A question for mlinssen about Thomas

[Jair]

That seems to be Bernard Muller:
search.php?author_id=143&sr=posts

Oh! I had no idea he was on this site. Small world. Lol

[mlinssen]

I don’t know much about this subject. But I do remember reading this page not long ago. Now IIRC this guy is a historicist, but he does some interesting analysis here regarding how Thomas could have expanded on sayings in the Synoptics.

I don’t know his credentials though. And I don’t know how much he looks into the Greek. http://historical-jesus.info/thomas.html

Ah, that's Bernard indeed, who has been taking a break from this forum for a year or so IIRC.
Which is perfectly fine with me, as all he did out here was rehashing material from his site while pointing to it, and not always in a very relevant way.
If you find an argument there for Thomas copying the canonicals that makes sense, please do tell! A typical example of his style is how he explains logion 7:

Note: however logion 7 can be explained very well as an elaboration of a verse (which makes sense) from 1Peter (written around 80):
5:8 "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour."
and the absence of "devil" in the logion is justified by the fact GThomas never mentions Satan, devil or any entity of that nature.

[Leucius Charinus]

BLATZ (7): Jesus said: Blessed is the lion which the man eats, and the lion will become man; and cursed is the man whom the lion eats, and the lion will become man.

LINSSEN (7): said IS a(n) Fortunate is the lion this-one who/which the human will eat he and [al] the lion being become-man and he befouled viz. the human this-one who/which the lion will eat he and the lion will come-to-be [dop] human


The lion and the man in Logion 7 IMO possibly allude to Plato's use where the Lion and the Man and the Many-Headed beast are used as an allegory of symbiosis between parts of the Psyche (person) and parts of the polis (city-state) as follows:


MAN:
Part of the Psyche = Reasoning part
Virtues (Excellences at) = Wisdom
Highest Values = Truth, Goodness, Beauty
Parts of the polis (city-state) = Guardian class

LION:
Part of the Psyche = Energetic part
Virtues (Excellences at) = Courage
Highest Values = Glory, honor, fame
Parts of the polis (city-state) = Military class

MANY HEADED BEAST:
Part of the Psyche = Appetites
Virtues (Excellences at) = Temperance
Highest Values = Possessing, Consuming, Enjoying
Parts of the polis (city-state) = Producer/ Consumer class

Supporting this interpretation is the fact that the lion and the man also appear multiple times in the very short extract of Plato's Republic at NHC 6.5

[mlinssen]

BLATZ (7): Jesus said: Blessed is the lion which the man eats, and the lion will become man; and cursed is the man whom the lion eats, and the lion will become man.

LINSSEN (7): said IS a(n) Fortunate is the lion this-one who/which the human will eat he and [al] the lion being become-man and he befouled viz. the human this-one who/which the lion will eat he and the lion will come-to-be [dop] human


The lion and the man in Logion 7 IMO possibly allude to Plato's use where the Lion and the Man and the Many-Headed beast are used as an allegory of symbiosis between parts of the Psyche (person) and parts of the polis (city-state) as follows:


MAN:
Part of the Psyche = Reasoning part
Virtues (Excellences at) = Wisdom
Highest Values = Truth, Goodness, Beauty
Parts of the polis (city-state) = Guardian class

LION:
Part of the Psyche = Energetic part
Virtues (Excellences at) = Courage
Highest Values = Glory, honor, fame
Parts of the polis (city-state) = Military class

MANY HEADED BEAST:
Part of the Psyche = Appetites
Virtues (Excellences at) = Temperance
Highest Values = Possessing, Consuming, Enjoying
Parts of the polis (city-state) = Producer/ Consumer class

Supporting this interpretation is the fact that the lion and the man also appear multiple times in the very short extract of Plato's Republic at NHC 6.5

You're doing what everyone else does Pete: you take a word or two from Thomas, then dive into completely different texts and ramble on about those.
Without relating any of that back to Thomas, without verifying your assumption, and certainly without trying to falsify it

Pathetic really, useless, dumb, and a waste of time. But you do little more or less than what the incompetent horde of biblical scholars does, granted

You present a version of my translation that is over 1.5 years old. This is the slightly more legible one:

7. IS said a Fortunate is the lion this one which the human will eat him and of-the-lion being becomes man. And he befouled, the human, this one who the lion will eat him and the lion will come to be human.

[Leucius Charinus]

The lion and the man in Logion 7 IMO possibly allude to Plato's use where the Lion and the Man and the Many-Headed beast are used as an allegory of symbiosis between parts of the Psyche (person) and parts of the polis (city-state) as follows:

You're doing what everyone else does Pete: you take a word or two from Thomas, then dive into completely different texts and ramble on about those.

