Why was Thomas not labelled as Q?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Why was Thomas not labelled as Q?

Post by davidmartin »

Off topic - apologies

Just a footnote to saying 37:
His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?"
Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample them, then you will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid."

I read today somewhere that originally baptism was performed naked in a Jewish context
See https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/13766/

This saying could well be baptismal in origin
If so that's interesting because Thomas equates salvation with understanding, yet if it also advocates for sacraments which i think can be shown it does then it's not the only criteria which ties in with the gospel Jesus as well
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why was Thomas not labelled as Q?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:07 am Off topic - apologies

Just a footnote to saying 37:
His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?"
Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample them, then you will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid."

I read today somewhere that originally baptism was performed naked in a Jewish context
See https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/13766/

This saying could well be baptismal in origin
If so that's interesting because Thomas equates salvation with understanding, yet if it also advocates for sacraments which i think can be shown it does then it's not the only criteria which ties in with the gospel Jesus as well
I am pretty sure that most if not all of the sayings about disrobing and garments of shame and stuff of that nature are presumed in scholarship to come from a baptismal context.

I posted a diagram from Bentley Layton in my thread about the Nag Hammadi texts, and here is another that I find useful:

Bentley Layton, Myth of the Soul in Thomas Literature.png
Bentley Layton, Myth of the Soul in Thomas Literature.png (94.32 KiB) Viewed 5554 times
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Why was Thomas not labelled as Q?

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:48 am
The late-dating is the conservative / orthodox game: date as late as possible, label as Gnostic, and date the gospels as early as possible, and label as "historical". And then they come up with Eusebius, Josephus, and one or two vague lines from some Romans. It's futile, and very incredible (in the real sense of the word indeed)

I'm starting to think that Mark may have been dependent on Marcion, I don't know anymore. They all (Marcion, Mark, Luke and Matthew) have the same copying mistakes towards Thomas, so at least one of them must have started it all. But then again Luke / Marcion is closest to Thomas, although Mark has some tentative copies that Luke and Matthew have vastly more elaborated on.
Everything points to Mark as first, given his rudimentary Christology, no youth, no resurrection description: it is a clear "first" draft of the phantasy of their Jesus

I don't know about logion 52 by the way, it doesn't trigger anything in me. Sorry
Yeah i see it as a game as well and an ironic one! It's incredible to see the more 'biblical' Christian showing intense dislike for Thomas... when a ginormous chunk of it is the Jesus they're already familiar with but they just don't see it. It's this kind of thing - that inversion of the expected that actually increases the relevance of Thomas and makes it more appealing, to me anyway!
Yup. And the game played is always the same: they reject everything you offer, especially if it's well-argumented (just talking quantity here, not necessarily quality) and then the counter offer is some scholar, big shot, or worst: their own work which is largely substantiated by... Origen, Eusebius, Josephus, and any other usual suspect.
Which is not surprising, because that's how the truth is achieved inide religious circles: by "peerception"; you listen to what your peers say, and you take that at face value. So it's just the regular game they're playing, really

But Thomas simply permeates the canonicals from Mark till Paul / Acts and even further, and they just KNOW that it is so very unlikely that Thomas had access to them all at any point in time, and that it is so much more plausible than that it all went in the opposite direction.
davidmartin wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:48 am The way I see the whole Mark thing playing out is really simple
We see Paul's mystery gospel kicking serious butt. But Paul was skimpy on who Jesus was and his life
The gospels are a response to that Pauline situation - for consumption in his churches who were naturally curious about who this guy was
Here's the kicker - all information relating to Jesus that existed prior/concurrent with Paul necessarily had to emerge from one of Paul's opponents

That's why the gospels don't always line up with Pauline theology. The sources were not aligned with Pauline theology but managed to be acceptable enough to get away with it
That is a neat idea really, and would explain a lot, or rather, fit a lot of puzzle pieces !
davidmartin wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:48 am There is only one true Pauline description of Jesus found in Hebrews:
"In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence."
Compare this to the gospels, man what a difference. This in the Pauline phantasy Jesus who does nothing except die and bears little resemblance to the Jesus of the gospels including Thomas .. but that Jesus didn't take off, we see remnant here in Hebrews, instead the gospel Jesus took off
do you see what i mean? this looks like a whole load of inputs from disparate groups not a stage managed production
Yes, I doubt that most was managed or even a substantial part although I was convinced that, compared to Mark, Luke and Matthew were a team.
But if you look at e.g. the first 200 years, then how much was really managed?
And let's be reasonable, all the dogma made up by the Church ever since is only direct evidence of something essential missing in the NT - and that's not for lack of volume, really
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Why was Thomas not labelled as Q?

