WHO is this god: the "Father of Truth" ?

[billd89]

In almost 9 years of posts on this forum, I see the "Father of Truth" has been mentioned only 4x: here, here and here. Apart from my own Reply on another thread several days ago, none of these other reply-posts even address the god, his identity or function(s) directly.

In short: there's never been an explicit discussion of this Topic. I don't see this "Father of Truth" identified by name elsewhere -- surely, that cannot be right.

So -- who/what is the deity? Regarding the 'Father of God', it may be inferred from John 14:6 ("I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me") that Jesus' Father-God is likewise the "Father of Truth." See also the implication in John 8:44. Whether or not the SAME "Father of Truth" as the Gnostic/Valentinian version, who is it precisely? (I suppose it was originally an obscure Canaanite Father-God On, from Beth-Horon, which was transformed and evolved over many centuries among 'Sethian' Judeo-Egyptians. That's not a theory presented elsewhere; it is just my opinion from evidence below.)

What I posted earlier:

Heracleon: Fragments from his Commentary on the Gospel of John

http://gnosis.org/library/fragh.htm

Fragment 20, on John 4:21 (In John it says, “Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.’”) The mountain represents the Devil, or his world, since the Devil was one part of the whole of matter, but the world is the total mountain of evil, a deserted dwelling place of beasts, to which all who lived before the law and all Gentiles render worship. But Jerusalem represents the creation or the Creator whom the Jews worship. . . The mountain is the creation which the Gentiles worship, but Jerusalem is the creator whom the Jews serve. You then who are spiritual should worship neither the creation nor the Craftsman, but the Father of Truth. And he (Jesus) accepts her (the Samaritan woman) as one of the already faithful, and to be counted with those who worship in truth.

The Greek in Origen's Commentarii In Evangelium Joannis Book 13 Section|Fragment 95 (13.95):

Ὅτε ἔδοξεν πιθανώτατα τετηρηκέναι ὁ Ἡρακλέων ἐν τούτοις τὸ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν προτέρων μὴ εἰρῆσθαι αὐτῇ· »Πίστευέ »μοι, γύναι«, νῦν δὲ τοῦτο αὐτῇ προστετάχθαι, τότε ἐπεθόλωσεν τὸ μὴ ἀπίθανον παρατήρημα, εἰπὼν ὄρος μὲν τὸν διάβολον λέγεσθαι ἢ τὸν κόσμον αὐτοῦ, ἐπείπερ μέρος ἓν ὁ διάβολος ὅλης τῆς ὕλης, φησίν, φησίν, ὁ δὲ κόσμος τὸ σύμπαν τῆς κακίας ὄρος, ἔρημον οἰκητήριον θηρίων, ᾡ προσεκύνουν πάντες οἱ πρὸ νόμου καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοί· Ἱεροσόλυμα [*] [*] δὲ τὴν κτίσιν ἢ τὸν κτίστην, ᾡ προσεκύνουν Ἰουδαῖοι.

ἀλλὰ καὶ δευτέρως ὄρος μὲν ἐνόμισεν εἶναι τὴν κτίσιν ᾗ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ προσεκύνουν· Ἱεροσόλυμα δὲ τὸν ᾦ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ελάτρευον.

ὑμεῖς οὐν, φησίν, οἱονεὶ πνευματικοὶ ουτε τῇ κτίσει ουτε τῷ δημιουργῷ προσκυνήσετε, ἀλλὰ τῷ πατρὶ τῆς ἀληθείας· καὶ συμπαρα- λαμβάνει γε, φησίν, αὐτὴν ὡς ἤδη πιστὴν καὶ συναριθμουμένην τοῖς κατὰ ἀλήθειαν προσκυνηταῖς.

To capture more of the gnostic sensibility, here is my translation:

The Mountain {desert/wasteland; district = ὄρος} is called the Accuser {διάβολος}, the Cosmos or 'His Cosmos' (since the Accuser is in all Matter), but the Cosmos is 'the Boundary of Evil' {or: 'Mountain of Vice'? = κακίας ὄρος} -- the solitary {ἔρημον} habitation {οἰκητήριον} of brutes {θηρίων} -- which all before the Law and Gentiles have worshipped.

But the Second Horos {δευτέρως ὄρος} is accordingly acknowledged to be The Work, or what the Gentiles worship, and 'Jerusalem' what the Jews serve.

We -- O ye that are Pneumatikoi -- worship not the Work {or Ordinance? = κτίσις}, nor the Demiurge {Divine Architect, Artificer = Δημιουργός}, but the Father of Truth {πατήρ ἀληθείας}. And take it, O ye that worship, for being already faithful and as being numbered with they who worship in Truth.

