Thomas' Gospel.

There are least five Canonical parallels to this Thomas saying. One is Matthew 5:14-16 (in the context of the Sermon on the Mount):

"You are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it gives light to all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

The other four are from The Gospel of John, which developed separately from the synoptic sayings source, (although its author was probably aware of the existence of one or more of the synoptic Gospels). There is John 8:12:

"Then spoke Jesus again to them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."

John 9:5 (Jesus speaking): "As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

And John 12: 35-36 (in the context of Jesus predicting his Crucifixion):

"Then Jesus said to them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness come on you: for he that walks in darkness knows not where he goes. While you have light, believe in the light, that you may be the children of light."

The theme of light is central to John, and further references could be found. Note especially the famous beginning of John's Gospel (John 1:1-5):

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."

If the earlier date for Thomas is correct, it is not impossible that that the Thomas community was responding to John's assertion about Jesus himself being the light (as opposed to the light being in those who understand the teachings of Jesus). Of course, it's equally possible that John was responding against the the Thomas community's beliefs by asserting that Jesus himself was the light, and that a personal with one's Savior was necessary for salvation.

Whichever was the case (and of course, it could have been both), the Thomas version of the saying seems indebted to Matthew's: "You are the light of the world." But theologically there are critical differences. By placing the saying in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew is making its audience the multitude below, that is, the people of Israel. What is at issue in Matthew's version of the saying is the redemption of Israel. Hebrew Prophets in the Babylonian exile had foretold a future Israel that would hold sway among other nations and was described as a kind of paradise on earth. That hadn't happened at all, but Jesus' message (per Matthew) was that it was going to become a reality after all. Those who listened to him needed to understand that they had been chosen by God as a light to the nations in the Peaceable Kingdom to come. Israel needed to emerge from the dangerous obscurity in which it presently found itself. The city on the hill (Mt. Zion, from which the New Israel would emanate) could not but shine forth. Regardless of what Jesus' vision had been, that was how the author of Matthew had seen things.

But the Thomas community had looked at it differently than Matthew or John. For Thomas, the light that "shines on the whole world" is "within a person." It does not come from Mt Zion or from a personal relationship with Jesus except insofar as Jesus' mind can be internalized by meditation on his sayings. And as we have seen from the start with this gospel, it is only the one who "discovers the interpretation of these sayings" who "will not taste death." This is Thomas' sotorology. For those to whom "the light does not shine, it is dark." Just as John required rebirth into Jesus Salvation, Thomas required enlightenment Into his mind. Neither was an all embracing, all-tolerant position. But at least John's version of Salvation was open to any who sought it.

Saying 26.

Jesus said, "You see the sliver in your friend's eye, but you don't see the timber in your own eye. When you remove the timber out of your own eye, then you will see well enough to remove the sliver from your friend's eye."

This saying seems to apply only to a community of Coptic brothers and relates to their exclusive social interaction; whereby one must deal with ones own failings before assisting others, ( Judge not, lest ye be judged.)

In comparison; in Matthew 7: 3,5 and Luke: 6: 41-42 the application is not so terse and would apply universally.

One needs also to pick up in the saying, that one does not have to be perfect or pure to engage with others. Working on your own deficiencies "prepares" you to assist others. This strikes me as so sensible and pragmatic; and like so many of these sayings puts the initial responsibility on the individual to engage. Unfortunately, over the years I have seen so much of a blinkered approach to various religions, that this comes across as quite refreshing.

In this saying there is no measuring up to an externally imposed ideal; but individuals working on themselves, among others doing similar, in a process of mutual transformation.

I like your idea of "mutual transformation" as the message of this saying. Also that one does not have to be perfect to engage with others.

This is an easy one since it is virtually the same saying placed by Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount and by Luke in the Sermon on the Plain. I am not sure why you think Matthew uses if less exclusively than Thomas does. But since it occurs in both Matthew and Luke, it is recognizable as a likely saying of the historical Jesus, so its original intent may have been much broader (and arguably universal). It seems to me to take a stand against self-righteousness and the pietistic badgering of others, and to propose a model by which human beings (to take the saying universally) support one another with a mind to their own shortcomings. All that remains to be said is that it is advice seldom followed.

Coptic Saying 27.

Jesus says, " If you do not fast from the world, you will not find God's domain. If you do not observe the sabbath day as a sabbath day, you will not see the Father."

