Posts by mlinssen

One last for now, on the positive things in Thomas or his teachings.

This is my summary, in my words. Some exaggeration, a pinch of mean, as support for the notion that all this is a matter of life and death really, to Thomas

We are dualised divided beings, separated, sick - and we need to Heal, become one again. For that we need to know our Selves, and we also must accept that this is the only Quest worthwhile: we are dead, all of us. Nothing else matters than this

From chosen we must become they who have chosen themselves: choose that the proverbial good great fish is an illusion, that all stories are fables, mere opinions.

Work on your fertile soil, don't be distracted by the Ego, continue to sow your seeds. Keep acting, remain in movement, and pursue

Let me close with the story that Thomas paints when we ignore all his warnings:

97. IS said: the kingdom of the [father] is comparable to a woman, she bears under a ja[r] full of flour. she walks [on a] beginning+, distant. the ear of the ja[r] broke, the flour poured after [her on] the beginning+. was she not knowing? did she not understand to toil? after that she split+ inward to her house, she placed the jar downward: she fell onto him empty

Notice the ambivalence, and the homonyms: the usual word is path here, homonymous with beginning - and everything goes wrong in and on either.

The woman indeed bears under the jar instead of embracing it. The ear malfunctions, oh my, disaster will ensue! The flour pours out, on the path of course. Did she not understand how to toil? Nothing comes for free, and in order to save your skin you must toil, hard, consistently. She approaches her house (and house is our illusion of our self, our inside, just as the World is our illusion of our outside) and evidently she will split there, after all this mayhem.

And then, suddenly, only at the end, the dumb ignorant woman discovers that the jar is empty. Yup, that's what you get when you don't pay attention!

There

Quote from DaveT

My own research on the peer reviewed research on the mythology of a historical Jesus, in addition to the questions of the accuracy of translations, I'm not even clear whether Thomas existed as a historical person.

When we simply go by the evidence, there are no signs of any Jesus nor Thomas at all whatsoever. Thomas could be excused of course, whereas Jesus - but let's not wander off

If you're interested in some very interesting research, I recommend Markus Vinzent and David Trobisch, who follow the Patristic writings. If we take all the Christian dating at face value (since we don't have any evidence for the existence of these next two people either), all of thre New Testament must have become written in between 155-165 CE, when Justin Martyr certainly attests to no Epistles at all, and no Gospels at all, and 175 CE, when Irenaues' Adversus Haereses suddenly names almost all 27 books, even though he orders the Gospels by John, Luke, Matthew and Marc

Yet, again, I consider these wholly off-topic for this thread

Quote from Cassius

Ok so that's a big one. So there is no eternal soul?

29. IS said if indeed the Flesh has come to be because of Spirit, a wonder is <the flesh>; if indeed Spirit However because of the Body, a wonder [of wonder] is <the Body>. Rather, I myself wonder this one: Ho[w] did [this] great richness dwell in this poverty?

87. he said, viz. IS: a Miserable one [is] the Body which <is> hanging of a Body, and a M[i]serable is the Soul which <is> hanging of these ones both [to]gether

112. IS said: woe to the Flesh, this one who is hanging of the Soul! woe to the Soul, this one who is hanging of the Flesh!

Quote from Cassius

Quote from mlinssen

Anti-Judaism is a great distraction in Thomas.

Without being graphic, what's the general basis of this criticism. We know that Diogenes of Oinoanda is critical as well based on what appears to be general ethics, but what's the general basis of this criticism?

I'm unsure whether you are referring to my claim that it is a distraction, or whether it concerns my label of anti-Judaism. Please see my previous comment to Eukadistes regarding the rejection of religious customs: if we presume that religion to be Judaism (which I think is certainly fair to do), then these are the basic anti-Judaisms in Thomas (Logia 6, 14, 104). To those, he adds:

27. in case you do not Fast to the World, you will not fall onto the kingdom; in case you do not make the Sabbath into Father's Day (sAB'BAth), you will not behold the father

43. they said to him, viz. his Disciples: who thou? thou say these ones to us. in these: I say them to you, and you do not understand who myself <is>. Rather, you yourselves came to be in the manner of the/those Judeans: they love the tree, they hate his Fruit; and they love the Fruit, they hate the tree

52. his Disciples said to him: twenty four Prophets spoke in Israel, and they all spoke in thee. he said to them: you dismissed him who is alive within your presence, and you spoke concerning them who are dead

