Dating works in the Coptic language

[Secret Alias]

"I imagine Thomas being a Samaritan refugee "

Is this for a novel you are writing or pseudo-scholarship?

[mlinssen]

When we speak of the date of the earliest coptic texts we are talking of an alphabet for writing late Egyptian rather than the language itself. It is unlikely that there was a 2nd century CE Thomas written in what became the standard Coptic alphabet.

That's the current take on things, yes

As the use of demotic script became less frequent, writers from the 1st century CE began using a form of the Greek alphabet to write late Egyptian, This is known as Old Coptic and uses a somewhat different alphabet to the standard Coptic alphabet in which Thomas is written.

Thomas is in Sahidic with a bit of Akhmimic and sub Akhmimic (Lycopolian as it is called these days), and not in old Coptic, yes

The standard Coptic alphabet developed in the 3rd century CE probably in Christian circles. Our oldest example of a Christian text using a version of the Greek alphabet to write late Egyptian, a 3rd century

That's the current take on things, yes

Chester Beatty manuscript, uses the old Coptic alphabet. Apparently what became the standard Coptic alphabet was unknown at that time to the writer.

There could be many reasons for using the old Coptic in that MS

Andrew Criddle

I could repeat myself but I won't

[mlinssen]

davidmartin does not care. Duly noted.
I welcome and appreciate that and almost all comments from Andrew Criddle.
It this case it matters, to some, given some proposals on this forum and on "academia.edu" concerning the composition or translation of Coptic Gospel of Thomas and on abbreviations within it and within other texts.

I added a sixth 'peculiar case', Stephen: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8133

I wholeheartedly invite you to engage with it, as it contains a major argument for Coptic Thomasine priority (although I have a few others as well)

[billd89]

my standpoint - as inconvenient as it is, ...Coptic being written in 1st or 2nd CE is one of those things that isn't widely supported.

Isn't there a consensus that Poimandres supposedly comes from the Coptic language? B. Copenhaver agrees with P. Kingsley that F.L. Griffith initially proposed the Coptic p-eime-n-re= “the knowledge of Re,” which agrees with the content of CH1.2.

Discussion of the etymology: Kingsley[1993/2000].

wiki tells me: "Old Coptic is represented mostly by non-Christian texts such as Egyptian pagan prayers and magical and astrological papyri. Many of them served as glosses to original hieratic and demotic equivalents. The glosses may have been aimed at non-Egyptian speakers." So this would suggest that "Poimandres" would be an early and famous example of (folk?) Coptic appearing as a gloss in a later Greek work which probably dates to the mid-First Century AD?

Quispel, 2008

The Poimandres with its strong Jewish influences, can hardly be later than the first century CE, because after the revolt of the Jews in Egypt and Libya in 115 CE hardly any Jew was left in these regions.

I'm curious about the oldest forms of Coptic.

[mlinssen]

Quoting from the Nag Hammadi Codex II, edited by B. Layton

NAG HAMMADI CODEX 11,2-7 TOGETHER WITH XIII,2*. BRIT. LIB. OR.4926( I). AND P. OXY. I, 654, 655, Volume I, Brill 1989

Page 39, by Helmut Koester

c. Relationship to the composition of the canonical gospels.
If the canon­ical gospels of the New Testament were used in the GTh, it could be classified as a writing of the second century which combined and harmon­ lized sayings drawn from Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Examples of such sayings collections appear in 2 Clement and Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 150).
But in the GTh no such dependence can be demonstrated (see below, § 10), nor is any other early Christian writing used. Rather, the GTh is similar to the sources of the canonical gospels, in particular the synoptic sayings source (Q). This similarity, as well as the type of appeal to apos­tolic authority and the lack of any influence from canonical literature, suggests a date well before Justin, possibly even in the first century A.D.
(see further § 7. below).

(...)

I completely disagree with the parts in bold below, let that be noted. The absence of arguments for any of them speaks volumes. They presuppose canonical priority, and even posit facts about - and in! - Q. Even Koester couldn't shed his skin, it would seem.
But the above points here so I include it