Immediately there comes to notice, a distinction between dietary fasting and what is termed "a fast from the world." You may recall in Coptic Saying 6 when the question of dietary fasting, (along with other ascetic / pious practices), came up, that there was no specific answer on the part of Jesus. They were neither rejected, nor advocated. Instead we seem to have implied the need to expose the internal moral dynamic on an individual basis.

It is also becoming increasingly apparent that there is no set pattern of a topical arrangement in these sayings; such that the perceived meanings emerge as much from "in between" the sayings, as from within them.

The question arises in this particular saying as to what is "a fast from the world." On the face of it there is a limited application to observing the Sabbath, but I'm presuming the extent is much wider and relating to general lifestyle. Once again, the criteria seems to be on an individual basis. What might be applicable to Job, might be extreme to many in the modern world. However emphasis is still laid on regulating ones intake of the world in order to find God's domain. For gentlemen of a certain age, it is certainly refreshing sometimes to retreat from the world of; tweets, junk food, rapping musicians and consumer based appetites, to submerge oneself in the simple rest and reflection implied in the meaning behind the Sabbath.

Finally I cannot help but discern a certain subversive stance in these sayings inducing a distinctive stance towards the world and reality.

I never got to wishing all my fellow Lit Netters a Merry Christmas, but allow me a mitigating wish to you all for a fruitful and enjoyable 2018.

Best wishes
M.

Here's the commentary I'm also reading: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lthomas27.html

Some of the comments in the link I provided suggested the part about the sabbath meant that every day should be viewed as the sabbath. This would go with the part about fasting from the world better as I see it. I also don't know what it means to fast from the world.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Coptic Saying 28.

Jesus says, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul aches for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see."

This attributed saying by Jesus reveals, (unlike in other sayings) a lot about himself and how He sees His mission, ( a divine figure who has entered the world to lead others.)

The main points that I get out of this saying are:

1. The need and decision to appear to the world, bodily, ( in the flesh.) If one believes in the concept of the Trinity, this process / linkage in itself is something to get ones head around.
2. The mode of entry into the world, "took my stand," which implies an element of keeping His distance, (a solid presence.)
3. The metaphor of "drunk" ( those that have over indulged in their engagement in the world.)
4. The metaphor of "thirsty," ( those that did not yearn for the true meaning of life.)
5. Both seem to cause Jesus to feel a mixture of disappointment and a need for action. The drunken and satiated world ought not to be left to its own devices. Thus though disappointed, He does not reject the world.

Drunk and so not thirsty is a good description of those who are not interested in hearing what he has to say.

Here is the commentary I am also reading: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lthomas28.html

This seems more like the Greek rather than the Coptic version. The Coptic version also had "and they do not see that they came empty into the world, (and) empty they seek to leave the world again". This emptiness (even though drunk) seems relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN

I never got to wishing all my fellow Lit Netters a Merry Christmas, but allow me a mitigating wish to you all for a fruitful and enjoyable 2018.

---

Yes, a belated merry Christmas and happy new year. We'll take a cup o' kindness yet. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN

If you do not fast from the world, you will not find God's domain. If you do not observe the sabbath day as a sabbath day, you will not see the Father."

---

On the surface this is just more Thomas asceticism. Fasting from the world means not participating in the sin of the world, which is a difficult thing to do outside of an ascetic community. There may be an inherent criticism of early Christian groups who were advocating fast days and other restrictive dietary practices. The Thomas Gospel's response is no, you need to abstain form the way of the world rather than make little pietistic gestures. If some version of this saying came from the historical Jesus, it was probably aimed at pietistic Jewish practices of the day with the implication that more a personal devotion was called for. The subversive quality you note in the Thomas version was surely aimed at the Greco-Roman world at large.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN

Jesus says, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul aches for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see."

---

Yes, "in flesh" is quite a concession from the Thomas community. It's a reason, I suppose, to regard its members as not quite radical gnostics but merely gnosticizing Christians (although we are still centuries before Trinitarianism). You are right that it is an unusually personal/autobiographical saying for Thomas. I don't have much else to say about it. I find it quite moving.

Coptic Saying 29:

Jesus says: "If the flesh was produced for the sake of the spirit, it is a miracle. But if the spirit was produced for the sake of the body, it is a miracle of a miracle. But for myself I marvel at that because this great wealth has dwelt in this poverty."

An interesting piece, that, (as in Coptic Saying 3) draws attention to poverty; not a poverty in a lack of material riches, but of a spiritual dimension.