53. his Disciples said to him: is the circumcision Useful Or no? he said to them: were he Useful, their father would beget them from their mother circumcised. Rather, the true circumcision in Spirit found all usefulness

85. IS said: Adam has come to be from a great Power, with a gre[at] richness, and he did not come to be [he is w]orthy of you. Had they been Worthy Indeed he [would have taken taste] not of the death

88. IS said: the Messengers <are> coming toward you with the Prophets, and they will give to you them who you have; and yourselves likewise you give them from your hand to them and you say it to you: what day, <on> which they are coming, and they take him who is theirs

(In Coptic there ony are pointers to masculine or feminine nouns. The word 'it' doesn't exist, there is no neuter class. He-who can be taken to translate to that-which but wholly depends on interpretation when the referrent itself is not present. I default to he-who)

102. IS said[: w]oe to them, the Pharisees! they rese[mble a] dog who sleeps upon the manger of [some] oxen: he Neither eats Nor [permits] the oxen to eat

(This is a perfect example of an anti-Judaism that *purely* is a distraction. What lesson possibly is to learn from this?!)

Quote from Cassius

So are the deities of Thomas the creators of the universe? Are they active in human affairs at all?

There are none at all. Here are the two logia that mention 'god':

30. IS said: the place <where> there are three gods, some gods are therein; the place <where> there are two Or one; I myself am existing with him

100. they showed IS a gold, and said to him: they who <are> counting to Caesar demand of us the taxes. he said to them: give those of Caesar to Caesar, give those of the god to the god, and he who mine is you give him to m

Quote from Cassius

Most of that sounds parallel but the references to "outside" and "inside" seem a little unclear (?)

The kingdom is of your inside, and of your eye - that last word is a homonym and could be interpreted to mean 'outside', but that doesn't square with the outright (hah!) rejection of outside:

40. IS said a vine of grape, they planted her within the outside part of the father, and she <is> not made strong - they will tear her out at her root and she is lost

64. ... the slaveowner# said to his slave: go to the outside part, to the paths ...

89. IS said: because of what do you wash the outside part of the Cup, do you not Perceive: he who has created the inside part, he <is> also he who has created the outside part

99. the Disciples said to him: thy brothers with thy mother <are> standing to their feet on the outside part. he said to them: they of these places who do the desire of my father; these ones are my brothers with my mother; themselves will go inward to the kingdom of my father

Quote from Cassius

Quote from mlinssen

I find the Epictetus idea of only caring for that which is in your control particularly strong in Thomas. Let's be honest, all ideas about any cosmogony are mere opinions.

As for that last part I would say that Epicurus would strongly disagree, so this would be a major point of difference.

That "all ideas about any cosmogony are mere opinions" was my personal note, please ignore - apologies

Quote from Cassius

Yes that sounds highly incompatible, and indicates something much more "dark" than I would say Epicurus would approve of. But to understand that would require more definition of whatever positive side Thomas was promoting, and I am not clear on his positive teaching at this point.

To be honest, Thomas is not teaching anything "positive". He is critical, fierce, sarcastic, biting, rejects pretty much everything there is to reject. Yeah, "love your brother" is one, but then who's that? Nope, Thomas most certainly is very dark, yes

Quote from Cassius

Quote from mlinssen

A last one: Thomas shows us how to become Son of Man, Child of the Human (106) - it is the closest to the father that we will ever come. Free of our 'garments', free from the yoke of Ego and Self, free from that hobble that limited our movement (23). Free from shame and fear. Free from our slaveowner the Ego. No rules, no plans, no paths. No worries, no virtues, no higher goals

This sounds like it's going in an eastern "nihilist" / ascetic direction that I'd say Epicurus would strongly disapprove of, because Epicurus is clearly promoting something that he believes qualifies as "happiness." What did Thomas promote?

Anti-everything, pretty much. It's funny but at this very point of writing this, this is slowly sinking in - and it's really not so very funny at all. I'll have to come back to this later on

Quote from Eikadistes

This is an awesome contribution of material. thank you for sharing your work!

