The gospel of Thomas.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The gospel of Thomas.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:37 am
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:21 amWait? :o What? :? Philo? (I presume a passage in there matches a saying in G.Thomas)
Ha ha. Yes. Notice that the Philo quotation is not on its own; it is an addendum to the one from Hippolytus, who explicitly attributes a saying which is similar to (not identical to!) Thomas 4 to the gospel of Thomas, after which he says that the saying really comes from Hippocrates. I gave the Philo quotation because Philo is citing Hippocrates for a saying which may be the one that Hipplytus has in mind. I have been unable thus far to track down anything in Hippocrates' extant works which matches, except that some of the sayings at the end of chapter 3 of the Aphorisms at least seem relevant.
I went ahead and added that passage, since I had not updated the thread since finding the possible parallel. Not sure it is what either Philo or Hippolytus had in mind, but there it is; let people decide for themselves.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The gospel of Thomas.

Post by mlinssen »

I have, lately, downloaded all 45 works by Philo, and am categorising whatever Thomas could have drawn from. But I'm satisfied that I've found his great inspiration although he doesn't quite agree with Philo, on the contrary

I still could be wrong of course

Wrt the saying about the 7 years intervals: none of that complicated scheming in Thomas, he's nor about inducting in a given hierarchy for World creation, order, or any other silly business that is so striking of Gnosticism
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The gospel of Thomas.

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:37 am
MrMacSon wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:21 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2015 6:49 pm
Notes and Quotes

.
Context and Textual Parallels

Commentary: Refer to links saying by saying.
Attestation

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 5.7.20-21: Οὐ μόνον <δὲ> αὑτῶν ἐπιμαρτυρεῖν φασι [οἱ Ναασσηνοὶ] τῷ λόγῳ τὰ Ἀσσυρίων μυστήρια καὶ Φρυγῶν, <ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ Αἰγυπτίων> περὶ τὴν τῶν γεγονότων καὶ γινομένων καὶ ἐσομένων ἔτι μακαρίαν κρυβομένην ὁμοῦ καὶ φανερουμένην φύσιν, ἥνπερ φασὶν <τὴν> ἐντὸς ἀνθρώπου βασιλείαν <τῶν> οὐρανῶν ζητουμένην. περὶ ἧς διαρρήδην ἐν τῷ κατὰ Θωμᾶν ἐπιγραφομένῳ εὐαγγελίῳ παραδιδόασι λέγοντες οὕτως· «ἐμὲ ὁ ζητῶν εὑρήσει ἐν παιδίοις ἀπὸ ἐτῶν ἐπτά· ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἐν τῷ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτῳ αἰῶνι κρυβόμενος φανεροῦμαι». τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν Χριστοῦ, ἀλλὰ Ἱπποκράτους λέγοντος «ἑπτὰ ἐτῶν παῖς πατρὸς ἥμισυ»· ὅθεν οὗτοι, τὴν ἀρχέγονον φύσιν τῶν ὅλων ἐν ἀρχεγόνῳ τιθέμενοι σπέρματι, τὸ Ἱπποκράτειον ἀκηκοότες ὅτι ἐστὶν ἥμισυ πατρὸς παιδίον ἑπτὰ ἐτῶν, ἐν τοῖς τέσσαρσι <καὶ δέκα> φασὶν ἔτεσι, κατὰ τὸν Θωμᾶν, εἶναι φανερούμενον. / But [the Naassenes] assert that not only is there in favour of their doctrine, testimony to be drawn from the mysteries of the Assyrians, but also from those of the Phrygians concerning the happy nature— concealed, and yet at the same time disclosed— of things that have been, and are coming into existence, and moreover will be—(a happy nature) which, (the Naassene) says, is the kingdom of heaven to be sought for within a man. And concerning this (nature) they hand down an explicit passage, occurring in the Gospel inscribed according to Thomas, expressing themselves thus: He who seeks me, will find me in children from seven years old; for there concealed, I shall in the fourteenth age be made manifest. This, however, is not (the teaching) of Christ, but of Hippocrates, who uses these words: A child of seven years is half of a father. And so it is that these (heretics), placing the originative nature of the universe in causative seed, (and) having ascertained the (aphorism) of Hippocrates, that a child of seven years old is half of a father, say that in fourteen years, according to Thomas, he is manifested

