Complete Thomas Commentary Part II (Logion 0-55)

[Leucius Charinus]

Transcription: and you(PL) will fall to a(n) Repose to you(PL)

viewtopic.php?p=123096#p123096

Logion 90 - I am mulling on it. The yoke can only be a joke, what Thomas tasks one with takes continuous attention, the son of man is not allowed any rest (or Repose, for that matter). I think he is imitating the religious leaders and others, but everyone knows that the easy was only leads to hardship - and vice versa
///
I don't know what the H stands for, it is not anything Coptic. Coptic does use the letter a a word but only as Greek loanword for the same letter: "or", https://coptot.manuscriptroom.com/crum- ... a&tla=C782

And

viewtopic.php?p=127707#p127707

Logion 90, one of the three where Thomas' protagonist suddenly changes name.
The highlighted Coptic word needs no explanation, I presume.
On a side note, this logion was a joke by Thomas: a yoke never is good, and a Repose is only for the Dead. I'm still trying to figure out why he explicitly misspells ANAUPASIS, but this logion dus in Part III of the Commentary - and on the remote horizon at best

But Chrestians indeed, I am sure that the Marcionites referred to themselves as such.

[mlinssen]

You copied the relevant stuff, now please tell me what I pointed out LOL

[Leucius Charinus]

IHS said "Come to me! My yoke is Chrestos, my lordship gentle, you will fall asleep"


Here's my best guess.


"Come to me!

Attend!

My yoke is Chrestos,

IHS got harnessed by Chrestos?
It sounds rather laborious and an imposition


my lordship (F) gentle (F),

Gentle (F) lordship (F)?


you will fall asleep

The populous will fall asleep?

You say

this logion was a joke by Thomas: a yoke never is good, and a Repose is only for the Dead.

[mlinssen]

You know your Greek, I hope: α ναῦς πᾶσις

Look at the text Pete, pay attention to the details: you quoted it yourself in viewtopic.php?p=140661#p140661 - it's right in front of your face and I even pointed it out in viewtopic.php?p=140662#p140662

Thomas likes his buccaneers / pirates, as well as his ⲉⲙⲡⲟⲣⲟⲥ - and the ⲗⲏⲥⲧⲏⲥ made it into the NT without any problem of course! The Romans didn't think much of it - but there is a nautical theme somewhere to Thomas, next to the theme of creation, by sowing / harvesting.
And the ⲫⲟⲣⲧⲓⲟⲛ that likewise made it to the NT, effortlessly as well: cargo, specifically that of a ship

Not in possession of a ship: nowhere to go. I'm not making these up, Thomas is full of wordplay, filled to the rim - and if only someone with real Coptic knowledge would look at it, free from bias. My Commentary lays out a few, and Part II has a few more, but still - there are so much subtleties to Thomas, and subtlety is not my forte

But Repose? Repose is for the Dead indeed, it leaves you without a means to go anywhere: α ναῦς πᾶσις is the lordship that results from the Xrhstos yoke, it leaves you dead in the water

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Aentry%3Da)n5

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... %3Dnau%3Ds

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 3Dpa%3Dsis

And again we see how the bitter sarcasm from the cryptic Thomas went completely AWOL, unnoticed

Am I seeing things? Could well be, but then find a better explanation for this "scribo"

[Leucius Charinus]

You know your Greek, I hope: α ναῦς πᾶσις

Not well at all. One word at a time via Perseus.

Look at the text Pete, pay attention to the details: you quoted it yourself in viewtopic.php?p=140661#p140661 - it's right in front of your face and I even pointed it out in viewtopic.php?p=140662#p140662

Thomas likes his buccaneers / pirates, as well as his ⲉⲙⲡⲟⲣⲟⲥ - and the ⲗⲏⲥⲧⲏⲥ made it into the NT without any problem of course! The Romans didn't think much of it - but there is a nautical theme somewhere to Thomas, next to the theme of creation, by sowing / harvesting.
And the ⲫⲟⲣⲧⲓⲟⲛ that likewise made it to the NT, effortlessly as well: cargo, specifically that of a ship

Not in possession of a ship: nowhere to go. I'm not making these up, Thomas is full of wordplay, filled to the rim - and if only someone with real Coptic knowledge would look at it, free from bias. My Commentary lays out a few, and Part II has a few more, but still - there are so much subtleties to Thomas, and subtlety is not my forte

I cannot see the ship connection you will have to make it explicit.