Thank you Eikadistes!
Language is a living creature, and translated texts fixated in time. They need to be renewed every now and then for sure. With regards to Thomas, what has been produced by biblical academic simply *is* wrong at points, unsupported by dictionary and lexicon

In this reply I will merely counter with the content of Thomas, free from anything else.
From my own translation, but please don't hesitate to use the ones from:

https://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm

(Yes, it's an old site and they don't have HTTPS enabled, so you'll have to click through a bit. Par for the course alas)

With regards to translations, proof is in Logion 9:

"and some others fell upon the acacias nilotica; they choked the seed, and the worm ate them"

The seed and worm are singular, and hence the only thing eaten by that particular worm is, indeed, the "thorns" - hence my interpretation of the multi-deities of Egypt represented by the acacias nilotica, who the serpent Apophis attempts to devour when Ra embarks on his nightly voyage across the skies with his boat filled to the brim with them all.

Right, the various translations:

Lambdin Translation - Thomas Oden Lambdin was an American linguist and scholar of the Semitic and Egyptian languages. His translation is held in highest esteem, yet it is THE most inaccurate translation, translating the same Coptic word with different English ones, while using those same English ones for other Coptic words as well.
"And others fell on thorns; they choked the seed(s) and worms ate them" in Logion 9 tells us everything

Meyer Translation - an NT scholar like most, Meyer produced a needlessly and primarily colourful translation with 'Yeshua' all over it; this translation tries too hard to sound awfully Jewish. Shimon Kefa, Matai, Yohanan the baptizer: 'nuff said. To be frank, it's a good translation overall although harmonised as usual to the canonicals.
"Others fell on thorns and they choked the seeds and worms devoured them."

Davies Translation - Stevan Davies, NT scholar, is the scholar most addicted to Thomas and surpasses even me in that regard, I think. Unfortunately, Davies takes just about everything in Thomas literally and ought to have been forbidden to produce a translation - it's simply hideous and adds adjectives and even whole phrases where ever felt needed. Honestly, there should be prison sentences to this.
"Some fell into patches of thorny weeds that kept it from growing and grubs ate it"

Patterson and Meyer Translation - Stephen J. Patterson is yet another non-linguist, and this is yet another inaccurate Thomas translation.
Others fell on thorns, and they choked the seeds and worms ate them

Patterson and Robinson Translation - James Robinson has produced massive volumes on everything Nag Hammadi, and apparently felt the need to put his name below a Thomas translation.
"(4) And others fell among the thorns, they choked the seeds, and worms ate them."

My English translation of least bad choice is Guillaumont, the 1959 edition:
"And others fell on the thorns; they choked the seed, and the worm ate them."

See? That's not hard to do now, or is it. On the downside, his is the very first English and gets abused by all others in order to sanctify emendations, whereas his are notoriously against any and all rules. Logion 74 as example:

10 ⲧϫⲱⲧⲉ sic; l. ⲧϣⲱⲧⲉ
11 ⲧϣⲱⲛⲉ sic; l. ⲧϣⲱⲧⲉ

And that's the full extent of the whole emendation - to which I wrote a 24-page paper in return

Quote

I think this is a fair summation, with perhaps one tweak on point (3)., which corresponds with an earlier observation on prayer: while the forms of the gods are indifferent to the human drama, we are encouraged to practice piety, and engage in prayer (so long as it isn't about wish fulfillment).

That certainly is an irreconcilable difference with Thomas then!

6. they questioned him, his Disciples, they said to him: does thou desire that we Fast, and what is the manner <we> will pray, give Alms and Observe what within food? IS said: do not say+ lies, and that which you hate do not do it: they <are> all uncovering within the presence of the heaven.
14. IS said to them: if you should Fast, you will beget to you a sin; and if you should pray, they will Condemn you; and if you should give Alms, you will make an Evil one of your Spirits.
104. they said [to IS]: come, and we pray today, and we Fast. IS said: what Indeed is the sin <that> I have made, Or in what have they become strong to me?

Quote

Out of curiosity, have you found any relationship between the propositions in Thomas and the Apikorsim tradition in Judaism? I've loosely understood Thomas to be a mystical document that emerged from post-Second Temple Messianic Judaism, so in the regard of setting a contrast against other sects, I wonder if they were sympathetic to Apikorsim (less so ideologically, but perhaps more so in an "enemy of my enemy" kind of way).

I just Googled that, and understand Apikorsim to be a Jewish label to refer to Judaic / Samaritan "heathens". Never heard the phrase before!