My interpretation:

If Heracleon's commentary dates c.125-150 AD and that source myth is not from Alexandria, then this God(s) concept should be at least 30-50 years older still, so ~100 AD or earlier. I have no idea if a putative Historical Jesus was a Member of or trained by the (Judeo-Egyptian?) cult of the unnamed (Judeo-Egyptian) Father-God. The Unknown Father-God is still a great cipher for me (although I suspect it might be a cryptic interpretation or convolution of Osiris-Usorus in a complex Judaic form), I don't know. There may have been simultaneous, competing and discordant Gnostic definitions for THIS god in the 1st C. AD, so there can be no one true answer: that also doesn't make sense and it remains a wholly unsatisfactory conclusion. However, Philo Judaeus speaks with contempt about 'radical allegorizers' and that opprobrium may indicate a breakdown of consensus: the Jews' God was abstracting and pluralizing in the Diaspora c.25 AD. This is certainly one possibility, but speculation.

Other key points are obvious. Whether it is a ‘Mountain of Vice’, a 'wasteland of brutes' (i.e. accursed Cain-ish landscape) or an isolating dungeon, this Cosmos is deplorable if not Evil. Those ‘before the Law’ might be older Semite groups who did not follow Moses’ Pentateuch (in addition to gentiles): Cainites, Naaseni, etc? That heretics and pagans still ‘worship Creation’ is the point, for that is 'the realm of the Accuser' and 'the Boundary of Evil'. Cosmic Reality is corrupt, so logically it is corrupting to be pantheist, worship Substances, Nature, etc. Those who put themselves 'under the horos' are denizens of Accuser's district. So WHO is the Accuser god? I see Apollyon -- Horon, in the Egyptian definition. Where Oros = Horos is suggested, the realm of Horon, i.e. Baal Zeboul/Horon, suits the property of 'Lord of the Pit' and Horon/Horus also (confoundingly) 'God of a Lofty Place', of the Divine Palace, etc. This leads me to conclude that an older competing deity is intended and demonized, obscured.

There are TWO Horoses. The first should be The Horon himself, the Cosmocrator; the second is his Cosmic Work, 'Creation' ('Cosmos'). The Jews have replaced this Cosmos concept with ‘Jerusalem’ on earth; it is unclear if they imagine the same Cosmocrator. Heracleon's Gnostic interpretation ignores any other possible world-views, so his audience is obviously those influenced by Judaism and (lapsed) Jews. What is presented is a counterpoint to Judaism, not Christianity. So I believe this philosophy is pre-Xian, or from a time when Christianity was forming, although later on Jesus is added and made the mouthpiece for this (older) Pneumatic doctrine which was Judeo-Gnostic and (probably Sethian).

(Sethian) Gnostics/Pneumatikoi worship neither the Law/Work (i.e anything 'Material' or 'made'), nor do they serve the Creator God (i.e. Logos/ Cosmocrator/Demiurge), but instead they worship ‘The Father of Truth’. One may also be included with those who worship in Truth, if they are faithful to ‘Truth’. Exactly who is the Father-god remains a mystery, although there are two Father Gods (one True, one false.) "The Father of Truth" appears in a number of 'Gnostic' or quasi-Gnostic sources, for examples, the so-called Valentinian Gospel of Truth (which dates c.150 AD, though the Sethian concept must be older), and far more prominently in the frankly Sethian but adapted Second Treatise of the Great Seth (c.175 AD). Sethianism is far older than Valentinianism (or the surviving Christianized Sethian tractates), so it is reasonable to date this abstraction to the First C. AD at least. Furthermore, and independently, if NT Gospel of John 8 (c.90 AD) would have the same 'Father of Truth' and διαβόλου (John 8:44), this (Sethian) gnostic notion must be at least c.30 AD or older. We cannot be more precise than that, and this is admittedly speculative.
...
This passage from the 'Gospel of Truth' might elaborate an instruction to Therapeutae or their direct inheritors (in which case, 'God' is some form of their 'Being' = On, with Horon as his Son) in Alexandria and the Diaspora ...

'The Gospel of Truth', refined (LINK):

The 'Gospel of Truth' is Chara {χαρά} to those who have received from Father of Truth {=On} the gift {χάρισμα} of 'Gnosis of God' by the Power of Logos, who came from the Pleroma and who is within Thought and Mind of the Father of Truth {On); it is Logos {=Hor-On} who is addressed as 'Savior,' for that is what we call the work He performs for the redemption of those ignorant of the Father of Truth.

What we have here is a parallel and rival Judeo-Egyptian religion (i.e. veritable Jewish Mystery-Cult) -- largely and broadly: 'Sethianism' -- which was anathematized by Jerusalem's Judaism in the First C. and rapidly subsumed by nascent Roman Christianity throughout the Second C. AD.

[dbz]

I don't see this "Father of Truth" identified by name elsewhere -- surely, that cannot be right.

So -- who/what is the deity?

Although ‘The Father of Greatness’ is not attested as such in the Nag Hammadi library, sev­eral of his epithets are also found in the Gnostic texts. ‘The Father of Truth’ and ‘The God of Truth’ appear in Eugnostos the Blessed. The God of Truth is also mentioned in the Apocalypse of Adam. ‘The Father, the Lord of the All’ is found in Asclepius. The Hypostasis of the Archons and the Teachings of Silvanus mention ‘The Father of the All’. (p. 193.)