But Repose? Repose is for the Dead indeed, it leaves you without a means to go anywhere: α ναῦς πᾶσις is the lordship that results from the Xrhstos yoke, it leaves you dead in the water

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Aentry%3Da)n5

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... %3Dnau%3Ds

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 3Dpa%3Dsis

And again we see how the bitter sarcasm from the cryptic Thomas went completely AWOL, unnoticed

I can see that some stuff here is likely bitter sarcasm.

(1) My yoke is Chrestos, [/quote]

IHS suffers the yoke of Chrestos.

you will fall asleep

You will fall into the repose of the dead?


SUMMARY?

My yoke is Chrestos, my lordship gentle, you will fall into the repose of the dead?

Am I seeing things? Could well be, but then find a better explanation for this "scribo"

No. I was intrigued that Chrestos was a yoke (harnessed to a burden) for the IHS.

The idea of "you will fall asleep" - particularly if the sleep leads to death is likely also to be an indication that Thomas was being sarcastic. It's what happens to a society that is heavily burdened and a yoke placed on it. The populous falls asleep in servitude to Chrestos.

[mlinssen]

The idea of "you will fall asleep" - particularly if the sleep leads to death is likely also to be an indication that Thomas was being sarcastic. It's what happens to a society that is heavily burdened and a yoke placed on it. The populous falls asleep in servitude to Chrestos.

YES!!!

Logion 88, 89, 90: polemic warnings even though that is the default in Thomas more or less.
I've thought that Thomas is impersonating religious leaders here, with this very peculiar invitation: come to me!

Look at how the disciples are being continuously abused and put down, and how Thomas advises against discipleship.
If you can't become a disciple to IS, that is actually a good thing.
And now he says "come to me"? Yeah right

My yoke is Xrhstos - a yoke is also what connects and binds two, the Slave and the Slaveowner; but a yoke can never be good and the lion of logion 7 MUST be a symbol of freedom, as no one can yoke a lion.
My lordship - that's a terrible translation of course as it's literally saying ⲙⲛ ̅ⲧ ̅̅ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ, reign-of Slaveowner

But I just can't do everything all at once, so I've left that there in the hope that someone will notice. No one has

Amazing that you come with this Pete, I'm back at square one LOL. Yes, it is absolutely biting sarcasm, and the irony is that this likely even got turned into a slogan! If Thomas lies at the root of Chrestianity, as unwilling and unwitting as I postulate that, then this is the place where the word comes from and nowhere else...

I'm at work and it's been swell already today, TBC later - but not having a ship means you won't have no movement, indeed only Repose - and you'll die, the spiritual death

[Leucius Charinus]

The idea of "you will fall asleep" - particularly if the sleep leads to death is likely also to be an indication that Thomas was being sarcastic. It's what happens to a society that is heavily burdened and a yoke placed on it. The populous falls asleep in servitude to Chrestos.

YES!!!

Logion 88, 89, 90: polemic warnings even though that is the default in Thomas more or less.
I've thought that Thomas is impersonating religious leaders here, with this very peculiar invitation: come to me!

Be careful ! since Thomas could well be sarcastically impersonating (even satirising) political leaders, rulers, archons or even emperors.

Look at how the disciples are being continuously abused and put down, and how Thomas advises against discipleship.

The denigration, abuse, demeaning and putting the (Christian) disciples down is a consistent feature of many non canonical tracts. In the Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles (NHC 6.1) the disciples are portrayed as complete boneheads.

If you can't become a disciple to IS, that is actually a good thing.
And now he says "come to me"? Yeah right

I have spent some time om 13, 22 and 90 to try and determine what if anything might differentiate the IS from the IHS but there's nothing much appearing at present.

My yoke is Xrhstos - a yoke is also what connects and binds two, the Slave and the Slaveowner; but a yoke can never be good

No. It is designed for beast of burden.

YOKE in NT:

Matthew 11:29
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Matthew 11:30
For my yoke [is] easy, and my burden is light.

Luke 14:19
And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.

Acts 15:10
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Galatians 5:1
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Timothy-1 6:1
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and [his] doctrine be not blasphemed.

... and the lion of logion 7 MUST be a symbol of freedom, as no one can yoke a lion.