I can't find any pro-religion in Thomas, at all. Certainly nothing Christian, but also nothing Judaic.
I ought to have been clear on this point: to me there are no Jews, as that label hopelessly conflates ethnic and religion people. I speak of Judeans and Samarians, people who live in those regions regardless of their religion. I speaks of Judaics and Samaritans when I refer to the religious people. I have been in the position for years now that Thomas, an Egyptian, likely came from a Samaritan background but at best turned Samarian only.
As such, a fierce hate towards Judeans essentially is "nothing uncommon", when we consider that most countries have their own North & South.
This is not antisemitism, mind you. Very little is known about the true history between Samaritans and [Judeans Judaics], (modified 2026-02-07 12:01 Amsterdam time) but we do know they clashed and disagreed fiercely on a relatively minor set of religious issues

Quote

Tonally, I observe a contrast against Epicurean texts. Thomas relies heavily on (what I think Epíkouros would agree to refer to as) "the mythic drama of tragic poets", in this case, the narratives provided from ancient Hebrew texts, like Genesis and Jacob. Epíkouros suggests that only a wise person can interface with art and metaphor in a helpful manner, so using fables and metaphors as teaching tools for students is seen as obfuscating (compared with parresia, "frank speech").

Could you please elaborate? I think it is a very big step from seeing a word mentioned in a text to claiming heavy reliance - especially if those very words are ridiculed and rejected. The five trees of Thomas obviously are utterly dead trees (unless they're evergreens and stand in e.g. a cave where there never is any wind at all), and the disciples inquiring "who will be our Mummy when you've left?" unleashes a typical rejection from Thomas. Jacob, the Righteous (Psalms 99:4), is the father of Samaritans, David the father of Judeans. The place where Jacob had his dream, after which he still dared to bargain with God, is the very mount Gerizim where Samaritans have their only altar, whereas Judaics are supposed to only have it in Jerusalem - the one main theological dispute between both. The disciples are presumed to be Judaic yet get referred to the father of all Samaritans: this little logion refers to a highly volatile topic!

The setting of Thomas is that of Judaic / Samaritan disciples verifying their teachings against someone they treat as authority. The presence of Tanakh elements can't be surprising in that context. What *is* surprising is the outright rejection, time and again, of each of these elements, by that alleged authority. And that is diametrically opposed to 'heavy reliance on', in my view.
But please, do elaborate: I have likely misread what you wrote

Quote

That doesn't necessarily mean that the content of those metaphors is anti-thetical. I think, maybe, speaking for myself, as an Epicurean, I want to skip metaphors and ask for a frank description, because I feel like I can never truly be sure what someone wielding metaphor really means. At the same time, it isn't pure grey—like you indicate, all translations benefit from review, and I am sure that there are more authentic, versus less authentic translations, each being the consequence of the educational resources available to the translator. Inter-disciplinary study is very helpful.

I fully agree on the metaphors, and here is an interpretation nonetheless: I am absolutely certain that Thomas did this on purpose (and will decline elaborating on motive for obvious reasons hahah) and that his text is a test from start to finish. It is something to be released out in the wild, and whoever passes the test automatically "finds the kingdom". It is deliberately obscure, and logion 20 exemplifies why so:

20. the Disciples said to IS: say it to us; the kingdom of the heavens is comparable to what? he said to them: she is comparable to a grain of mustard, being *few*, More than all the seeds. Whenever However she should fall upon the earth which they do work <on>, habitually he puts forth a great branch; and he comes to be Protection of birds of the heaven

The mustard grain is not smaller than all other seeds, it is FEWER (exact same word as in logion 75). No one in his sane mind would use a grain of mustard as a seed, and there are only a select few who will crack the Thomas puzzle.
Christianity is music for the masses and requires only blind belief, obedience, submission - but Thomas is meant for the very inquisitive and critical, and requires the very opposite of these traits.
This text is too damn elite for its own good, it's like a 5-dimensional Rubiks cube

Epicurus, and Thomas

I am going to start a new post on this, in order to try and keep it manageable

##### #####

I will be going through Thomas up until 19, tasting death/mother, and try to summarise it in as few words as possible, including all logia in between parentheses.