I have however difficulty in the authenticity of this being a "Jesus saying." More likely a spin put on it by a writer of Gnostic leanings. My reasons are as follows:

Firstly, it has all the hallmarks of asceticism, so prevalent in the Thomas Gospel. Not that such sentiments are not expressed elsewhere in early Christian literature; (Gal 5:16. "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.") However, an historical Jesus who seemed to mix willingly with others of many social classes; including those perceived as unclean; and one who partook of many a glass of wine and a good meal, is at odds with this saying.

Secondly, in the whole debate as to whether the soul enhances the body, or vice versa, how can Jesus express the characteristic of amazement on this issue when presumably He knew the answer?

What is apparent in this period, and which lingered for quite some time in history, is this general debasement of the body vis a vis the soul by the Church. A far cry from the pre-Christian Roman religion, where unofficial mystery cults sprang up, and where individuals would come into contact with the divine through a state of trance, often leading to all sorts of excesses.

On a personal basis; if there is an excess of superiority of the soul over the body, is this any reason to denigrate halcyon days when, "Bliss it was that very dawn to be alive," ( and fit!!!!)
Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis.

Here is commentary I am also reading: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lthomas29.html

It is possible that both possibilities are rejected by Jesus--both flesh produced for the sake of the spirit or spirit produced for the sake of flesh. This could lead to a third possibility that there is no flesh. It is how spirit at another level appears to us. It needs redemption as well because it is also spirit. That would explain why Jesus is surprised by both miracles.

Tell me more please, as what you have raised is a complete new dimension.

Are we talking about a scenario in which all of mortal life is an illusion.

It certainly is hard to grasp as I find the bodily senses remarkably acute. One assumes having a mortal existence, and striving for a greater spiritual understanding.

Also following your logic, there is a fourth alternative, namely no soul.

What was Hobbs phrase re life being " nasty, brutal and short?"

It is unlikely that there would be no soul, because we can experience our awareness implying we are conscious. If we weren't conscious the possibility of no soul would make sense, but then we wouldn't be able to know that.

What I am describing would be philosophical idealism. George Berkeley would be one representative of that view who created a Christian perspective on it. I don't know much about gnosticism nor this text, so I might be projecting my own beliefs onto the text. In this view we do experience bodily senses, but it is many levels of conscious reality involved to make that experience possible, ours being one of them. There is no "unconscious" objective reality. It is all mind. Creation from nothing makes sense because after creation there is still no unconscious thing.

Coptic Saying 30.

Jesus says, "Where there are three, they are without God, and where there is only one, I say, I am with that one. Lift up the stone and you will find me there. Split a piece of wood, and I am there."

The main point that comes to mind with this saying is it's contrast with Matthew 18. 20 where we get "For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them." We are back with that familiar Thomas theme, that stipulates the need for solitary, as the basis for the seeking of the truth. It does not deny community association with like minded seekers, but rather empowers the individual as the basis for enlightened living. Thus it would appear from the saying that, loose association, even in the name of God, does not lead to revelation.

Polytheistic thinking comes to the fore, where one mans search for the truth is as valid as the next mans.

The reference to lifted stone and split wood reinforces this point of view, in that you do not have to seek God in a church or community collaboration.

This one is puzzling, but your interpretation makes sense. The other versions puzzle me as well: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lthomas30.html

Coptic Saying 31.

Jesus said, "No prophet is accepted in his own village; no physician heals those who know him."

This saying seems to not only underscore the isolationism described in the previous saying, but in addition indicates that even if the seekers wanted to be recognised in their familiar communities they could not be. Is the implication that they are too familiar to their community to be effective i.e. Those who come to understand the sayings become a different breed of person?

Can objectivity be limited to strangers when dealing with this?

It seems a bit like a pep talk / instruction to the disciples, giving them the downside on what they are letting themselves in for.

Perhaps also Jesus was acknowledging the likely itinerancy of the early, active followers?

It may be that the people who know the prophet have already developed earlier prejudices which make it difficult for them to accept anything new from the prophet.

It occurred to me this morning why a prophet is not accepted in his own village. In his own village the people the prophet knows want to convince the prophet of their truths. They are not so much trying to get truth from the prophet. So they don't listen to the prophet because they have themselves something to say that they want to communicate. But when they do listen to someone who is not available to talk back to, they can only listen and then pass on what they have heard to someone else.

It is like the difference between talking to one's spouse or friend and reading a book or watching a YouTube video. When one reads the book one can only listen or put the book down. One cannot easily talk back to express one's own vision to a book. When one tries to tell one's spouse or friend what was in the book, the spouse or friend is not just a listener. They are also speakers and expect to be listened to. And they will have an opinion that is at least slightly different even if they agree for the most part. Those differences magnify if what they are talking about is important to them.