There can be no MUSTS !!! Certainty brings insanity. LOL

Another way of interpreting this is via the Platonic analogy of the tripart psyche of man:
The man is reason, the lion is passion and the many headed beast are the appetites. The idea in Plato is that reason can yoke the passions and the appetites.

IDK which is closer to what Thomas intended. We need to keep everything on the table.

My lordship - that's a terrible translation of course as it's literally saying ⲙⲛ ̅ⲧ ̅̅ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ, reign-of Slaveowner

That could be quite relevant.

But I just can't do everything all at once, so I've left that there in the hope that someone will notice. No one has

Amazing that you come with this Pete, I'm back at square one LOL.

That happens from time to time. The only consolation is that you may have gained some altitude so that going around in circles becomes an ascent via a spiral. LOL

Yes, it is absolutely biting sarcasm, and the irony is that this likely even got turned into a slogan!

I'd love to know the political context in which Thomas wrote. If we knew this we would know the object of Thomas' sarcasm --- perhaps Thomas' satire.

If Thomas lies at the root of Chrestianity, as unwilling and unwitting as I postulate that, then this is the place where the word comes from and nowhere else...

Whoever wrote Thomas stands head over shoulders of whoever wrote the NT.

I'm at work and it's been swell already today, TBC later - but not having a ship means you won't have no movement, indeed only Repose - and you'll die, the spiritual death

It's nearing midnight here is Oz and I am calling it quits. But it's been a fun exchange and I have learnt a little more that I knew this morning. No big deal. The older I get the more I understand that I know less and less. Be well.

[mlinssen]

The idea of "you will fall asleep" - particularly if the sleep leads to death is likely also to be an indication that Thomas was being sarcastic. It's what happens to a society that is heavily burdened and a yoke placed on it. The populous falls asleep in servitude to Chrestos.

YES!!!

Logion 88, 89, 90: polemic warnings even though that is the default in Thomas more or less.
I've thought that Thomas is impersonating religious leaders here, with this very peculiar invitation: come to me!

Be careful ! since Thomas could well be sarcastically impersonating (even satirising) political leaders, rulers, archons or even emperors.

There's nothing personal in Thomas but the hate towards Judeans and Judaism. So your suggestion only becomes an option when someone makes a convincing argument in that direction

Look at how the disciples are being continuously abused and put down, and how Thomas advises against discipleship.

The denigration, abuse, demeaning and putting the (Christian) disciples down is a consistent feature of many non canonical tracts. In the Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles (NHC 6.1) the disciples are portrayed as complete boneheads.

If you can't become a disciple to IS, that is actually a good thing.
And now he says "come to me"? Yeah right

I have spent some time om 13, 22 and 90 to try and determine what if anything might differentiate the IS from the IHS but there's nothing much appearing at present.

My yoke is Xrhstos - a yoke is also what connects and binds two, the Slave and the Slaveowner; but a yoke can never be good

No. It is designed for beast of burden.

YOKE in NT:

Matthew 11:29
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Matthew 11:30
For my yoke [is] easy, and my burden is light.

Luke 14:19
And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.

Acts 15:10
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Galatians 5:1
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Timothy-1 6:1
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and [his] doctrine be not blasphemed.

... and the lion of logion 7 MUST be a symbol of freedom, as no one can yoke a lion.

There can be no MUSTS !!! Certainty brings insanity. LOL

Another way of interpreting this is via the Platonic analogy of the tripart psyche of man:

No, because nothing in Thomas points to that. If you think it does, please do present a compelling case

The man is reason, the lion is passion and the many headed beast are the appetites. The idea in Plato is that reason can yoke the passions and the appetites.

IDK which is closer to what Thomas intended. We need to keep everything on the table.

My lordship - that's a terrible translation of course as it's literally saying ⲙⲛ ̅ⲧ ̅̅ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ, reign-of Slaveowner

That could be quite relevant.

It most certainly is, and it will be included in Part III

But I just can't do everything all at once, so I've left that there in the hope that someone will notice. No one has

Amazing that you come with this Pete, I'm back at square one LOL.

That happens from time to time. The only consolation is that you may have gained some altitude so that going around in circles becomes an ascent via a spiral. LOL

Yes, it is absolutely biting sarcasm, and the irony is that this likely even got turned into a slogan!