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:41 am
mlinssen wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:43 am They all (Marcion, Mark, Luke and Matthew) have the same copying mistakes towards Thomas, so at least one of them must have started it all. But then again, Luke / Marcion is closest to Thomas, although Mark has some tentative copies that Luke and Matthew have vastly more elaborated on.
Has anyone teased these relationships out, ie. how Mark, Matthew, and Luke each and collectively use Thomas?

Might how such intertextuality was done depend on the translation of Thomas used?
Yup. Here's the deal; I created my 2nd series in five parts:

Absolute Thomasine priority - the Synoptic Problem solved in the most unsatisfactory manner
Absolute Thomasine priority, part I, 2019 (82 pages)
https://www.academia.edu/40695711/Absol ... ory_manner

The plot explained, and I zoom in on John the Baptist and Jacob the Righteous. Because, with my theory, Thomas starting it all just as a text within a setting means that he created all characters

Two types of Jesus parables: canonical vs Thomasine - like night and day
Absolute Thomasine priority, part II, 2019 (32 pages)
https://www.academia.edu/40951733/Two_t ... ht_and_day

The 13 parables of Thomas in the canonicals compared to the 15 parables in there that are not in Thomas. Basically, evidence enough for the fact that they copied his

The 72 logia of Thomas and their canonical cousins
Absolute Thomasine priority, part III, 2020 (140 pages)
https://www.academia.edu/41668680/The_7 ... al_cousins

All the 72 logia and all their versions from all the three Synoptic writers, including a separate chapter on John

I never wrote part 4 and 5, although I did a quickie today as a personal copy. I want to complete Thomas before I blow the whistle, and I really don't care very much about destroying Churchianity, even though it wouldn't hurt (but it would not really make much of a difference, certainly not on a global scale)

My first series started with an odd phrase in logion 65, quickly moved to the metamorphosis model, how that sits in all of Thomas but especially his 16 parables, and ended with logion 74 - the hideous lie revealed about all the esteemed translators that we trusted not to do just some half-assed translation based on their biblical assumptions. And at the very end I had to do my own translation from the Coptic, with the entire goal that it would be 100% transparent, verifiable, and open. And version 1.5 of that is out just this week (it's the second version, first sane and stable one really):

Interactive Coptic-English Thomas translation
Literal Thomas, part VII, 2020 (137 pages)
https://www.academia.edu/42110001/Inter ... ranslation

A fully normalised translation with one unique English word to every unique Coptic word, and vice versa. Hyperlinks to each word lead straight into the online KELLIA Coptic Dictionary, which leads to Crum, LSJ etc, and perhaps later also Westendorf and such

My third series is an in-depth rewrite of the 16 parables yet this time based on a good translation, and some 20+ pages per logion.
Three down, thirteen to go:

https://www.academia.edu/43717037/The_P ... t_religion
https://www.academia.edu/43780115/The_P ... ng_to_find
https://www.academia.edu/43854614/The_P ... that_earth

I reversed logion 8 and 9 there, indeed. No idea why
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Why was Thomas not labelled as Q?

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:07 am Off topic - apologies

Just a footnote to saying 37:
His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?"
Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample them, then you will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid."

I read today somewhere that originally baptism was performed naked in a Jewish context
See https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/13766/

This saying could well be baptismal in origin
If so that's interesting because Thomas equates salvation with understanding, yet if it also advocates for sacraments which i think can be shown it does then it's not the only criteria which ties in with the gospel Jesus as well
Ah, an essential one missed there as well:

37. say(s) his(PL) Disciple : what? the(PL) day you will reveal outward to we and what? the(PL) day "we-ought-to" behold as-regards you say(s) IS : When you(PL) continue-to make-naked you(r)(PL) of your(PL.) shame and you(PL) carry your(PL.PL) garment or/and you(PL) place they toward the bottom of your(PL.PL) feet in.the.manner of the(PL) little the(PL) child small or/and you(PL) tread within they Then you(PL) will behold to the child of he-who live and you(PL) will make-be fear not

Strip of your shame!!!