7. THE GTH WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY CHRISTIAN HISTORY.
If the GTh were merely a random collection of sayings, further discussion of its date would be gratuitous. However, it is a writing claim­ing formal authorship and manifesting theological tendencies which govern the selection and interpretation of traditional materials. Develop­ments in the ecclesiastical structure, theology, and cultural experience of Christianity must be expected to have left traces in such a writing.
The proclamation of Jesus' suffering, death, the resurrection as well as the christological titles Lord, Messiah/Christ, and Son of man - attested as early as the Pauline writings and the canonical gospels - do not occur in the GTh (even in questions of the disciples and in self-designations of Jesus). In this, the GTh offers a sharp contrast to other writings from the Nag Hammadi library where christological titles are frequently used and where the kerygma of cross and resurrection can at least be presupposed.
Analogous to the GTh, however, is the earlier sayings tradition which pre­ceded the final redaction of Q, in which the title Son of man was intro­duced.
With respect to the development of ecclesiastical authority, the GTh reflects the authority position of James, the brother of Jesus (saying 12; cf. Gal 1:19; 2:9. 12; Acts 15:13; 21:18). His authority, however, is superseded by that of Thomas, who is entrusted with the secret tradition (saying 13). At the same time, Thomas's authority is contrasted with that of Peter, which was well established in Syria (Gal I: 18; 2:7-9; Matt 16: 15-19), and that of Matthew, whose name may have been associated with the sayings tradition at an early date (see below, § 12). The authority of figures such as James and Peter (as also of Paul) would have been recognized during their lifetime in areas where they actually worked. In order to confirm these apostles' authority after their death, pseudonymous writings were produced under their names as early as the last three decades of the first century, especially when apostles were quoted on dif­ferent sides of controversial issues (cf. 2 Thess 2: 1-2). GTh 12 and 13 are intended to confirm Thomas's authority in contrast to claims made in behalf of ecclesiastical traditions under the authority of James, Peter, and Matthew - not because an apostolic name was needed to confirm the authority of Jesus, the author of the sayings, but in order to safeguard the special form of the tradition of churches which looked back to Thomas as their founder or as the guarantor of their faith.

I agree with the basics here. No matter how and when one wants to date Coptic texts, Thomas precedes all of Christianity - period.
Textual criticism says so, in abundance, loud and clear

Of course, apologists will avoid the content of those arguments and address the context instead, playing their own and age-old dating game, issued from the very inception of Christianity in the 2nd or even 3rd CE by predating their gospels to the first half of the 1st CE

Thomas is a game-changer

[davidmartin]

oops ignore

[davidmartin]

Basically you're right, david: the provenance is Egyptian indeed.
I imagine Thomas being a Samaritan refugee (of whatever generation) like many other Samarians who fled the forced circumcision and other brutal means of domination after Mount Gerizim and most of Samaria got destroyed

It would explain his hatred towards the Pharisees and Judeans, and it would explain the Hellenistic influences in his text

What it doesn't explain is his extremely original thoughts on liberating oneself from dualism.
But yes, it is Egyptian at the core - although he likely rejects Egyptian theology and ideology with his explicit reference to acacia nilotica and the worm in the parable of the sower

The original thoughts, its sort of fuel for the idea of a guy who travels around looking at all that's on offer and finally comes up with his own thoughts, i guess i'm hinting at the famous 'missing 30 years' in the Jesus story. This parallels with Justin Martyr who wanders around seeking the ultimate philosophy. The basic alternative scheme when it comes to Christianity is the orthodoxy built itself on top of this mystical core then had to furiously deny it was being syncretic. An orthodoxy can easily built itself on top of something organic like that, but it tends to then reject the core which is precisely what Thomas is both saying and is, I think.

[mlinssen]

Basically you're right, david: the provenance is Egyptian indeed.
I imagine Thomas being a Samaritan refugee (of whatever generation) like many other Samarians who fled the forced circumcision and other brutal means of domination after Mount Gerizim and most of Samaria got destroyed

It would explain his hatred towards the Pharisees and Judeans, and it would explain the Hellenistic influences in his text

What it doesn't explain is his extremely original thoughts on liberating oneself from dualism.
But yes, it is Egyptian at the core - although he likely rejects Egyptian theology and ideology with his explicit reference to acacia nilotica and the worm in the parable of the sower

The original thoughts, its sort of fuel for the idea of a guy who travels around looking at all that's on offer and finally comes up with his own thoughts, i guess i'm hinting at the famous 'missing 30 years' in the Jesus story. This parallels with Justin Martyr who wanders around seeking the ultimate philosophy. The basic alternative scheme when it comes to Christianity is the orthodoxy built itself on top of this mystical core then had to furiously deny it was being syncretic. An orthodoxy can easily built itself on top of something organic like that, but it tends to then reject the core which is precisely what Thomas is both saying and is, I think.