The word or two - the man and the lion - are being spun by the weaver Thomas in order to create the garment of Logion 7. The text of Plato's "Republic" is not alien to the NHL and neither can it be omitted from texts which Thomas would have read and been familiar with no matter in which time period Thomas wrote. Plato was very much part of the education system. Additionally, outside of Thomas but within the NHL the presence of Platonist influence cannot be denied.

Without relating any of that back to Thomas, without verifying your assumption, and certainly without trying to falsify it.

I will address this below.

Pathetic really, useless, dumb, and a waste of time. But you do little more or less than what the incompetent horde of biblical scholars does, granted

Thanks for the concession. However I do agree that the horde has a biblically oriented and consequently scrambled approach. (See below for the "Scholarly Quotes" collected on Logion 7 at ECW)

You present a version of my translation that is over 1.5 years old.

Apologies for that. I have various versions. I should delete the non-current ones.

This is the slightly more legible one:

7. IS said a
Fortunate is the lion this one which the human will eat him
and of-the-lion being becomes man.
And he befouled, the human, this one who the lion will eat him
and the lion will come to be human.

Here's what ECW has collected on Logion 7 (about the man and the lion):

Scholarly Quotes
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... omas7.html

F. F. Bruce writes:
"The point of this seems to be that a lion, if eaten by a man, is ennobled by rising in the scale of being, whereas a man, if eaten by a lion, is degraded to a lower status than was originally his and may even risk missing the goal of immortality. It is not that we become what we eat but that what we eat becomes part of us (as in Walter de la Mare's poem 'Little Miss T-'). Whether, in addition, there is any special symbolism in the lion, as in 1 Peter 5.8 ('Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour'), is exceedingly difficult to determine." (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 115)

Funk and Hoover write:
"This saying is obscure. In antiquity the lion was known to be powerful and ferocious. Hunting lions was the sport of kings. The lion was often the symbol of royalty. The winged lion figures in apocalyptic visions, sometimes as the consort of God, at other times as a symbol of evil. In Rev 4:7, the four figures that surround the throne are the lion, the young bull, the human figure, and the eagle. These images were later adopted as symbols of the four canonical evangelists; the winged lion specifically became the symbol for the Gospel of Mark." (The Five Gospels, p. 477)

Funk and Hoover continue:
"The lion was also used to symbolize human passions. Consuming the lion or being eaten by the lion may therefore have had to do with the relation to one's passions. Understood this way, the saying embodies an ascetic motif. At any rate, Jesus, who was reputed to be a glutton and a drunkard, probably did not coin this saying." (The Five Gospels, p. 477)

Marvin Meyer writes:
"This riddle-like saying remains somewhat obscure. In ancient literature the lion could symbolize what is passionate and bestial. Hence this saying could suggest that although a human being may consume what is bestial or be consumed by it, there is hope for the human being - and the lion. In gnostic literature the ruler of this world (Yaldabaoth in the Secret Book of John) is sometimes said to look like a lion. This saying may ultimately be based upon statements in Plato, for instance his comparison (in Republic 588E-589B) of the soul to a being of three parts: a many-headed beast, a lion, and a human being. Plato recommends that the human part of the soul (that is, reason) tame and nourish the leonine part (that is, the passion of the heart)." (The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, pp. 71-72)

Gerd Ludemann writes:
"Verse 1 is about the humanization of bestial forces in human beings, v. 2 about human beings lapsing into a bestial nature. Because of the parallelism, I have emended the text in v. 2b, 'and the lion will become man', to the text above ['and the man will become lion']. The logion fits well with the ascetic-Gnostic circles which are interested in taming or humanization of bestial passions. They are often concerned with taming bestial natures, of which that of the lion is the strongest." (Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 593)

Jean Doresse writes:
"No doubt the lion here represents human passions, or more precisely, the lying spirit of evil. This is suggested by a passage from a Coptic Manichaean Psalm (CCLVII): 'This lion which is within me, which defiles me at every moment, I have strangled it and cast it out of my soul. . . .'" (The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, p. 371)

Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freedman write:
"This saying, as Doresse notes (page 134), is extremely obscure. From other sayings in Thomas we may infer that the lion can be eaten only if it is killed and becomes a corpse (60), and that knowing the world is equivalent to finding a corpse (57) - the world is not worthy of those who find such a corpse. The Gnostic who has eaten what is dead has made it living (Saying 10). Therefore, by eating the dead lion, which may be the hostile world (cf., 1 Peter 5:8: 'Your adversary the devil, like a raging lion . . .'), you can overcome the world by assimilating it to yourself. If the true inner man is consumed by the lion, and the lion becomes the man, the world has overcome the Gnostic (cf., Clement, Excerpta ex Theodoto, 84)." (The Secret Sayings of Jesus, p. 126)

All the above appear quite haphazard attempts to "Christianise" Saying 7.