Philo, On the Creation of the World 36.105: 105 Ὁ μὲν οὖν Σόλων ἑβδομάσι δέκα ταῖς εἰρημέναις καταριθμεῖ τὸν ἀνθρώπινον βίον. ὁ δ' ἰατρὸς Ἱπποκράτης ἡλικίας ἑπτὰ εἶναί φησι, παιδίου, παιδός, μειρακίου, νεανίσκου, ἀνδρός, πρεσβύτου, γέροντος, ταύτας δὲ μετρεῖσθαι μὲν ἑβδομάσιν, οὐ μὴν ταῖς κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς. λέγει δ' οὕτως· “Ἐν ἀνθρώπου φύσει ἑπτά εἰσιν ὧραι, ἃς ἡλικίας καλέουσι, παιδίον, παῖς, μειράκιον, νεανίσκος, ἀνήρ, πρεσβύτης, γέρων· καὶ παιδίον μέν ἐστιν ἄχρις ἑπτὰ ἐτέων ὀδόντων ἐκβολῆς· παῖς δ' ἄχρι γονῆς ἐκφύσιος, ἐς τὰ δὶς ἑπτά· μειράκιον δ' ἄχρι γενείου λαχνώσιος, ἐς τὰ τρὶς ἑπτά· νεανίσκος δ' ἄχρις αὐξήσιος ὅλου τοῦ σώματος, ἐς τὰ τετράκις ἑπτά· ἀνὴρ δ' ἄχρις ἑνὸς δέοντος ἐτέων πεντήκοντα, ἐς τὰ ἑπτάκις ἑπτά· πρεσβύτης δ' ἄχρι πεντήκοντα ἕξ, ἐς τὰ ἑπτάκις ὀκτώ· τὸ δ' ἐντεῦθεν γέρων.” / 105 Solon therefore thus computes the life of man by the aforesaid ten periods of seven years. But Hippocrates the physician says that there are seven ages of man: infancy, childhood, boyhood, youth, manhood, middle age, old age; and that these too, are measured by periods of seven, though not in the same order. And he speaks thus: In the nature of man there are seven seasons, which men call ages; infancy, childhood, boyhood, and the rest. He is an infant till he reaches his seventh year, the age of the shedding of his teeth. He is a child till he arrives at the age of puberty, which takes place in fourteen years. He is a boy till his beard begins to grow, and that time is the end of a third period of seven years. He is a youth till the completion of the growth of his whole body, which coincides with the fourth seven years. Then he is a man till he reaches his forty-ninth year, or seven times seven periods. He is a middle aged man till he is fifty-six, or eight times seven years old; and after that he is an old man.

Wait? :o What? :? Philo? (I presume a passage in there matches a saying in G.Thomas)
Ha ha. Yes ... Hippolytus...explicitly attributes a saying which is similar to (not identical to!) Thomas 4 to the gospel of Thomas, after which he says that the saying really comes from Hippocrates. I gave the Philo quotation because Philo is citing Hippocrates for a saying which may be the one that Hipplytus has in mind. I have been unable thus far to track down anything in Hippocrates' extant works which matches, except that some of the sayings at the end of chapter 3 of the Aphorisms at least seem relevant.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:54 am I went ahead and added that passage, since I had not updated the thread since finding the possible parallel. Not sure it is what either Philo or Hippolytus had in mind, but there it is; let people decide for themselves.
Aha! Cheers.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The gospel of Thomas.

Post by MrMacSon »

mlinssen wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:58 am
I have, lately, downloaded all 45 works by Philo, and am categorising whatever Thomas could have drawn from. I'm satisfied that I've found his great inspiration although he doesn't quite agree with Philo, on the contrary

I still could be wrong of course

Wrt the saying about the 7 years intervals: none of that complicated scheming in Thomas, he's nor about inducting in a given hierarchy for World creation, order, or any other silly business that is so striking of Gnosticism
Good to hear you're looking at Philo in light of what you've inducted/deducted about Thomas, and in light of what Stevan L. Davies, Marvin Meyers, Funk and - and no doubt others - have looked at and said in relation to Philo and Thomas. I can imagine the nature of Thomas you've uncovered wouldn't quite agree with Philo, but it will be interesting to see what you've found.
WillyB
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:47 am

Re: The gospel of Thomas.