• "The Religious Terminology in the Nag Hammadi Texts and in Manichaean Literature by Paul Van Lindt" (PDF)

It is possible that Justin’s παντὸς πατέρα (every father) implies the same concept as Paul’s πατὴρ πάντων (father of all) i.e. the Greek middle-platonic view of a transcendent-god as the cosmic father of all.

[mlinssen]

Just a quickie bild:

Screenshot_20220802-191227_ReadEra Premium.jpg (1.42 MiB) Viewed 982 times

Where did you get your source for the gospel of Truth?

Chara {χαρά} to those who have received from Father of Truth {=On} the gift {χάρισμα}

is not in it at all, certainly not the word god

[dbz]

Where did you get your source for the gospel of Truth?

Also N.B.:
Robinson, James McConkey (1984). The Nag Hammadi Library in English. Brill Archive. p. 331. ISBN 978-90-04-07185-8. "It was not possible for them to know ' who the Father of ' Truth, the Man of the Greatness, is. But they who received ' the name because of contact with ' ignorance—which (is) a burning ' and a vessel—having created ' it to destroy Adam whom they had made, in order to ' cover up those who are theirs ' in the same way."

pp.37f

Screenshot 2022-08-02 at 13-46-27 The Nag Hammadi Library in English - Google Books.png (89.34 KiB) Viewed 959 times

[billd89]

Where did you get your source for the gospel of Truth?

At the LINK I provided.

Here is another; Coptic sometimes garbles in some browsers. See Geoffrey S. Smith, Valentinian Christianity. Texts and Translations [2020],
pp.130-1:

ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̅ⲧⲙⲏⲉ ⲟⲩⲧⲉⲗⲏⲗ ⲡⲉ 32 ⲛ̅ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲛ̅ⲧⲁϩϫⲓ ⲡⲓϩⲙⲁⲧ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ̅ 33 ⲙ̅ⲡⲓⲱⲧ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ ⲧⲙⲏⲉ ⲁⲧⲣⲟⲩⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛϥ̅ 34 ϩⲛ̅ ⲧϭⲁⲙ ⲙ̅ⲡⲓϣⲉϫⲉ ⲛ̅ⲧⲁϩⲓ̈ ⲉⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲛ̅ 35 ⲡⲓⲡⲗⲏⲣⲱⲙⲁ, ⲡⲉⲉⲓ ⲉⲧϩⲛ̅ ⲡⲓⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ 36 ⲟⲩⲁϩⲁ ⲡⲓⲛⲟⲩⲥ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲱⲧ, ⲉⲧⲉ 37 ⲡⲉⲉⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲟⲩϣⲉϫⲉ ⲁⲣⲁϥ ϫⲉ 38 ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ, ⲉⲡⲣⲉⲛ ⲙ̅ⲫⲱⲃ ⲉⲧϥ̅ⲛⲁ- 39 ⲉⲉⲓϥ, ⲡⲉ ⲁⲡⲥⲱⲧⲉ ⲛ̅ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲛ̅ⲧⲁϩⲣ̅ 17.1 ⲁⲧⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛ ⲡⲓⲱⲧ. ⲉⲡⲓⲣⲉ̣ⲛ ⲇ̣ⲉ̣ [ⲙ]- 2 ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ̅ ⲁ- 3 ⲃⲁⲗ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ ϯϩⲉⲗⲡⲓⲥ, ⲉⲡϭⲓⲛⲉ ⲡⲉ 4 ⲛ̅ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲕⲱⲧⲉ ⲛ̅ⲥⲱϥ.

The good news of truth is a joy 32 for those who have received grace from 33 the Father of the truth to know him by 34 the power of the Word who has come forth from 35 the fullness, this one who is in the thought 36 and mind of the Father, 37 the one called 38 Savior, since it is the name of the task that he will 39 accomplish, salvation for those who have become 17.1 ignorant of the Father. The name [of] 2 the gospel is the appearance 3 of hope, discovery 4 for those who search for him.

A Greek text is wanting; this work was NOT originally composed in Coptic, but rather in Greek.

[mlinssen]

Where did you get your source for the gospel of Truth?

At the LINK I provided.

Here is another; Coptic sometimes garbles in some browsers. See Geoffrey S. Smith, Valentinian Christianity. Texts and Translations [2020],
pp.130-1:

ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̅ⲧⲙⲏⲉ ⲟⲩⲧⲉⲗⲏⲗ ⲡⲉ 32 ⲛ̅ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲛ̅ⲧⲁϩϫⲓ ⲡⲓϩⲙⲁⲧ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ̅ 33 ⲙ̅ⲡⲓⲱⲧ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ ⲧⲙⲏⲉ ⲁⲧⲣⲟⲩⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛϥ̅ 34 ϩⲛ̅ ⲧϭⲁⲙ ⲙ̅ⲡⲓϣⲉϫⲉ ⲛ̅ⲧⲁϩⲓ̈ ⲉⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲛ̅ 35 ⲡⲓⲡⲗⲏⲣⲱⲙⲁ, ⲡⲉⲉⲓ ⲉⲧϩⲛ̅ ⲡⲓⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ 36 ⲟⲩⲁϩⲁ ⲡⲓⲛⲟⲩⲥ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲱⲧ, ⲉⲧⲉ 37 ⲡⲉⲉⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲟⲩϣⲉϫⲉ ⲁⲣⲁϥ ϫⲉ 38 ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ, ⲉⲡⲣⲉⲛ ⲙ̅ⲫⲱⲃ ⲉⲧϥ̅ⲛⲁ- 39 ⲉⲉⲓϥ, ⲡⲉ ⲁⲡⲥⲱⲧⲉ ⲛ̅ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲛ̅ⲧⲁϩⲣ̅ 17.1 ⲁⲧⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛ ⲡⲓⲱⲧ. ⲉⲡⲓⲣⲉ̣ⲛ ⲇ̣ⲉ̣ [ⲙ]- 2 ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ̅ ⲁ- 3 ⲃⲁⲗ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ ϯϩⲉⲗⲡⲓⲥ, ⲉⲡϭⲓⲛⲉ ⲡⲉ 4 ⲛ̅ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲕⲱⲧⲉ ⲛ̅ⲥⲱϥ.

The good news of truth is a joy 32 for those who have received grace from 33 the Father of the truth to know him by 34 the power of the Word who has come forth from 35 the fullness, this one who is in the thought 36 and mind of the Father, 37 the one called 38 Savior, since it is the name of the task that he will 39 accomplish, salvation for those who have become 17.1 ignorant of the Father. The name [of] 2 the gospel is the appearance 3 of hope, discovery 4 for those who search for him.

A Greek text is wanting; this work was NOT originally composed in Coptic, but rather in Greek.

That's the fable to most if not all Coptic texts - but all this originated in Coptic

ALL of it

If you like, you can verify that assumption via Coptic and Greek Thomas. Here's a brief sample of how that goes: for a pleasantly legible version, consult pages 83-87 of the Commentary (https://www.academia.edu/46974146/Compl ... n_content_)