I'd love to know the political context in which Thomas wrote. If we knew this we would know the object of Thomas' sarcasm --- perhaps Thomas' satire.

Now that certainly would require a date, even though the object of Thomas's sarcasm obviously is Judaism, their management layer, Judeans and then some. Religion equals politics, what more do you need?

If Thomas lies at the root of Chrestianity, as unwilling and unwitting as I postulate that, then this is the place where the word comes from and nowhere else...

Whoever wrote Thomas stands head over shoulders of whoever wrote the NT.

I'm at work and it's been swell already today, TBC later - but not having a ship means you won't have no movement, indeed only Repose - and you'll die, the spiritual death

It's nearing midnight here is Oz and I am calling it quits. But it's been a fun exchange and I have learnt a little more that I knew this morning. No big deal. The older I get the more I understand that I know less and less. Be well.

Thanks Pete, likewise! Very enjoyable

[Leucius Charinus]

The populous falls asleep in servitude to Chrestos.

My lordship - that's a terrible translation of course as it's literally saying ⲙⲛ ̅ⲧ ̅̅ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ, reign-of Slaveowner

That could be quite relevant

It most certainly is, and it will be included in Part III

I missed the change of subject title:
My Slaveowner-ship will lull you into non-movement

So what might the complete logion look like?

IHS said "Come to me! My yoke is Chrestos, my Slaveowner-ship will lull you into non-movement"

or

IHS said "Come to me! My yoke is Chrestos, my Slaveowner-ship will lull you to sleep"

???

[mlinssen]

I missed the change of subject title:
My Slaveowner-ship will lull you into non-movement

So what might the complete logion look like?

IHS said "Come to me! My yoke is Chrestos, my Slaveowner-ship will lull you into non-movement"

or

IHS said "Come to me! My yoke is Chrestos, my Slaveowner-ship will lull you to sleep"

???

The superlinears sometimes cause extra spacing, sorry

ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲓⲏ ̅ ⲥ ̅ ϫⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲉⲓⲧⲛ ̅ ϣⲁⲣⲟ ⲉⲓ` ϫⲉ ⲟⲩ ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲁ ⲛⲁϩⲃ`
ⲡⲉϫⲉ- ⲓⲏⲥ ϫⲉ- ⲁⲙⲏⲉⲓⲧⲛ ϣⲁ- ⲉⲓ ϫⲉ- ⲟⲩ- ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲁ- ⲛⲁϩⲃ
said IHS : come!(PL) toward I : a(n) Kind-one is my yoke

ⲁⲙⲏⲉⲓⲧⲛ is the plural imperative for "to come", I don't suspect anything behind that. In related news, Gathercole and DeConick SHARE transcribing this the wrong way: ⲁⲙⲉⲓⲧⲛ ̄̄

Billd would be thrilled

I accept credentialed scholars translations as a start, and they're in agreement.

The footnote on page 157 lists the 20+ scribal errors of DeConick:

33 The complete list of transcription errors by DeConick: ⲉⲑⲏⲧ (ⲉⲑⲏⲡ) (Prologue), ⲧⲉⲛ ̅ (ⲧⲉⲧⲛ ̅ ) (logion 11), ϣⲱⲁⲛ (ϣⲁⲛ) (logion 14), ⲡⲉϥ (ⲧⲉϥ) (logion 21), ⲙ̅ ⲛ ̅ ⲧ ̅ (ⲙⲛ ̅ ⲧ) (logion 29, twice - Layton has the same), ϩ (ⲏ) (logion 30), ⲧⲟⲟⲩⲉ (ϩⲧⲟⲟⲩⲉ) (logion 36), ϫⲟⲡϫ ̅ ⲡ ̅ (ϫⲟⲡϫⲡ ̅ ) (logion 37), ⲡⲟⲣⲕ (ⲡⲟⲣⲕ ̅ ) (logion 40), ⲁⲣⲁⲅⲉ (ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲅⲉ) (logion 42), ⲁⲛⲁⲡⲁⲩⲥⲓⲥ (ⲁⲛⲁⲡⲁⲩⲥⲓ̈ⲥ) (logion 51), ⲃ̅ ⲣ ̅ ⲣⲉ (ⲃⲣ ̅ ⲣⲉ) (logion 51), ⲧⲧⲛ ̅ (ⲧⲛ ̅ ) (logion 60), ϥⲛ ̅ ⲧ ̅ (ϥⲛ ̅ ⲧ) (logion 76), ⲁⲩ (ⲛⲁⲩ) (logion 84), ⲁⲙⲉⲓⲧⲛ ̅ (ⲁⲙⲏⲉⲓⲧⲛ ̅ ) (logion 90, Gathercole has the same), ⲙⲡⲣ ̅ (ⲙ ̅ ⲡⲣ ̅ ) (logion 93), ⲧ̅ ⲙ ̅ ⲛ ̅ ⲧ (ⲧⲙⲛ ̅ ⲧ) (logion 96, Layton has the same), [omitted] (ⲁ]ⲩⲱ) (logion 103, Layton has the same). For reasons unknown (and untold), DeConick doesn't have any apostrophes in her version of the text, whereas there are around 500 of those - and while those can be ascertained with the least certainty given their small size, the transcription errors noted here are unambiguous. While it may seem that DeConick follows Layton, she doesn't copy his error in logion 86 where he transcribes ⲡⲉⲩ (sic) instead of ⲛⲟⲩ (as everyone else does) while translating it with 'their' anyway. For a truly flawless transcription, there is mine

