good rudimentary knowledge of it, I think. But you have to choose, Willy: there is no place in this world for both the IS of Thomas and that one of the NT.
And the time has come to claim back the throne
Re: The gospel of Thomas: DeConick on logion 14
Development of Form is indicated by the question and answer unit format of this saying.
This is the answer to the questions posed to Jesus by the disciples in L. 6.1. This accretion
accrued in the Gospel between 60 and 100 CE in order to accommodate a growing number
of Gentiles within the community. In fact, the questions found in L. 6.1 appear to be
echoes of the voices of the Gentile converts, 'How should we fast? How should we pray?
How should we give alms? What diet should we observe?' From the response in this
logion, it appears that this new constituency shifted the interests of the community away
from Jewish practices toward a Christianity with its own developing praxis. I do not think
that the attitude expressed in this logion meant that religious practices were abandoned
altogether by the Thomasine Christians or that they were considered spiritually harmful.
Rather, as I have discussed in more detail in the companion volume, Recovering, it appears
that the language in L. 14.1-3 was understood to be rhetorical rather than literal, perhaps
criticizing obligatory practices once customary to the community. The later community
appears to have replaced its earlier obligatory practices with a renunciatory lifestyle, fast-
ing from the world (L. 27.1). This position seems to me to be more rigorous not more
lenient as some scholars have suggested. A. Marjanen discusses additional scholarly inter-
pretations of this logion in his article.
This is the answer to the questions posed to Jesus by the disciples in L. 6.1. This accretion
accrued in the Gospel between 60 and 100 CE in order to accommodate a growing number
of Gentiles within the community. In fact, the questions found in L. 6.1 appear to be
echoes of the voices of the Gentile converts, 'How should we fast? How should we pray?
How should we give alms? What diet should we observe?' From the response in this
logion, it appears that this new constituency shifted the interests of the community away
from Jewish practices toward a Christianity with its own developing praxis. I do not think
that the attitude expressed in this logion meant that religious practices were abandoned
altogether by the Thomasine Christians or that they were considered spiritually harmful.
Rather, as I have discussed in more detail in the companion volume, Recovering, it appears
that the language in L. 14.1-3 was understood to be rhetorical rather than literal, perhaps
criticizing obligatory practices once customary to the community. The later community
appears to have replaced its earlier obligatory practices with a renunciatory lifestyle, fast-
ing from the world (L. 27.1). This position seems to me to be more rigorous not more
lenient as some scholars have suggested. A. Marjanen discusses additional scholarly inter-
pretations of this logion in his article.
See, others have gone before you Willy, bending over backwards in an effort to deny what this logion says, making complete idiots of themselves - the emphasised part speaks for itself
That, or you could be a Gathercole. As much as I detest and reject his desperate and pathetic attempts at harmonising the Greek and the Coptic in an effort to make them appear identical whereas they're hardly similar given the fact that they're about the same thing yet express that quite differently, his objective observation is this:
This saying is almost without parallel in the intensity of its criticism of
traditional Jewish practices.9 As Gianotto has put it, Thomas is ‘totalement
négative’ towards prayer, alms and fasting because they are not merely useless
but harmful.10 (In this respect, GTh 14 is different from GTh 6, where this is
not stated.) Marjanen provides a helpful spectrum of second-century views
of Jewish practices, from observance, to modification of detail, to complete
reconceptualisation, to rejection (as well as silence).11 On the spectrum of
second-century views of such things, this lies at the extreme negative end,with
Prodicus who rejected prayer (Strom. 7.7.41), and probably the attitude to prayer
in the Gospel of Philip.12 Even next to these, however, Thomas goes further in
describing such practices as harmful.
traditional Jewish practices.9 As Gianotto has put it, Thomas is ‘totalement
négative’ towards prayer, alms and fasting because they are not merely useless
but harmful.10 (In this respect, GTh 14 is different from GTh 6, where this is
not stated.) Marjanen provides a helpful spectrum of second-century views
of Jewish practices, from observance, to modification of detail, to complete
reconceptualisation, to rejection (as well as silence).11 On the spectrum of
second-century views of such things, this lies at the extreme negative end,with
Prodicus who rejected prayer (Strom. 7.7.41), and probably the attitude to prayer
in the Gospel of Philip.12 Even next to these, however, Thomas goes further in
describing such practices as harmful.
Which of these two comments is more convincing? Let me line up the pivotal words of DeConick:
appear to be echoes of
it appears that
I do not think
as I have discussed in more detail in the companion volume
it appears that
was understood to be
perhaps
appears to
seems to me
it appears that
I do not think
as I have discussed in more detail in the companion volume
it appears that
was understood to be
perhaps
appears to
seems to me
Feeble, weak, more than hesitant, completely devoid of arguments as usual: the typical unsubstantiated opinions of DeConick. Gathercole?
probably - only one single word and that is explicitly referring to Philip, not Thomas
Naturally, it is very plausible how this saying was copied yet limited by restricting it to praying in private, fasting without exterior appearance, and giving alms "in secret":
Matthew Capter 6
1 And beware not to do your righteousness before men in order to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward in the presence of your Father in the heavens.
2 Therefore when you perform acts of charity, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may have glory from men. Truly I say to you, they have their recompense.
3 But you, doing acts of charity, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father, the One seeing in secret, will reward you.
5 And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets so that they might be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their recompense.
6 But you when you pray, enter into your inner room, and having shut your door, pray to your Father, the One in secret. And your Father, the One seeing in secret, will reward you.
(...)
16 And whenever you fast, do not be downcast in countenance like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so that they might appear to men as fasting. Truly I say to you, they have their recompense.
17 But you fasting, anoint your head and wash your face,
18 so that you might not appear to men as fasting, but to your Father, the One in secret. And your Father, the One seeing in secret, will reward you.
1 And beware not to do your righteousness before men in order to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward in the presence of your Father in the heavens.
2 Therefore when you perform acts of charity, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may have glory from men. Truly I say to you, they have their recompense.
3 But you, doing acts of charity, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father, the One seeing in secret, will reward you.
5 And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets so that they might be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their recompense.
6 But you when you pray, enter into your inner room, and having shut your door, pray to your Father, the One in secret. And your Father, the One seeing in secret, will reward you.
(...)
16 And whenever you fast, do not be downcast in countenance like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so that they might appear to men as fasting. Truly I say to you, they have their recompense.
17 But you fasting, anoint your head and wash your face,
18 so that you might not appear to men as fasting, but to your Father, the One in secret. And your Father, the One seeing in secret, will reward you.
The other way around? Now that would be rerally very radical, wouldn't it?
Listen, it is blatantly evident that Thomas is the source to all of the NT and Christianity, and I know that is very hard to stomach - but it is what it is.
Perhaps I've been too subtle in my Introduction to both the Translation as well as the Commentary, but it is impossible to finish either without at the very least putting a big dent into any perception of any Jesus held prior.
It is impossible to reconcile these two Jesuses unless you want to fool yourself (while making a fool of yourself in the process) so there's a binary choice: you either go with the Jesus of the NT, or the Jesus of Thomas.
When you do the former, chances are highly likely that you'll throw my work aside after a few pages, which is fine: just take the blue pill.
Yet when you do the latter, you'll get to see how masterly constructed Thomas is, how revolutionary he really is, how he presents wisdom and insights some 1,500 years ahead of his time, and these first 56 logia are merely the beginning even though a lot of the remainder is affirmation. Yet if you go with that Thomas, you'll lose everything of any Jesus you ever thought you knew
Re: The gospel of Thomas.
I'm still planning on taking both pills for a while...