A word on the Greek copy of logion 6:
[ἐξ]ετάζουσιν αὐτὸν ο[ἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ
[λέ]γουσιν πῶς νηστεύ[σομεν καὶ πῶς]
[προσευξόμ]εθα καὶ πῶς [ἐλεημοσύνην]
[ποιήσομεν κα]ὶ τί παρατηρή[σομεν περὶ]
[τῶν βρωμάτω]ν λέγει ιης [μὴ ψεύδεσθε]
[καὶ ὅ τι μισ]εῖται μὴ ποιεῖ[τε ὅτι]
[πάντα ἔμπροσθεν τ]ῆς ἀληθ[ε]ίας ἀν[ακαλύπ]
[τεται οὐ γάρ ἐστι]ν ἀ[π]οκεκρ[υμμένον ὃ οὐ]
[φανερὸν ἔσται]
[Q]uestioned him th[e disciples of-him and]
[th]ey-said how we-will-f[ast and how]
[we-will-p]ray and how [alms]
[we-will-give an]d what we-will-obs[erve regarding]
[of-the of-food]s says IHS [not you(PL)-lie]
[and that which he-h]ate not you(PL)-d[o because]
[everything in-front o]f-the of-tru[t]h will-be-[uncov-]
[ered not indeed i]s having-been-co[ncealed that not]
[visible will-be]
One emendation of a very familiar verb conjugation (which I have undone, as I have undone all previous ones in my own Greek translation, yet I will refrain from marking them as such from now on): μισεῖται (middle voice present indicative 3rd person singular) gets emended to μισεῖτε (active voice present indicative 2nd person plural / present imperative plural) by Gathercole. Now this would be the point where logion 6 reaches back to 5 and repeats any of the preceding:
5. IS said know him who is within the presence of your(SG) outward face and he who is hiding to you(SG) will uncover outward to you(SG).
There is not anyone Indeed who, while he is hiding, will not reveal outward
In Coptic Thomas the next logion builds onto the previous one:
5. (...) there-is-not anyone Indeed he be-hiding he will reveal outward not
6. (...) there-is-not anyone Indeed he be-hiding he will reveal outward not and there-is-not anyone he be-covering they will remain with-lack-of be-uncovering he
That's how you sing a song, tell a story, and so on: you take a bit from what you have and add to it - you repeat the first part and swap the second or vice versa, and there are many more possibilities - but right here the Greek translation is just completely broken, with only the word 'hidden' repeated, and in a different tense at that:
5. οὐ γάρ ἐσ]τιν κρυπτὸν ὃ οὐ φαν̣ε̣[ρὸν γενήσεται] καὶ ⟨θ⟩εθαμμένον ὃ ο[ὐκ ἐγερθησέται]
6. οὐ γάρ ἐστι]ν ἀ[π]οκεκρ[υμμένον ὃ οὐ][φανερὸν ἔσται]
The Greek is a complete mess: logion 5 says κρυπτὸν, the present participle of κρύπτω, 'hidden' whereas logion has a deeper definition of that by prefixing the same verb with ἀπο: and the participle used is that of the perfect: ἀποκεκρυμμένον, 'having-been-concealed'. φανερὸν at least stays the same yet its auxiliary verb changes from γίγνομαι ('become') to εἰμί ('be') - and all this is in the relative safety and insecurity of lacunae: what is in front of our face is the best-case scenario. Naturally, the fact that the odd addition to logion 5 is missing from logion 6 is the exact reverse situation of what we have in the Coptic, and what is visible here seems to be yet again another manifestation of a careless and clumsy Greek scribe who had little sense of style, grammar, order and overview.
Am I viewing Greek Thomas through the eyes of perception of Coptic Thomas? Likely, yes - I am deeply moved by the literal ecstasy in Coptic Thomas, and I would be very, very surprised if that must be accredited to some Coptic scribe who managed to find this worthless Greek labyrinth of inconsistency (although the grammatical errors are very consistent, I must admit) and managed to turn it into this magnificent piece of art - just for fun, apparently, as he was a mere scribe with apparently quite a bit of time on his hands. Or are the chances somewhat higher that the Coptic is the Vorlage, and then a Greek scribe (likely a Coptic one who knew just about enough Greek to get around on vacation) came along and decided to brush it up abroad? Yet that is not all - far from it.
Logion 6 is the true nail in the coffin when it comes to the question of direction of dependence between Coptic Thomas and Greek Thomas, and Gathercole's quote says it all:
GTh 6.4 has an interesting divergence (the Coptic reads ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲙⲧⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ̄ⲧⲡⲉ, i.e. ‘in the presence of heaven’) which can be emended: the Greek’s ‘truth’ perhaps becomes the Coptic’s ‘heaven’ by ἀληθεία → ⲧⲙⲉ → ⲧⲡⲉ.
That is a sentence that draws immediate attention for its key word "perhaps" that has no follow up in any other sentence that comes after it: a tentative question is posed but no answer is given other than a very brief "elaboration" that consists entirely of Greek, Coptic and a few arrows. Across the language barrier there is a change involving such a significant word as 'heaven' (or 'truth') and this is all that there's to it, it is merely 'an interesting divergence', which even can be 'emended' - and that statement is followed by a bit of a drawing that not many can grasp, as the number of people who can read both English as well as Greek and Coptic is rather small - yet fortunately I am one of the lucky few.
What Gathercole proposes here is - in my own words and with some imagination that is needed to fill this rather huge void that Gathercole leaves - that a (Coptic) scribe came, proficient in both Greek and Coptic, who properly translated the Greek word for 'truth' into Coptic: ἀληθεία became ⲧ ⲙⲉ, 'the truth'. What happened after that, however, is that another Coptic scribe came long and took the Coptic, mistook the ⲙ for a ⲡ (which in some texts sometimes is easily done, to be frank) and ended up with the word ⲧ ⲡⲉ, 'the heaven'. Yet that scenario has many issues, the largest one of which is the fact that I can relate to it, because I have made the same mistake once or twice - in the very beginning of my becoming acquainted with Coptic. And I made that mistake, naturally learned from it, and now will never make it again, because I know very well that this mistake can be made so I will actually be very alert towards it; and by now I am far more experienced in reading Coptic than I was at the beginning. So I can pretty much guarantee that I will never make that mistake, because I'm not only experienced (at Coptic), I'm also learned (I learned from my mistake) - and the chances of a Coptic scribe mistaking an ⲙ for a ⲡ are just non-existent, this is a very unlikely scenario - and it even depends on another scribe having made the Greek to Coptic copy prior to this mistake being made. And on top of that it not only depends on that first scribe translating Greek into Coptic, it also depends on this last scribe being unfamiliar with the text.
Not a single comment on how this "solution" is much more dependent, complicated and unlikely than a possible single misreading of the Coptic ⲡⲉ for ⲙⲉ by a Greek scribe and translating that properly to ἀληθεία, a perfectly likely scenario because a Greek-Coptic scribe would be much less familiar with Coptic hands (both letters exist in both languages, of course) than a Coptic one, and whereas a Coptic-Coptic scribe (the one who would have to mistake the ⲙ for a ⲡ) always is fluent in Coptic, a Greek-Coptic one (or a Coptic-Greek one for that matter) would be fluent in only one language, and (professional) translators usually are native in the destination language, and at best fluent in the source language - which still would say little about their reading capabilities or their affinity with Coptic or Greek "hands", their handwriting.
DeConick has text similar to that of Gathercole, and the zealous Plisch even emends(!) the Coptic to 'truth' - none of that attests to objective research, all of that merely redirects all the spotlights to only one side of the coin. What it does attest to is having a set and solidified mind and goal, and dragging everything towards it by the hairs. Neither of these "scholars" has tried to falsify their assumption by looking at the role played by both words in Coptic Thomas:
Word Grammar type Translation Frequency
ⲙⲉ
Verb love 4
ⲙⲉ
Adjective true 2
ⲙⲉ
Noun feminine truth 3
ⲡⲉ
Noun feminine heaven 11
ⲡⲏⲩⲉ
Crum, not CDO heavens 4
FIGURE 10 ⲙⲉ AND ⲡⲉ IN THOMAS
I have included the top word because it is identical to that for 'truth', and naturally its noun is identical. But the noun 'truth' occurs only 3 times in all of Thomas whereas the word 'heaven' occurs 11 times in singular form and 4 times in plural form: if we count the adjective 'true' towards the former, the latter still is present more than 3 times as often - and those statistics are very telling, aren't they? Apart from that, 'truth' is not a very important word in Thomas, whereas 'heaven' is a major theme, even juxtaposed next (or opposed?) to 'heavens' which has the word kingdom to it in 3 of its 4 occurrences. Truth?
69 (...) they-who therein are have known the father in a truth (...)
78 (...) they will be-able she know the truth not
79 (...) they guard [dop] he in a(n) truth (...)
I am still struggling with that specific part of logion 78, apologies - but logion 69 and 79 convey little more than "really" as an interpretation of the application of "in a truth". And again we witness the combination of something rare with something rare: not only is the chance of encountering ⲙⲉ over ⲡⲉ in Thomas more than 3 times as small as vice versa, but it basically is a meaningless word whereas the latter is an incredibly meaningful one - and not a word about any of that either, and all that comes on top of a highly unlikely scenario that is much more complicated and dependent than a Greek scribe simply mistaking the Coptic 'heaven' for 'truth'. Naturally there will be highly creative characters who will exploit some of the weaknesses in their "theory" and use it to their advantage by arguing that such is exactly the reason why the Coptic scribe allegedly changed the word truth into heaven! And as entertaining as that might be, the very first step in that process in the first place (I can't be clear enough) is to make a case for the Greek having 'truth' in a meaningful way throughout its version of Thomas- which would put the spotlight on the fact that it is an extremely fragmentary witness compared to the Coptic, and as such a really very weak witness, that under any and all circumstances would have to yield. Yet Plisch (page 52) demonstrates best how thinking is done:

'Eine Verwechslung von "Wahrheit" (griech. aletheia, kopt. me) und "Himmel" (griech. ouranos, kopt. pe) ist im Griechischen kaum möglich, im Koptischen dagegen, wegen der Ähnlichkeit der Buchstaben M (ⲙ) und P (ⲡ) und der gleiche Länge der Wörter, sehr wohl.'

'A confusion of "truth" (Greek aletheia, Copt. me) and "heaven" (Greek ouranos, Copt. pe) is in Greek hardly possible, in Coptic on-the-other-hand, because of-the similarity of-the letters M (ⲙ) and P (ⲡ) and the same length of-the words, very well'

Again, I have made a word-for-word translation, as the average reader will be perfectly able to turn the resulting English into a fluent sentence.
It is with statements like the above that I truly, and sincerely, wonder at the reasoning capability of commentators; it is as good as guaranteed that the root cause of the error lies in the Coptic similarity of both words, it lies IN Coptic yet that doesn't guarantee that the error lies WITH the Coptic: the argument by Plisch is very simplistic and short-sighted. (I have this the other way around in the Commentary, unfortunately, as I sometimes do get the subtleties of English mixed up)
DeConick (page 65) has a similarly brief comment:

L. 6.4 in Greek reads 'the face of truth' while the Coptic has 'the face of heaven'. The Greek should probably be considered earlier since the error seems to have occurred in the transmission of the Coptic text where ⲙⲉ or 'truth' became ⲡⲉ or 'heaven'.

'Should', 'probably', 'seems': DeConick seems not to realise that her solution to this problem also requires two steps; a proper Greek-Coptic translation followed by a Coptic-Coptic scribe mistaking one Coptic word for another whereas the opposite direction only requires one Coptic-Greek scribe to mistake one Coptic word for another - why does none of the "commentators" look at this from another perspective, how is it possible that all of them are so very biased and lopsided?
And I will leave it at that for the moment, marking this as another occasion that demonstrates the Greek to be a "sloppy copy" of the Coptic, to which logion 2, 3 and 4 already attested; the Greek Oxyrhynchus papyri are a superficial and cursory reading of Coptic Thomas, and that shows, even in the very fragmented state that they are in - yet that doesn't withhold Gathercole, Plisch, DeConick and Attridge from letting it prevail over the Coptic under any and all circumstances.

[mlinssen]

[Coptic sometimes garbles in some browsers.

The reason for that is the font used: if it's not Unicode it will horribly fail and present e.g.

NA£( N£ N( ! J AXe eeHn" £NTA IC eTONZ I xooy AYW MjCZA" i coy NC S I .A I. A YMOC I roy. A AC 0WMAC

(That's the Prologue to Thomas from the 1989 Brill, you can discern Thomas at the very end)

[dbz]

Heracleon: Fragments from his Commentary on the Gospel of John

• http://gnosis.org/library/fragh.htm

Fragment 20, on John 4:21 (In John it says, “Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.’”) The mountain represents the Devil, or his world, since the Devil was one part of the whole of matter, but the world is the total mountain of evil, a deserted dwelling place of beasts, to which all who lived before the law and all Gentiles render worship. But Jerusalem represents the creation or the Creator whom the Jews worship. . . The mountain is the creation which the Gentiles worship, but Jerusalem is the creator whom the Jews serve. You then who are spiritual should worship neither the creation nor the Craftsman, but the Father of Truth. And he (Jesus) accepts her (the Samaritan woman) as one of the already faithful, and to be counted with those who worship in truth.