Well noted YesNo.

Mind you, there have been times in my profession, when speaking to a large gathering, that I feel " For Gods sake give me some feedback, even if negative. Don't just sit there." I'm a great believer that there is no such thing as a negative virtue with regard to self-expression.

Coptic Saying 32.

Jesus says, "A city built on top of a high hill and fortified can neither fall nor be hidden."

Two immediate characteristics come out of this saying:
1. The fact that it is built on an elevated site suggests perhaps a social, political, and religious superiority to other cities in addition to its strategic advantage over opponents.
2. The need for fortification suggests that this city has enemies who wish to attack it.

We begin thus to see a correlation between the individual isolation and solitude required to understand these sayings, with the combined public status of being placed in a high and visible place through the seekers understanding and knowledge.

It seems like it could fall, but it might be safer than most.

Another point worth noting YesNo is a lack of expansion in the saying regards going to heaven if it did fall. More of a morale booster to the troops.

Definite general themes gradually emerge from these sayings, but it's difficult pinning a lot down when they are so short, and perhaps in no real order.

Perhaps it's good one can't pin them down too much. No matter how detailed we are it is still our understanding that is important.

Coptic Saying 33:

Jesus says, "What you hear in one of your ears, proclaim."

The very fragmentary nature of this saying, leaves me with a number of problems.

I can understand the saying pointing towards the public nature of the teaching i.e that the nature of these sayings and their interpretation requires that the seekers who understand them make public the knowledge gained.

But then, in the readings up to now there has been this emphasis on individual interpretation. There appears now to be a contradiction between an individual value judgement interpretation and then proclaiming it to the masses as a definitive truth.

Perhaps though the audience are like minded seekers who are being offered a point of view to assist them?

The reference to "one ear" was interesting; as if the message was furtively whispered and not to be overheard? An "inner ear" might be another possibility?

Finally there is an element of dark humour; at a time when we have the term "fake news," and social media channels allegedly profiling our hopes, fears & aspirations to influence how we think and respond.

The one ear seems strange to me as well. Perhaps it is an inner ear as you suggest. Maybe the proclaiming involves taking what one has heard seriously enough to tell others about it.

Coptic Saying 36.

Jesus says, " Don't fret, from morning to evening nor from evening to morning about your food - what you're going to eat, or about your clothing, what you are going to wear. You're much better than the lilies, which don't card and never spin. As for you when you have no garment, what are you going to put on? Who could add to your life span? That same one will give you your garment."

The first observation is that this is telling the followers of Jesus not to worry about food or clothing, but rather depend upon the hospitality which God provides. Your time on earth is limited so do not lay undue importance on material things. It reminds me of Buddhist monks receiving alms & food donations in South East Asia, or even Hindu fakirs of an earlier period.

There is almost an appreciation of nakedness being no big deal. Not exactly what the fashion world would like to hear.

The interesting bit lies in the reference to "garments." Is there some evocative meaning here? Perhaps inherent in the coarse plainness of a monks habit, the baptismal garment of a new child, or even the bridal clothing for the wedding night?

[QUOTE=MANICHAEAN;1349784]Coptic Saying 32.

Jesus says, "A city built on top of a high hill and fortified can neither fall nor be hidden."

One who has mastered his senses, i.e., who has complete control over his senses (fortified himself with self-discipline) is truly enlightened one--- top on a hill/attained to wisdom. His life is his message (example)-thus visible to all!lov&regards

We worry hoping things will happen in the few ways we expect it to because we don't see or are afraid of the other ways in which it could happen just as well. We might as well not fret.

Dear M, Your contributions are invaluable. God bless u.lov&regards.ls

Coptic Saying 37.

His disciples say to him, "When will you be revealed to us, and when shall we see you?" He says, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you will not be afraid."

This reference to garments, (or the negation of them) follows on from Coptic Saying 36. There strikes me as a strange, almost ironic, twist in he narrative. In Coptic Saying 36 we have this directive of not to worry about earthly things, ( food, clothing) as God will provide. Then in Coptic Saying 37 we have the disciples asking a legitimate question, "When will we see you?". To which Jesus sidesteps to focus not on "when," but "what" you will see. The interpretation would appear to be: do not be ashamed to be naked, as that is only the exterior appearance. If Man is made in God's image, then what is inside a man's character is more important. Clothes do not maketh the man. So much for the moral relevance of the fashion industry!

Finally, I'm not sure how all this ties in with Adam and Eve's early nakedness, original sin et al. Comments would be welcomed.