Such a very strong and direct pointer, again, to the very essence: don't have shame, don't be like Adam and Eve, that's all a bunch of lies.
Fuck your clothing! Rip it off and trample on it

In a metadata way, or on a spiritual level, this also points to stripping off your I-dentity, becoming aware of yourr dual nature, that you're split

It's got nothing to do with baptism in my view, baptism never existed. Logion 46 points to Zedekiah:

46. say(s) IS : starting-from Adam toward Johannes the Immerser in the(PL) beget of the(PL) woman not-to-be he-who exalted to Johannes the Immerser So-that : Shan't! break viz. his(PL) eye did I tell it However : he-who will come-to-be in you(r)(PL) he make-be of little he will know the(F) reign-of(F) king and he will be-high to Johannes

Immersing:

Jeremiah 38:4 Then the princes said to the king, "Please let this man be put to death; because he weakens the hands of the men of war who remain in this city, and the hands of all the people, in speaking such words to them: for this man doesn't seek the welfare of this people, but harm." 5 Zedekiah the king said, "Behold, he is in your hand; for the king can't do anything to oppose you." 6 Then they took Jeremiah and threw him into the dungeon of Malchijah the king's son, that was in the court of the guard. They let down Jeremiah with cords. In the dungeon there was no water, but mire; and Jeremiah sank in the mire. 7 Now when Ebedmelech the Ethiopian, a eunuch, who was in the king's house, heard that they had put Jeremiah in the dungeon (the king was then sitting in Benjamin's gate), 8 Ebedmelech went out of the king's house, and spoke to the king, saying, 9 "My lord the king, these men have done evil in all that they have done to Jeremiah the prophet, whom they have cast into the dungeon. He is likely to die in the place where he is, because of the famine; for there is no more bread in the city." 10 Then the king commanded Ebedmelech the Ethiopian, saying, "Take from here thirty men with you, and take up Jeremiah the prophet out of the dungeon, before he dies." 11 So Ebedmelech took the men with him, and went into the house of the king under the treasury, and took from there rags and worn-out garments, and let them down by cords into the dungeon to Jeremiah. 12 Ebedmelech the Ethiopian said to Jeremiah, "Now put these rags and worn-out garments under your armpits under the cords." Jeremiah did so. 13 So they lifted Jeremiah up with the cords, and took him up out of the dungeon; and Jeremiah remained in the court of the guard.

Broken eyes:

BOOK OF 2 KINGS Chapter 25 7 They slaughtered the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah and bound him in chains and took him to Babylon.

Being high to Johannes:

Jeremiah 52:31 And in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-fifth day of the month, Evil-merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he became king, graciously freed Jehoiachin king of Judah and brought him out of prison. 32 And he spoke kindly to him, and gave him a seat above the seats of the kings who were with him in Babylon. 33 So Jehoiachin put off his prison garments. And every day of his life he dined regularly at the king's table, 34 and for his allowance, a regular allowance was given him by the king according to his daily need, until the day of his death, as long as he lived.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why was Thomas not labelled as Q?

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:41 am
mlinssen wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:43 am They all (Marcion, Mark, Luke and Matthew) have the same copying mistakes towards Thomas, so at least one of them must have started it all. But then again, Luke / Marcion is closest to Thomas, although Mark has some tentative copies that Luke and Matthew have vastly more elaborated on.
Has anyone teased these relationships out, ie. how Mark, Matthew, and Luke each and collectively use Thomas?

