Welcome MLinssen!

Thank you Cassius.

Pretty much the above has brought me here.

I'm from NL and followed the equivalent of grammar school: 5 years of Latin and 4 years of Greek in secondary school. Socrates was my hero, all the Romans were boring: adolescence in a nutshell 🤣

I've been quite obsessed (I'm afraid that's the apt word) with Thomas in between 2019 and 2024, and am now approaching it from a distance - as a whole.

I'm not here to preach Thomas but the text defies everything that we know and presents us with what I have called "deeply psychoanalytical insights 1500 years ahead of their time"

Thomas rejects all religions, yet also all schools of thought. He rejects those mostly because of their sole outside manifestations, and for good reasons points inwards: that is where "the kingdom" is. Rejection of gurus to boot makes it all clear: Thomas advocate a solitary journey inside and elevated the γνῶθι σεαυτόν to lonely heights

He strongly values action and (autonomous!) movement and Logion 37 is one of his centerpieces: make yourself naked of your shame and trample your outer garments - and you will fear not

So I see some connections to Epicureanism while at the same time knowing that Thomas has a very strong mind if his own, so I'm here to "follow the cherries"

Greetings, friend!

We have some brief discussion of the Gospel of Thomas here, but it's largely as a result of a critical discussion about the book "You Will Not Taste Death: Jesus and Epicureanism".

I would love to learn more about any linguistic connections you have found.

Quote from Cassius

Of course we presume that you're here to discuss Epicurus, so of course focus on that, but why don't you point us to a place you consider to be a good summary of Thomas and that will probably help us understand your background better.

For sure I'm here for Epicureanism, and the classical one at that.

This will sound presumptuous, but I know of two (and then some) good summaries of Thomas, and I've pretty much read them all. Thousands of commentators view Thomas through an orthodox Christian lens, or a "Gnostic" lens, even Buddhist or Zen lenses. None of them manage to explain even half or as much as a quarter of the text, and none can explain the order.

My background is that I close my eyes to everything else but Thomas, and Need (hah!) to know everything about every single word in it - and my translation is the basis to that, as it links every single word to the dictionaries and marks homonyms where ever possible. It contains a complete Index, both Coptic and English, yet also a complete Concordance that lists every single lemma - also in both directions.

"Mary Prophetissa, Carl Jung and Thomas: to come full circle" provides all of Thomas explained in just 15 pages. And my ambition (and current project) is to create a legible and accessible version for the lay - and fill the few gaps that I still have.

Quote from Eikadistes

Greetings, friend!

We have some brief discussion of the Gospel of Thomas here, but it's largely as a result of a critical discussion about the book "You Will Not Taste Death: Jesus and Epicureanism".

I would love to learn more about any linguistic connections you have found.

Greetings, Eikadistes!

Yes I saw that, and my translation got named at some point. I have found the answer to the title question in the meantime. From my latest Translation version:

>>>

Thomas opens with the words:

these are the words which are hiding; IS who is living has said them, and Didymos Judas Thomas wrote them - and he said: he who will fall onto the Interpretation of these words will not taste the death

The phrase taste the death raises a question: should it not read taste death? Interestingly, only Logia 18 and 19 contain that exact phrase, and it is a key to unlocking Thomas’ hidden layer. The omission of the definite article in Coptic introduces deliberate ambivalence, exploiting homonyms:

the masculine ⲙⲟⲩ means death, while the feminine ⲙⲟⲩ means mother; anarthrous use of the noun allows for the possibility of both.

The reader is explicitly invited to seek the interpretation of “these words” because Thomas contains a hidden layer, intentionally inserted and retrievable only through precise textual analysis. This hidden meaning is constructed through several mechanisms:

1. Homonyms and the definite article: Many Coptic nouns are differentiated only by the article, allowing Thomas to embed ambivalence.

In Logion 1, tasting the death appears with the masculine definite article, whereas Logion 18 refers to tasting death anarthrously, thereby permitting the alternative rendering tasting mother;

2. Dialectal and variant forms: Single words appear in multiple dialects or forms, creating homonymic ambivalence. For example, in Logion 4, ϫⲛⲉ- can mean either to cease or to question;

3. Scriptio continua: The continuous string of letters in the text, scriptio continua, is manipulated via the above mechanisms so that word segmentation becomes ambivalent. Logion 66 for example can be read in two ways, either as ⲛ̅ⲧⲟϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡ ⲱⲱⲛⲉ (the stone) ⲛ̅ ⲕⲱϩ or as ⲛ̅ⲧⲟϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲱⲱⲛⲉ (turn-around) ⲛ̅ ⲕⲱϩ. Moreover, the last word is homonymous, meaning either corner or envy;

4. Greek-Coptic twin words: Thomas also exploits subtle nuances between Greek and Coptic words with identical meaning, where the Greek term carries a higher metaphysical connotation.

<<<

More later, and I'm anxious to find out about the link with Epicureanism. Logion 19, the one about the five trees in "Para-dise", seems like a fine start. And my very simple interpretation of it would seem to me to give a fair impression of the thoughts behind and in Epicureanism

Welcome Martijn!