Post by WillyB »

I found Martijn's very useful document before this site. Some of the sayings seem unclear or unintuitive to me in all the translations (at least 4) I've looked at. Not knowing Coptic, I wonder if if anyone can help straighten some things out.

Saying 4, according to Martijn's document, does not contain the word "ask," yet this word is in all the translations.

Plus, the saying doesn't seem to have a clear message (IMHO).

Let me go out on a limb, starting from Martijn's text (just the first half of it):
Saying 4: said IS he will delay not viz. the human [al] old-person in his(PL) day to make-cease a(n) little [al] child young he in seven [al] day because-of the Placeof the life and he will live :
Now this almost sounds, if you just read it, that the old man won't hesitate to kill the baby and thereby he will live. But how about:
said IS: he will delay not, an old man, his days to cease; a little child seven days young, for the reason of the place in life, and he will live (hence)
a little more editing:
said IS: he will delay not, an old man, to end his days, for the reason of (taking) the place in life of a little child seven days young, so that he can live on.
then the rest of the saying seems more apt as well (including the Greek fragment)
thus : many that are first will become last and last, first, and (so) that they come to be a single one.
Please let me know if there are clear grammatical reasons to accept or reject any of these possibilities...

Thanks, -William


mlinssen wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 3:28 am Magnificent thread again Ben! That is a lot of work, transcribing the text

For posterity, a link to my translation where you can look up each and every word with just a click:

https://www.academia.edu/42110001/Inter ... ranslation

I'm updating that every now and then while I go through the logia and putting commentary to them. The translation is still fresh, half a year old now, and there are nuances and subtleties that I haven't discovered yet

Martijn
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The gospel of Thomas.

Post by mlinssen »

WillyB wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 8:46 pm I found Martijn's very useful document before this site. Some of the sayings seem unclear or unintuitive to me in all the translations (at least 4) I've looked at. Not knowing Coptic, I wonder if if anyone can help straighten some things out.

Saying 4, according to Martijn's document, does not contain the word "ask," yet this word is in all the translations.

Plus, the saying doesn't seem to have a clear message (IMHO).

Let me go out on a limb, starting from Martijn's text (just the first half of it):
Saying 4: said IS he will delay not viz. the human [al] old-person in his(PL) day to make-cease a(n) little [al] child young he in seven [al] day because-of the Placeof the life and he will live :
Now this almost sounds, if you just read it, that the old man won't hesitate to kill the baby and thereby he will live. But how about:
said IS: he will delay not, an old man, his days to cease; a little child seven days young, for the reason of the place in life, and he will live (hence)
a little more editing:
said IS: he will delay not, an old man, to end his days, for the reason of (taking) the place in life of a little child seven days young, so that he can live on.
then the rest of the saying seems more apt as well (including the Greek fragment)
thus : many that are first will become last and last, first, and (so) that they come to be a single one.
Please let me know if there are clear grammatical reasons to accept or reject any of these possibilities...

Thanks, -William
Hi Willy, thanks and you're welcome.
You can click any of the Coptic in my Translation and that will lead you straight to the Dictionary. A few words on that exist in the Introduction

A much longer word on the first 14 logia is in my Commentary: https://www.academia.edu/46974146/Compl ... n_content_

I'll release Part II in the coming weeks, it'll contain up to logion 55

TL;DR: the ceasing is that of growing (up) - we split (become dualised) when we grow up so "ceasing" the young child would prevent that. Read on about the dead things we eat and how we make ourselves the two by doing so, etc

My Translation is 100% literal and grammatically correct / possible, I don't make up anything in it, I just explore the available grammatical possibilities. It all makes perfect sense, I'm at slightly over half of Thomas in my Commentary and it all is mesmerising, beautiful, logical and coherent - and I take the text exactly as it is in my Translation, which is an exact transposition of the Coptic, word-for-word
WillyB
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:47 am

Re: The gospel of Thomas.