The Greek in Origen's Commentarii In Evangelium Joannis Book 13 Section|Fragment 95 (13.95):

Ὅτε ἔδοξεν πιθανώτατα τετηρηκέναι ὁ Ἡρακλέων ἐν τούτοις τὸ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν προτέρων μὴ εἰρῆσθαι αὐτῇ· »Πίστευέ »μοι, γύναι«, νῦν δὲ τοῦτο αὐτῇ προστετάχθαι, τότε ἐπεθόλωσεν τὸ μὴ ἀπίθανον παρατήρημα, εἰπὼν ὄρος μὲν τὸν διάβολον λέγεσθαι ἢ τὸν κόσμον αὐτοῦ, ἐπείπερ μέρος ἓν ὁ διάβολος ὅλης τῆς ὕλης, φησίν, φησίν, ὁ δὲ κόσμος τὸ σύμπαν τῆς κακίας ὄρος, ἔρημον οἰκητήριον θηρίων, ᾡ προσεκύνουν πάντες οἱ πρὸ νόμου καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοί· Ἱεροσόλυμα [*] [*] δὲ τὴν κτίσιν ἢ τὸν κτίστην, ᾡ προσεκύνουν Ἰουδαῖοι.

ἀλλὰ καὶ δευτέρως ὄρος μὲν ἐνόμισεν εἶναι τὴν κτίσιν ᾗ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ προσεκύνουν· Ἱεροσόλυμα δὲ τὸν ᾦ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ελάτρευον.

ὑμεῖς οὐν, φησίν, οἱονεὶ πνευματικοὶ ουτε τῇ κτίσει ουτε τῷ δημιουργῷ προσκυνήσετε, ἀλλὰ τῷ πατρὶ τῆς ἀληθείας· καὶ συμπαρα- λαμβάνει γε, φησίν, αὐτὴν ὡς ἤδη πιστὴν καὶ συναριθμουμένην τοῖς κατὰ ἀλήθειαν προσκυνηταῖς.

content.png (3.35 KiB) Viewed 935 times

...θεός πάντων, Ιησούς Χριστός δν κηρύσσω και αυτός πατήρ αληθείας εις δν υμάς πιστεύειν εδίδαξα.

...god of all, Jesus Christ I do not preach and he father of truth to you do not believe I taught.

• "ACTA THOMAE". Acta apostolorum apocrypha, ed. C. Tischendorf (in Greek). 1851. p. 213.

[billd89]

All that? No, off topic. wiki says "It may have been written in Greek between 140 and 180 AD" but I don't know any scholar who claims it was originally composed in Coptic. That's not logical, on the face of of it: Valentinus wouldn't compose in that language, his school wasn't 'Coptic', Coptic literature appears a century later, has anyone shown Irenaeus could read Coptic? Etc. etc. It's such an Epic fail, why bother.

“The Gospel of Thomas was translated from Greek into Coptic ‘no earlier than the mid-to-late third century (when, to the best of our present knowledge, Coptic literature had its beginnings).’” Note 43
Note 43: “Emmel, ‘The Coptic Gnostic Texts as Witnesses,’ 35.”

I accept that, basically, even if I'd grant a half-century earlier. And dating is important, even if we cannot be absolutely certain precisely When.

We work with text in a 2nd language, translated unfortunately. I accept credentialed scholars translations as a start, and they're in agreement.

31 ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̅ⲧⲙⲏⲉ ⲟⲩⲧⲉⲗⲏⲗ ⲡⲉ
32 ⲛ̅ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲛ̅ⲧⲁϩϫⲓ ⲡⲓϩⲙⲁⲧ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ̅
33 ⲙ̅ⲡⲓⲱⲧ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ ⲧⲙⲏⲉ ⲁⲧⲣⲟⲩⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛϥ̅
34 ϩⲛ̅ ⲧϭⲁⲙ ⲙ̅ⲡⲓϣⲉϫⲉ ⲛ̅ⲧⲁϩⲓ̈ ⲉⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲛ̅
35 ⲡⲓⲡⲗⲏⲣⲱⲙⲁ, ⲡⲉⲉⲓ ⲉⲧϩⲛ̅ ⲡⲓⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ
36 ⲟⲩⲁϩⲁ ⲡⲓⲛⲟⲩⲥ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲱⲧ, ⲉⲧⲉ
37 ⲡⲉⲉⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲟⲩϣⲉϫⲉ ⲁⲣⲁϥ ϫⲉ
38 ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ, ⲉⲡⲣⲉⲛ ⲙ̅ⲫⲱⲃ ⲉⲧϥ̅ⲛⲁ-
39 ⲉⲉⲓϥ, ⲡⲉ ⲁⲡⲥⲱⲧⲉ ⲛ̅ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲛ̅ⲧⲁϩⲣ̅ 17.1 ⲁⲧⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛ ⲡⲓⲱⲧ. ⲉⲡⲓⲣⲉ̣ⲛ ⲇ̣ⲉ̣ [ⲙ]- 2 ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ̅ ⲁ- 3 ⲃⲁⲗ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ ϯϩⲉⲗⲡⲓⲥ, ⲉⲡϭⲓⲛⲉ ⲡⲉ 4 ⲛ̅ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲕⲱⲧⲉ ⲛ̅ⲥⲱϥ.