Anyway. Let people continue to worship the emperor without clothes as usual, simply because they lack the "depth" of perception that goes beyond shallow observation

ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲁ ⲙⲛ ̅ ⲧ ̅ ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲟⲩ ⲣⲙ ̅ ⲣⲁϣ ⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲉⲧ ⲛⲁ ϩⲉ ⲁ ⲩ ⲁⲛⲁⲩⲡⲁⲥⲓⲥ ⲛⲏ ⲧⲛ ̅
ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲁ- ⲙⲛⲧϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲟⲩ- ⲣⲙⲣⲁϣ ⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲉⲧⲛ- ⲛⲁ- ϩⲉ ⲉ- ⲟⲩ- ⲁⲛⲁⲡⲁⲩⲥⲓⲥ ⲛⲁ⸗ -ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ
and my(F) lordship a(n) gentle-man is(F) and you(PL) will fall to a(n) Repose to you(PL)

ⲙⲛ ̅ ⲧ ̅ ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ is, just like ⲙⲛ ̅ ⲧ ⲉⲣⲟ, a way of forming abstract notions: kingdom, serfdom, etc. So reign-of(F) slaveowner is what this will say in my final translation and commentary.
ⲣⲙ ̅ ⲣⲁϣ is something similar, man-of ... just like ⲣⲙ ̅ ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ, man-of light in logion 24. ⲣⲁϣ is an individual word as well, though not used individually (!): https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C201

cold, freezing / fever (ague)

The link with sickness and disease is blatantly evident I hope.
And then we get to the 4th occurrence of ⲁⲛⲁⲡⲁⲩⲥⲓⲥ, and the only one spelled this way. None of Billd's favourite "credentialed scholars" pays any attention to it of course./

viewtopic.php?p=140668#p140668 for that: ⲁⲛⲁⲡⲁⲩⲥⲓⲥ? ⲁⲛⲁⲩⲡⲁⲥⲓⲥ: αν ναῦς πᾶσις - not ship possession

Immobile, nowhere to go, stuck in a place or at least on land.
Do note the nautical elements in Thomas, McDonald would perhaps be pleased

Having said all that, here's the "literal interpretation":

said IHS : come!(PL) toward I : a Xrhstos is my yoke
and my(F) reign-of-slaveowner a man-of-fever is(F) and you(PL) will fall to a "Nowhere-to-go" to you(PL)

Do note the substantivation of ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ - while perfectly normal and legit for Thomas (and Coptic) I have to figure out what the grammatical options are to say this with a pure adjective instead

But this is how you translate and read Thomas, this is the required level for understanding him. And everyone before me hasn't come near that, let alone that they pay attention to more than a word or two in and logion - Gathercole being an exception there

And the question is: could someone take any text and turn that into this magnificently evil and deep wordplay?
Never

The game is over, Christianity has fallen already and there's nothing that can be done against it - the only thing that needs to happen is for the giant to become aware of that itself, or for everyone else to do so. But no one can refute anything of what I claim, because it simply is all in the text - it's not a matter of interpretation or exegesis, where everyone else relies on.
Or the dumb dating game for that matter