Post by WillyB »

Thanks, I've now read your analysis, and I appreciate it, and agree to a point. You still don't explain the punch line, why they "become one."
It's hard, and I admit I'm biased, but try this:
said IS: he will hesitate not, an old man, to end his days, for the reason-of/opportunity-of (taking) the place in life of a little child seven days young, so that he (the old man) can live on; thus : many that are first will become last and last, first, and (so) that they come to be a single one.
It's about reincarnation (touched on only indirectly in the canonical gospels). Possibly at 7 days no soul has yet entered the child. Now usually I think there's a long period before one re-enters, but the saying makes it clear you will want to re-enter when you can. In subsequent lives you can be high, then low, or low, then high. Eventually the two (male & female soul mates, see saying 22) become one. We all are one, it's been said. See also "Dweller on Two Planets" (channeled by Philos the Tibetan) or Edgar Cayce (who was once the high priest of Egypt, but in a later life or two, a scoundrel).
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The gospel of Thomas.

Post by mlinssen »

WillyB wrote: Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:33 pm Thanks, I've now read your analysis, and I appreciate it, and agree to a point. You still don't explain the punch line, why they "become one."
It's hard, and I admit I'm biased, but try this:
said IS: he will hesitate not, an old man, to end his days, for the reason-of/opportunity-of (taking) the place in life of a little child seven days young, so that he (the old man) can live on; thus : many that are first will become last and last, first, and (so) that they come to be a single one.
It's about reincarnation (touched on only indirectly in the canonical gospels). Possibly at 7 days no soul has yet entered the child. Now usually I think there's a long period before one re-enters, but the saying makes it clear you will want to re-enter when you can. In subsequent lives you can be high, then low, or low, then high. Eventually the two (male & female soul mates, see saying 22) become one. We all are one, it's been said. See also "Dweller on Two Planets" (channeled by Philos the Tibetan) or Edgar Cayce (who was once the high priest of Egypt, but in a later life or two, a scoundrel).
Thomas holds no relation to the canonicals, they just copied his content only in order to put it into their context

The 7 days for the soul entering - where do you get that, and how is that justified in Thomas?
Usually there's a long period before entering? Have you witnessed it often?
The saying makes it clear? Well then how exactly?
In subsequent lives? Really? How do you know? Hi, low? Really? How, why?
Eventually you will become one, these "male and female soul mates"? Why bother then, if it's all fixed anyway?

It seems like you're using Thomas to corroborate stories from elsewhere. You're not very successful, if you ask me.
Thomas rejects reincarnation of course, it's one of the carrots. Have you ever read logion 29, 87, 112?
WillyB
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:47 am

Re: The gospel of Thomas.

Post by WillyB »

I am trying to learn. Some of your questions are hard. John 9:2 indicates the disciples understood sin before birth, like in a past life. I have read all of Thomas and other non-canonical gospels, and not found anything against reincarnation. (4 and 22 support it, along with other religions, and many Christian sects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarna ... ristianity). I think reincarnation is interesting but maybe not that important to our life in this world. I will keep trying to make sense of Thomas for myself and remain grateful for the resources you have provided.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The gospel of Thomas.

Post by mlinssen »

WillyB wrote: Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:18 am I am trying to learn. Some of your questions are hard. John 9:2 indicates the disciples understood sin before birth, like in a past life. I have read all of Thomas and other non-canonical gospels, and not found anything against reincarnation. (4 and 22 support it, along with other religions, and many Christian sects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarna ... ristianity). I think reincarnation is interesting but maybe not that important to our life in this world. I will keep trying to make sense of Thomas for myself and remain grateful for the resources you have provided.
That's fine Willy, don't let me scare you!

It was after a few months, I think, that I drew the conclusion that the Jesus of Thomas didn't have enough in common with the Jesus of the canonicals - that was 2008, I believe.
I simply can't mix the two, they share content but in entirely different contexts - and as such I can't involve any of the canonicals when trying to interpret Thomas. Needless to say, no one tries to do the reverse either, so why even do so to start with?

If you just try to make a case for your arguments, you could find out yourself whether or not this holds true for you.
For instance logion 4: just take one phrase at a time, and comment only on the phrase itself: nothing more, nothing less

So far, the only thing in your interpretation that matches anything in logion 4, is the number 7. I think you need to do a lot better than that LOL, especially if you want to use it "in favour of reincarnation". Logion 22 also in favour of reincarnation hey? I'm really starting to wonder how on earth any of my papers has been of any use to you, honestly. But you'll have my full interpretation of half of Thomas by next month (and I'm quite sure that very little in there is going to agree with what you think of thomas now, but we'll see)
Post Reply