I have read through your treatment and interpretation at pp. 90-95. I can add the following.

Here is how I can relate the Platonic analogy back to Thomas and allow Thomas to speak it himself in a reconstruction that makes perfect sense (to me anyway). Substitute back into Thomas "the guardian class" for the man, and "the military class" for the lion. Using your translation we have Thomas saying this:

IS said a
Fortunate is the military class this one which the guardian class will eat him
and of-the-military class being becomes guardian class.
And he befouled, the guardian class, this one who the military class will eat him
and the military class will come to be guardian class.

Thomas (IMO) could be saying that the guardian class is fortunate when they consume (and rule) the military class but that they are completely fucked when the military class consume (and rule) the guardian class. Thomas is talking about the politics of the republic and empire and the very real problem of a military dictatorship bringing down the guardian class (philosophers, magistrates, etc).

Notice I say (IMO) this could be an interpretation of what this saying is supposed to mean. At least I let Thomas do the speaking.

ETA: The Lion and the Man in Plato's Republic may also - at the same time - be interpreted by looking at elements of the way Plato addresses psychology. This is tabulated in summary form here:

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Plato ... ammadi.htm

Your interpretation of Thomas is perhaps more aligned to the psychology rather than the politics.

(PSYCHE)

MAN = Reason and wisdom
LION = Energy and courage

Here the interpretation via substitution yields the following:

IS said a

Fortunate is Energy and courage which Reason and wisdom will eat him
and Energy and courage being becomes Reason and wisdom.
And he befouled, the Reason and wisdom, this one who the Energy and courage will eat him
and the Energy and courage will come to be Reason and wisdom.

\

[Leucius Charinus]

https://www.academia.edu/15050427/Gospe ... us_vexatus

p.130

Socrates' memorable simile of the many-headed beast, the lion and man was relatively well-known in Late Antiquity, [60] as the testimony of Philo, Alcinous, Eusebius, and Plotinus clearly shows. [61] It is so much so that even the Nag Hammadi codices include a Coptic version of the alleged hypotext of logion 7, namely the section of the Platonic Republic (588-89) analyzed above, demonstrating the interest that it created in Gnostic circles. This Coptic version introduces such important changes into its source that it can be considered the work of a redactor rather than a translator, who appears to have simply used the Platonic text as an excuse for his own Gnostic redaction. [62]


Interestingly, in spite of initially referring to the three constituents of the human soul, the Coptic free version tends to distinguish two parts within man, namely an animal-like and a reasonable part [63] ("For the image of the lion is one thing and the image of the man another [64]), and to present the relationship between them as a conflict, just as the Gospel of Thomas does: [65]

But what is profitable for him (sci!. the man) is this: that he cast down every image of the evil beast and trample them along with the images of the lion. But the man is in weakness in this regard. And all the things are weak. As a result he is drawn to the place where he spends time with them ... And with strife they devour each other among themselves.

Footnotes:

60 According to Dillon, Middle Platonists, 302-3, Plato's passage might even have influenced the popular division between "wild" and "tame" passions in the first century B.C.E., as shown by the testimony of Philo, QG 2.57.

61 On Philo of Alexandria, see previous note; for Alcinous, Didask. 186.15-29 with John Dillon, Alcinolls: The Handbook of Platonism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 196-97; for Plotinus, Enn. 1.1.7, 14-21; Eusebius, Praep. ev. 11.46.2-6.

62 Tito Orlandi, "La traduzione copta di Platone, Resp. IX, 588b-589b: Problemi critici ed esegetici," Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei: Rendiconti: Classe di Scienze morali, storiche efilologiche 32 (1977): 54.

63 Plato, Resp. 588a-589b (NHC VI,5) 51.11-23: "Then is it not profitable for him who speaks justly?" "And if he does these things and speaks in them, within the man they take hold firmly. Therefore especially he strives to take care of them and he nourishes them just like the farmer nourishes his produce daily. And the wild beasts keep it from growing."

64 Plato, Resp. 588a-589b (NHC VI,5) 49.34--35.

65 Plato, Resp. 588a-589b (NHC VI,5) 50.24--30.