Origen, the gospel of Thomas, and James the Just.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Origen, the gospel of Thomas, and James the Just.

Post by mlinssen »

I can shed light on logion 2 if you like. Been there done that. Fun, and then life continues
davidmartin
Posts: 1594
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Origen, the gospel of Thomas, and James the Just.

Post by davidmartin »

mlinssen wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:11 am
davidmartin wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:17 am Thomas literally says comprehending leads to a state of being astounded and amazed
I don't think that any concept of the bridal chamber can be separated from that
Ah, then you're stuck. Why ignore the remaining 6,500 words in Thomas and hang up everything on one little Greek loanword?

Better yet, why exactly do you not think that
any concept of the bridal chamber can be separated from that
because as a whole the sayings are advanced and seemingly not something that the hearer has ever thought before that does seem to achieve a kind of awe, and curve balls to keep the hearer awake. i'm not doing a good job of explaining this. it's not completely intellectual or mind based
the bridal chamber is a straightforward motif really that anyone at the time would of been familiar with, like the farming and agriculture references (which i wonder if more 'sophisticated' Greek philosophers might have considered pretty rustic but unlike their massive works Thomas packs it in and compresses it like a ZIP file). So the scholars think, aha, it's a ritual or sacrament that will never be known what it was. i think wait a minute, all these sacraments are just outer forms of some transformation that's taking place they're not the thing itself. So bridal chamber is within, heart/soul. It doesn't really matter what the symbol is what happens there is the main thing. So in Thomas different symbols refer to the same thing like treasure, pearl, lost sheep or whatever cause the symbol is just the hook into the meaning of it. you may object to this but i suspect love would be a key to that and Thomas doesn't mention it much but i recon that was a key aspect to go along with the sayings and especially the BC concept itself, but that's one thing that may have struggled to move over from a Hebrew to Hellenistic perspective which was very intellectual orientated and it's quite striking how different the philosophical expressions are, the Hebrew far more earthy and emotional, the Greek highly intellectual and remote from emotions. i would add that the 'Thomas camp' probably was more weighted to the intellectual side whereas the 'Mary camp' was more emotional (as is Paul). The Gnostics went further i would argue down that road of avoiding the emotional response and contrary to some i think mostly were not big Mary fans with the Sethians in particular mostly not but originally it was more fruity and optimistic movement is my guess

i've spent some time on youtube reading the comments from the re-enacted Thomas rendition (pretty good, a few giggles from the other actors one is unbelievably camp). sifting through the comments there's a definite subset that get the sayings and had no love for Christianity are impressed. Its the Christians who are dissing it the most which is crazy. Anyway why did i mention that? i forget.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Origen, the gospel of Thomas, and James the Just.

Post by mlinssen »

The sheep is not lost, most certainly not. It sets itself free from the herd, and ... the shepherd follows it.
An oldy, 09/09/2019:

This parable is a duo-parable, the main character is the shepherd and the secondary is the sheep:

(A) 1. a shepherd, 2. who had a hundred sheep, 3. left the ninety-nine, 4. looked for that one until he found it, 5. cared for the sheep more than the ninety-nine
(B) 1. one of them, 2. the largest, 3. went astray, 4. (was) found, 5. more cared for than the ninety-nine:
A shepherd, who had a hundred sheep, looked for that one until he found it, (and) cared for the sheep more than the ninety-nine, (when he) left the ninety-nine
One of them, the largest, (was) found, more cared for than the ninety-nine, (when) he went astray

I renamed this parable on purpose, as there is nothing lost about the sheep. I am convinced that Thomas points to Isaiah 53:6 here:
'All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned-every one-to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.'
and knowing Thomas he turns this verse upside down.
The contrast between the 100 sheep (Σ) of the shepherd and the one sought after (T) is clear, and leaving the ninety-nine (α) is as mathematically as dramatically evident a catalyst to both states. Thomas presents us once more with a surprising outcome with the shepherd announcing 'I care for you more than the ninety-nine.' (Ω) but the link between that and the catalyst is mesmerising, via the number ninety-nine.
In the sub-metamorphosis of the sheep, we should expect to see something similar when looking at 'largest' (Σ) versus being found (T) - and a feeling of disappointment sets in. The catalyst of going astray (α) being triggered by the starting state isn't the problem, nor is being found a surprising transition state for said catalyst, nor does the outcome of being cared for more than the ninety-nine (Ω) pose much of a surprise given said catalyst - but the transition state of found is hardly contrasting with the starting state of being largest.
What am I doing wrong? The answer is evident: for the first time I am reusing major metamorphosis elements: my outcome applies to both the shepherd and the sheep, as does the transition state. The fact that the outcome is reused is fine in my opinion: the shepherd speaks the very sentence and the sheep hears it. But can we reuse the shepherd's transition state for the sheep? No - the sheep must have its own, namely 'When he had gone to such trouble'. Again, Lambdin creates a problem here by interpretation; the literal translation is 'having-been-troubled' and once more, and again and again, over and over, we are confronted with the extreme importance of literal translation and interpretation: that phrase has no explicit subject.