Coptic Saying 37.

His disciples say to him, "When will you be revealed to us, and when shall we see you?" He says, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you will not be afraid."

This reference to garments, (or the negation of them) follows on from Coptic Saying 36. There strikes me as a strange, almost ironic, twist in he narrative. In Coptic Saying 36 we have this directive of not to worry about earthly things, ( food, clothing) as God will provide. Then in Coptic Saying 37 we have the disciples asking a legitimate question, "When will we see you?". To which Jesus sidesteps to focus not on "when," but "what" you will see. The interpretation would appear to be: do not be ashamed to be naked, as that is only the exterior appearance. If Man is made in God's image, then what is inside a man's character is more important. Clothes do not maketh the man. So much for the moral relevance of the fashion industry!

Finally, I'm not sure how all this ties in with Adam and Eve's early nakedness, original sin et al. Comments would be welcomed.

Well, it's certainly an allusion to the Eden story. Stripping is probably a reference to the flesh, which clothes the soul and which is left behind at death. So the answer to the question is: I will be revealed at death to those who are ready (unafraid, ect.) to lay down their bodies and so regain Eden.

Thanks Pompey. A step further: the flesh clothing the soul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN

Coptic Saying 37.

His disciples say to him, "When will you be revealed to us, and when shall we see you?" He says, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you will not be afraid."

This reference to garments, (or the negation of them) follows on from Coptic Saying 36. There strikes me as a strange, almost ironic, twist in he narrative. In Coptic Saying 36 we have this directive of not to worry about earthly things, ( food, clothing) as God will provide. Then in Coptic Saying 37 we have the disciples asking a legitimate question, "When will we see you?". To which Jesus sidesteps to focus not on "when," but "what" you will see. The interpretation would appear to be: do not be ashamed to be naked, as that is only the exterior appearance. If Man is made in God's image, then what is inside a man's character is more important. Clothes do not maketh the man. So much for the moral relevance of the fashion industry!

Finally, I'm not sure how all this ties in with Adam and Eve's early nakedness, original sin et al. Comments would be welcomed.

---

what?? do you really believe all this??
I don't get it sorry.

It was one of the original series of writings that the early emerging Church chose to reject. Correct me if I am wrong here Pompey.

I did not say I believed it Cacian. I do however find the narrative interesting and have chosen to both read and comment on it.

Then of course there is always the big "If." What if these were genuine records of what the historical Jesus said and taught.

Best wishes
M.

A gremlin keeps double booking my posts!!!

"It was one of the original series of writings that the early emerging Church chose to reject."

"Chose to reject" may be too strong a phrase. "Chose not to include as essential" would be more accurate. They may have considered it wrong or simply as unimportant or of dubious provenance. Along with most books, therefore, anyone can read it for pleasure or interest, and even learn from it, but nothing in it can be taken as being the teaching of the Church.

The first words of the prologue, as you have already quoted, "These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke," might have been enough on their own to show the book as invalid, or at least irrelevant to Christians. The Jesus of the early church did not deal in secret or hidden sayings but in a message that was open to all who chose to listen. The first chosen disciples were workmen, not mystics or self-selected as Elect. Jesus' parables are attempts to simplify, not mystify. In the longer term, there is a valid ongoing question within the Church as to whether salvation is through what one does or what one believes or what God chooses for reasons entirely of His own: salvation, whether by works, faith or grace, is equally open to all. If salvation depended on being able to unravel some cryptic messages then it would irrelevant to all but a tiny proportion of mortals.

It is fun, seeking for the hidden meanings of things, and more worthwhile than doing the crossword. Any book, however, which implies that union with God is only available to those who study and unlock its secret sayings is not a book of Good News, but a recipe for despair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

what?? do you really believe all this??
I don't get it sorry.

---

We are just commenting on a mysterious text that was either written shortly before the Gospels or shortly afterwards. It shows some remarkable similarities to material in the Gospels but also important differences--especially in interpretation. We are not using the text to justify or promulgate our beliefs--just to understand them in their greater historical context.

Was their something in particular that startled you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN

It was one of the original series of writings that the early emerging Church chose to reject. Correct me if I am wrong here Pompey.

---

It was an early document that, as Whifflingpin indicated, was not included in orthodox Christian Scripture. But it's not quite as simple as that. Thomas is a gnosticizing text--it shows a marked tendency towards a strongly dualistic theological position called Gnosticism. Eventually, Gnosticism did come to be rejected by orthodox Christianity--it became a heresy.