Emphasis mine

Christianity is, has come forth from, represents, and has a 100% history of: an adolescent emphatically denying his or her own mother and father

"No they are lying"
"No we are the real stuff"
"No we don't know them, and they don't know us"
"We know them, and we know they claim to have come before us, but we were there first. They're lying, and we deny them"
"We were here first. Can't you see? Such and such said so, and it's logical too"
"They are filth. They should be rejected"
"We must make them stop, we are persecuted by them"
"They're killing us, look at us, how we are victims"

And then the virus, the parasite, the cancer, the tumor, finally manages, after centuries, many centuries of lies, rejection, refutations, playing the victim, "look-at-me I'm here help me!!!" - after all that time, it finally manages to kill, persecute, mame and mutilate, exterminate and erase: all of their hosts, their biotope, their origin, their kin, their very own blood, their mother and father - which in fact is their own child

That is the story of Christianity. That is Christianity, in all its essence and ugliness - and all that is written in grand great capitals all over the graveyard where it resides

And Thomas is that core, and it is a fierce core full of hate and rejection of Pharisees and Judeans and Judaism on the one side, and rebellion and liberation on the other.
One for one, apart from the group. Away from society, away from the pen, the dumb flock, the slavish followers. Away from their rules as any and all rules always are their rules. Go astray!!!!!!!!!!!!
Away from your own rules, your "house", the mental models you're not even aware of, let alone have thought through.
Away from the world you think you live in, away from that Kosmos, that "Decoration" - the definition it really has, and is

Away from duality, from living divided, apart from your real self. On towards unity, liberation, freedom - from your Self

That is what Thomas is about, just read him. Read my commentary, criticise it, comment on it, refute it when and where you can. Please

"Sublime"
"Just excellent"
"Not merely a new era in Thomas, this finally is the beginning"

Just a few quotes from people who read (part of) it. I don't need praise, I don't write all this to put myself on a pedestal, I just want to share what I have found in Thomas - because it's beautiful, mesmerising, unthought of. Its radical, extreme, and the fun and awkward thing is... that it is exactly like an adolescent rejecting its own parents

Dear david, you see it, you perceive it. This is exactly what you think it is, and it is even more than fratricide:
Thomas is a text that calls for patricide and matricide, and the end of the story is that instead those successfully engage in infanticide, foeticide even

You must persecute yourself in your head, and you must hate your father and mother and brother and sister - for making you into who and what you are. But at the same time you must love them, because they don't know any better.
Hate with compassion, control the fury, that is what Thomas is about: don't let the lion consume you but instead consume him. Don't "burn with anger", but burn nonetheless. Burn the World, overturn your house

Reject everything, especially the Great Good Fish - because there is no such thing as a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. There is no meaning of life, no Great Mystery, no Answer to All.
The Answer is that there is no Answer, everything is already here. The kingdom is inside you, and "of your eye" and that translation is the only correct one and no one has even tried to refute it, because that exact word occurs 10 times in 6 logia and always means eye, on every occasion

"Those who lead you" are those who persuade, every important word in Thomas is a choice out of many with an equivalent primary meaning, whereas the word of choice has a secondary meaning, a connotation, a deeper meaning. Passing-by? The real meaning there is to Lead-aside, it even is the primary meaning

The chosen? Doesn't that Answer our wettest dreams, to be chosen, to be put on a pedestal, to finally receive that recognition, to get that praise, the fame, to be worshipped, like a GAWD!!! - and that's the Ego there who lures us into their lair, who baits us with his bare bounty, and we know it's all fake and false but it's so shiny that we don't resist. But we can

The chosen are not those who ARE chosen - it is they who HAVE chosen.
They who have made the choice of the fisherman in logion 8, that there is no Great Good Fish indeed.
They who have chosen to walk the path of Thomas, not the Proverbial Path where only the birds come and uselessly "gather" you and nothing more: that is what religions do, institutions: they gather you, coral you - end of story, no ending at all. They just collect you so they have an overview, control. They'll milk you a bit here and there, financially and time wise - but most importantly they keep continuous vigilance over you

Read my Commentary, just read it. It gives you Thomas as it was intended to be given. It will spark the flame in you, I hope; that female fire, the one word that can't be normalised out of 700+ words. The flame of the fire of the lightning bolt of Zeus / Dionysus, that fierce burning core that annihilated his own mother on sight, so that Dionysus was born an immortal, dithyrambus, without a mother. The real mother who gave him life is Zeus the Father.
It is Dionysus in the canonicals that we see, the hopeless and superfluous and geographically confusing travelling by boat in Mark, which may point to Ra as well. The canonicals damn well knew the background to Thomas (and Marcion, I presume) and they cooperated with it. The purple mantle, the crown of thorns, the reed that Mark puts in his hands. The viticulture, the grapevine, the harvesting, the sowing, the ploughing, the planting. The inside and the outside: fertile soil and barren Rock, the monolith of Judaism

The masturbation with the goal of ejaculation, Atum, envisions the continuous process of creation, recreation, finding your own ground, your own fertile soil. Criticising everything and all, most importantly yourself.
You must perpetually be alert and aware, and the Child of the Human, which is You, has no place to lie his head and rest (be relieved from sickness, which is the duality, the separation in logion 74). What is the sign of the Father in You?
Movement it is - there is no Repose.
Repose is for the Dead, and the Disciples are already there. Read my translation, leaving the plurality and gender of nouns and their pointers intact reveals what Thomas was truly about