(B) 1. one of them, 2. the largest, 3. went astray, 4. (was) troubled, 5. more cared for than the ninety-nine:
One of them, the largest, (was) troubled, more cared for than the ninety-nine, (when) he went astray

The largest (Σ) sheep goes astray (α), becomes troubled (T), and more cared for than the ninety-nine (Ω) - that, and only that, is the correct interpretation, and narration, of this parable. The link with logion 2 is brutally evident even if the Coptic word there is entirely different: ϣⲧ(ⲟ)ⲣⲧⲣ instead of ϩⲓⲥⲉ in this logion. And once more we find a very important clue with regards to translation: ϩⲓⲥⲉ means labour(ed), toil(ed), not troubled. When we look at the four occurrences of it, we find it here and in three preceding logia: it is in the 'without difficulty' of the parable of the net, it is in the "who has suffered / who is troubled" of logion 58, and, most importantly, it is in the 'did-not-she-realize a-trouble(?)' and we are confirmed in Grondin's uncertainty about that translation, and I once more highly commend his perfect striving for perfection and little less.
Toiling, labouring: making a great effort; towards introspection, as well as observing everything around you, that is the general catalyst for your quest. We must translate ϩⲓⲥⲉ with 'toil' or 'labour', both of which are nouns as well as verbs: it is regrettable that 'effort' isn't common as a verb anymore as in my opinion that would best express both the noun and the verb. The fisherman chose the fish 'without effort', blessed is the man 'who has made every effort', the woman with the jar 'did not know (how) to make an effort', and the sheep gone astray surely also has put in great effort. I will not travel backwards and fix the translations; I have been going back and forth for countless times (and time) already.
What about the meaning of this logion, its interpretation?
Both metamorphoses stress the importance of leaving the group, becoming solitary, casting yourself away from the majority: go astray, be original, be contrary to popular "opinion in general" - be disobedient. The shepherd meets his equal, his like-minded, in the sheep gone astray, and cares for him more than the ninety-nine.
Again, Grondin provides the perfect translation: 'Did-one of-them stray - the-greatest was-he; he-left (the)ninety-nine; he-sought after-that-one until-he-fell upon-him; having-been-troubled, said-he to-the-sheep this: "I-love/want-you(sg) more-than(the)99."'
Who is the 'he' leaving the 99? It might be both the sheep and the shepherd. Is it conclusive whether the shepherd loves the sheep more than the shepherd loves the 99, or whether the shepherd loves the sheep more than the 99 love the sheep? No. Is this also a pointer to being blessed when you are hated and persecuted, either by others or by yourself? I think it is.
Again, Thomas tells us to "look for that one", but he also instructs us to "leave the ninety-nine" in order to do so. Thomas seems to also promise us that we will find, and that we will care more than anything else for that which we find. And Thomas guarantees us that we will have to toil while doing so.
And with that, it appears that this logion is a perfect summary of the third set of three logia: the "having toiled" is an exhortation to the rich man who pauses from doing so, with dramatic results. The going astray and the leaving the ninety-nine is an exhortation to the man preparing the dinner, who is desperately trying to cling on to his old life and "friends". And the 'looking for that one until he found it' (all by yourself) is an exhortation to the good man with the vineyard who decided to outsource his quest to just an agency, and who surely must have bitterly regretted the outcome of that process.

Ignore the Grondin love LOL, that was then.
The 'was-troubled' thing is wholly incorrectly translated, it says 'have make-be he to-toil' - the sheep put the shepherd to work, as it should. ϩⲓⲥⲉ is what you should do, it's all over the place and the secret to everything in Thomas: put some real effort into paying attention continuously, observe all that you do and think, re-imagine all the images in your kosmos

Concluding, the second parable should be a follows:

(B) 1. one of them, 2. the largest, 3. went astray, 4. have make-be he to-toil, 5. more cared for than the ninety-nine:
One of them, the largest, (was) make-be to-toil, more cared for than the ninety-nine, (when) he went astray

Prerequisite is being the largest, that's the starting state. The end state is having toiled, and the metamorphosis outcome of that is being more cared for than the 99

And the catalyst to that? To go astray, and Thomas is a devil again when he says

did one of heart/mind they go-astray

Traditionally translated with among, as usual, which is not in the dictionary at all, the word ϩⲏⲧ just means heart/mind.
The adjective would be https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C6373, forward / before

Did one, of their heart/mind, go astray - one deviated from their heart/mind, he left the collective heart/mind, he did indeed go astray but not physically, but mentally. Naturally:


Did one of their heart/mind, go astray

Did one, of their heart/mind go astray

He went astray of their heart/mind. He wasn't one of their heart/mind and then went astray
Post Reply