31 The good news of truth is a joy
32 for those who have received grace from
33 the Father of Truth to know him by
34 the power of the Word who has come forth from
35 the fullness, this one who is in the thought
36 and mind of the Father,
37 the one called
38 Savior, since it is the name of the task that he will
39 accomplish, salvation for those who have become 17.1 ignorant of the Father. The name [of] 2 the gospel is the appearance 3 of hope, discovery 4 for those who search for him.

31 The Gospel of Truth {= ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̅ⲧⲙⲏⲉ} is a joy {ⲟⲩⲧⲉⲗⲏⲗ; ⲧⲏⲗⲏⲗ}
32 for those who have received grace from
33 the Father of Truth {ⲙ̅ⲡⲓⲱⲧ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ ⲧⲙⲏⲉ} to know him by
34 ….

ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲧⲙⲏⲉ = Gospel of Truth
ⲟⲩⲧⲉⲗⲏⲗ; ⲧⲏⲗⲏⲗ = (Great) Joy.

Jude 1:24: ⲠⲈⲦⲈ ⲞⲨⲚ ϬⲞⲘ ⲘⲘⲞϤ ⲈⲦⲢⲈϤϨⲀⲢⲈϨ ⲈⲢⲰⲦⲚ ⲈⲦⲈⲦⲚⲦⲀϪⲢⲎⲨ ⲚϤⲦⲀϨⲰⲦⲚ ⲈⲢⲀⲦ ⲦⲎⲨⲦⲚ ⲘⲠⲈⲘⲦⲞ ⲈⲂⲞⲖ ⲘⲠⲈϤⲈⲞⲞⲨ ⲈⲦⲈⲦⲚⲞⲨⲀⲀⲂ ⲎⲚ ⲞⲨⲦⲈⲖⲎⲖ.

Jude 1:24: Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίστους καὶ στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἀμώμους ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει {Exaltation = Great Joy, viz. Chara}

Jude 1:24: Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you unblemished in His glorious presence, with great Joy.

"Chara" may well be too generic; this is a metaphysical text. I cannot discern the finer points between ἀγαλλίασις and εὐφραισύνη = Rejoicing, although "Revelry" sounds abit too 'drunken' to me (which MAY be the Greek meaning, as intended.) On this "Joy", see Anne S. Kreps "The Crucified Book, Textual Authority and the Gospel of Truth." PhD diss.* [2013], pp.95-6:

From its first words, "The gospel of truth is joy," the text engaged with the Proverbs 8 tradition. Several scholars have noted that the description of the Gospel of Truth as "joy" appeared in the Odes of Solomon,278 and must therefore reflect an intellectual kinship. However, if we consider the widespread hermeneutical interest in Proverbs 8, the shared terminology likely has roots in that text, which described wisdom experiencing the presence of the Father as "delight," (מעשעים (and "rejoicing" (משחקת.(279 The Septuagint rendered the Hebrew terms as προσχαίρω and εὐφραίνοµην, respectively. The Coptic term in the Gospel of Truth, ⲧⲏⲗⲏⲗ, was likely a translation from the original Greek εὐφραισύνη, the noun form of εὐφραίνοµαι. 280 The description "joy" associated the gospel with the the wisdom figure as the "daily delight" of the deity.

* published w/ variant title in 2022.

Kreps translation of εὐφραισύνη is not explained with reference to Heracleon's 'Fragment 36' (John 4:38) in Origen's Commentarii In Evangelium Joannis, Book 13 Section|Fragment 336 (13.336).


ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ ⲧⲙⲏⲉ = “God of Truth” should be “Father of Truth” {πατήρ αληθείας/πατρὶ τῆς ἀληθείας}, implied admittedly, so the querulous may disagree.

[mlinssen]

ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ ⲧⲙⲏⲉ = “God of Truth” should be “Father of Truth” {πατήρ αληθείας/πατρὶ τῆς ἀληθείας}, implied admittedly, so the querulous may disagree.

No, under no circumstance whatsoever.

ⲡ ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ ⲧ ⲙⲏⲉ = the god of the truth - but that is not in the text, or is it a few pages down?

https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C2535

Coptic Thomas precedes Greek Thomas precedes the NT - and you can play the dating game all by yourself.
How sad is it that time and again I demonstrate textual precedence in elaborately argumented and sensible ways, only to get countered dating assumptions - the usual rebuttal from the bankrupt ruins of Churchian academic