It is Thomas who started the "kingdom of the heavens". He made up the Zizanion. He says that You created the two when you were made one. You are the Son of Man, the child of the human. You are currently the children of man, Ego and Self rule your life, dividing you across their net of duality, keeping you so busy with coding between the two that you have forgotten which One you really were, and Are.
Read my Thomas, and liberate yourself. Think about it. You get one shot at life, and this is it. You can wander this or that forum and pretend you're big and beautiful but good wine needs no bush. We outscream our innate insecurity just to overcompensate. All that we do is overcimpensation, and that can lead to amassing all kinds of things, but not happiness, not being content with yourself

Yes, david. My dear out-of-order david with your wondrous posts and comments just jotting down your thoughts: yes, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black

Churchianity successfully murdered its own child because that wanted to commit patricide / fratricide, and now it is time to break that circle; now is the time to finally successfully commit that patricide, to free ourselves from religion, from Churchianity. Because the IS of Jesus can't co-exist with the Jesus of Churchianity, and because we don't need religion. We need faith, peace, love and happiness. Yes.
We need each other, we need to unite. We are all Divine, we are all God, god, gawd, Gawds. The kingdom is already here, and we need to live it.
We need to Question the Question: why don't we question that Question? Why do we pretend and assume that it is natural to Seek, to find meaning to our lives? Why do we assume that it isn't already incredibly marvellous and perfect as it is?
The meaning of life is incredibly simple: do that which makes you happy in the long run - and as such there is an issue with its implementation, yes; but that gets easier when you get older.
Do that what makes you happy in the long run. Love, laugh, smile, embrace. Jump off a cliff or look at a flower. Look your lover into the eyes, tell your kids that you love them and how much you like to see them do whatever it is that they're doing because you can see they're happy doing so.
Help them when they struggle and be a balanced parent of sweet and sour, because we all need both: we all are raised in and on the System of Punishment and Reward, that is our Game, those are our Rules. They keep the balance, and the best I can do is be aware of them, so that I don't overdo it. Knowing how it works doesn't mean that you must reject all of it, one's weakness can be a very strong tool

But yes, david. You're there, and here, at the beginning where the end will be, and at the end that is a beginning.
A simple story after all, isn't it? Makes sense, doesn't it? The How and WithWhat don't matter, it is the What and the Why that you understand. Of course all the evidence had to be burned and all the witnesses eradicated, continuously, violently, for well over a thousand years. No one could ever know that Christianity was a parasite that killed its host, it had to pretend that it was there before its host, and that is exactly what it has been doing for over 1,500 years

Infanticide by parasite. And the very eerie thing is that somehow Thomas almost predicts what unfolded, he was a kid that vehemently rebelled against his parents. In a way, it is he who wets the bed, who ruins the bloodline, who betrays his family. But in the end, as well as in the beginning, he is nothing more than a slave desperately wanting to break free - and knowing exactly how to do so. And he describes it, in marvelously coherent and logical and sequential detail. He sets himself against the background of everything that he despises, hates, he declares a full scale war right from the start

Read my Translation, read my Commentary. Give feedback, criticism, help me reach our goal: freedom, equity, peace love and happiness. Release from the tyrants, tearing down the one-way traffic signs. Break the barriers, but most importantly: don't try changing the Rules - just Change the entire Game

There is only one caveat: you must want to accept this outcome if it's a plausible one, if it raises a ton of reasonable doubt. If you don't - well then don't, because it will only take up time and energy.
Yet if you do want so, then delete all your programming, because it is so very, very strong for all of us: read Thomas as if it were the very first text you ever read, and pretend that you have never heard of any Jesus or Christianity at all whatsoever.
Many scholars keep returning to my papers, downloading them once again, and there are more than a handful from the top 50 leading scholars on Thomas. I have been on Thomas forums, and they can't shed their skins, they still do believe in some Jesus, of any kind.
Don't. Suppress it all, read my work, and then you can switch back again - fine by me

Thank you david.

[StephenGoranson]

According to
by billd89 » Tue Jul 20, 2021 10:41 am

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 7:25 am
my standpoint - as inconvenient as it is, ...Coptic being written in 1st or 2nd CE is one of those things that isn't widely supported.


I, S.G., did not write that. It is not my quote.

[davidmartin]

yes indeed you could be onto something there that's kind of what i'm thinking, i wasn't expecting that!
one thing i recon is that challenging and shaking things up - about even cherished beliefs is it's not really doing anything except show people up for what they are and what they're made of. if they're basically good they're going to sympathize at least a bit and can work something out, or maybe they will reveal a dark side disqualifying their constructed worldview along with them. but while they remain unchallenged how do we know?