Might how such intertextuality was done depend on the translation of Thomas used?
mlinssen wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:14 am
Yup. Here's the deal; I created my 2nd series in five parts:

Absolute Thomasine priority - the Synoptic Problem solved in the most unsatisfactory manner
Absolute Thomasine priority, part I, 2019 (82 pages)
https://www.academia.edu/40695711/Absol ... ory_manner

The plot explained, and I zoom in on John the Baptist and Jacob the Righteous. Because, with my theory, Thomas starting it all just as a text within a setting means that he created all characters

Two types of Jesus parables: canonical vs Thomasine - like night and day
Absolute Thomasine priority, part II, 2019 (32 pages)
https://www.academia.edu/40951733/Two_t ... ht_and_day

The 13 parables of Thomas in the canonicals compared to the 15 parables in there that are not in Thomas. Basically, evidence enough for the fact that they copied his

The 72 logia of Thomas and their canonical cousins
Absolute Thomasine priority, part III, 2020 (140 pages)
https://www.academia.edu/41668680/The_7 ... al_cousins

All the 72 logia and all their versions from all the three Synoptic writers, including a separate chapter on John

I never wrote part 4 and 5, although I did a quickie today as a personal copy. I want to complete Thomas before I blow the whistle, and I really don't care very much about destroying Churchianity, even though it wouldn't hurt (but it would not really make much of a difference, certainly not on a global scale)

My first series started with an odd phrase in logion 65, quickly moved to the metamorphosis model, how that sits in all of Thomas but especially his 16 parables, and ended with logion 74 - the hideous lie revealed about all the esteemed translators that we trusted not to do just some half-assed translation based on their biblical assumptions. And at the very end I had to do my own translation from the Coptic, with the entire goal that it would be 100% transparent, verifiable, and open. And version 1.5 of that is out just this week (it's the second version, first sane and stable one really):

Interactive Coptic-English Thomas translation
Literal Thomas, part VII, 2020 (137 pages)
https://www.academia.edu/42110001/Inter ... ranslation

A fully normalised translation with one unique English word to every unique Coptic word, and vice versa. Hyperlinks to each word lead straight into the online KELLIA Coptic Dictionary, which leads to Crum, LSJ etc, and perhaps later also Westendorf and such

My third series is an in-depth rewrite of the 16 parables yet this time based on a good translation, and some 20+ pages per logion.
Three down, thirteen to go:

https://www.academia.edu/43717037/The_P ... t_religion
https://www.academia.edu/43780115/The_P ... ng_to_find
https://www.academia.edu/43854614/The_P ... that_earth

I reversed logion 8 and 9 there, indeed. No idea why
Cheers Martijn.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Why was Thomas not labelled as Q?

Post by davidmartin »

yep mlinssen the content of Thomas found in the synoptics also lines up with John's statement that Jesus has "the words of life" and is 'the word' it no surprise to see his reported sayings as salvific. it makes sense. But that apparently clashes with the theological basis of a preacher hogging the stage for an hour. In a church setting i view the worship as being the more authentic form of preaching, haha i rarely go to church but recently heard a good band and emailed the admin account to give positive feedback, guess who replied? the worship leader (singer) she also does all the admin and emails. lol i had to smile. it all fits! most popular Christian video's on youtube - Gregorian chants sung in latin

The Odes of Solomon give a really early perspective on this
"The dove fluttered over the head of our Lord Messiah, because He was her head. And she sang over Him, and her voice was heard"

"He was her head"
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Why was Thomas not labelled as Q?

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:35 am yep mlinssen the content of Thomas found in the synoptics also lines up with John's statement that Jesus has "the words of life" and is 'the word' it no surprise to see his reported sayings as salvific. it makes sense. But that apparently clashes with the theological basis of a preacher hogging the stage for an hour. In a church setting i view the worship as being the more authentic form of preaching, haha i rarely go to church but recently heard a good band and emailed the admin account to give positive feedback, guess who replied? the worship leader (singer) she also does all the admin and emails. lol i had to smile. it all fits! most popular Christian video's on youtube - Gregorian chants sung in latin

The Odes of Solomon give a really early perspective on this
"The dove fluttered over the head of our Lord Messiah, because He was her head. And she sang over Him, and her voice was heard"

"He was her head"
Beautiful, isn't it? Salvific with a fair touch of spirituality, I can still endure that even though I vehemently oppose the notion of any need to be salvaged (save from rubbish nonsense LOL). In essence everything starts with spirituality, and religion is an advanced, controlled and strongly managed form of that, where its goals have become means

Cheers,

Martijn (Martin for the non-Dutch)
Post Reply