I will Capitalise all Greek loanwords, as is customary for me in this context. When they're at the start of a sentence I will surround them with single quotes ('). The singular exception is Father, which is a native Coptic noun in Thomas

Thomas invites the reader to find the Interpretation, ἑρμηνεία (1): this is between the text and the reader, no gurus invited. No peers, no nothing. Death is not to be taken literally, as Thomas rejects any and all reincarnation and afterlife. Logion (2) describes an Awakening, and stresses that we may seek and even find, but that there is no relation between either. Personally I have found (pun) that only things having been in prior possession can be found - all else is pure discovery.
Thomas teaches us the typical gnoti seauton (3) and that those who go before / persuade us (3) variably invent where they can hang the proverbial carrot. I interpret heaven as the religious section, and Sea (θάλασσα) as typical schools of thought. The kingdom is on the inside, and Thomas will reject everything on the outside. Merely reject, of course: asceticism is a perfect example of misunderstanding how to value the inside and reject the outside, as it wastes an incredible amount of energy and time on that very outside

When we grow up, we die: spiritually. So Thomas expresses the stealth wish that growing up is ceased (4), because of the Place (τόπος) of life, so that the 7-day old child will live.
We die because we split (5): while we originally derive from the Father (who went into hiding when we split), we will become Ego ("he-who in the facade of your face" and "he-who covering") and Self (a diluted form of our Selves). Yet if we persevere, the Ego will be uncovered and the Father revealed.
Anti-Judaism is a great distraction in Thomas. It does serve to illuminate some of his points, but it borders on (if not exceeds) hate. Whatever the dumb disciples ruminate from their peers is ruthlessly rejected, so (6): fasting as well as praying and giving Alms (ἐλεημοσύνη, one of countless hapax legomena in the NT) equates to lying and doing what you hate, and they will be uncovered (!) in the presence of the singular heaven.
Thomas reserves the plural heavens for the real deal, and of the 10 'kingdom of' in his text 3 are of the plural heavens (identical to Matthew), and 7 of the (once in 65 'my') Father

How to find truth in life, what to pursue?!
The proverbial good great fish (8) is an illusion, and only good on discovery. You can choose it, but that will be Separate-from (χωρίς) toil. Toiling is quintessential in Thomas, and lack thereof indicative of worthlessness. My interpretation is that choosing the great (and no longer good!) fish equates to realising that this proverbial pot of gold simply doesn't exist - after all, the Sea was filled with only small fish alone (sic).
The sower is where the real deal starts: explicitly singular nouns point to repetitive processes in Thomas, and (9) is all about what we ought to do: reach deep inside, where the kingdom is, and ejaculate (cf. the creation story of Atum) our seeds in order to see where they land. Where they produce, they have found fertile soil - and locating that is the entire goal of it all, as we subsequently must work (20) that, and eventually will receive Fruit and the harvest itself.
The proverbial path leads to nothing, and merely to the proverbial birds of the singular heaven; note that the verb 'gather' is reserved for the context of collecting foods and wood: stockpiling, cattling and gating the sheeple.
The Rock points to Yahweh and is described as dry and shallow, whereas the Acacias nilotica (one of 10 possible choices for the word 'thorn'!) points to the multi-deities of Egypt, and the singular worm to Apophis who indeed eats them every night when Ra travels through the sky with all other deities.
'he came to sixty per arrow+, and hundred twenty per arrow+' - in the hexagesimal system one can count to 60 on one hand, and in this logion the 'sower' starts with empty hands, and ends with three full ones. Not bad hey?

Points of view regarding the things around us.
The World (10) must burn, and be utterly destroyed. It is a mere Decoration, an attempt to Order, and above all it resides on the outside.
We made the two ourselves (11) although we were coerced in the process. We sadly are indeed the children of the living father...
(12) points to the Jacob of Genesis and Jacob's ladder, and is very hyperbolic, and a distraction.
In (13), Thomas is told to write his own life story when his projection-free answer hits home. The boiling Fount is a typical example of the ferocity of this text, translated correctly only once by H-M Schenke back in 1959, at the very beginning. C&C has rigidly taken over ever since!
(14) again repeats the anti-Judaism which also is not only a common example of the main religion of Thomas' context, but observe that all that gets rejected are outside manifestations: Thomas rejects all of religion BECAUSE it busies itself only with outside manifestations. Outside is worthless, useless, and it's where the proverbial paths are (64).
(14) also is filled with Platonic words such as χώρα, παραδέχομαι, as well as κατακρίνω and κακός. I have a special file that hyperlinks into all of Perseus' Plato for each of the 123 words in Thomas, when interested.
The Father is not a person, such is for sure (15) - but do pay very close attention to the fact that it is YOUR Father, it is something personal, and not some deity.
The number 5 is mentioned in (16) and we learn that the child is indeed two, (Ego and Self), and knowledge of the existence of the Father makes three. The masculine fire (the feminine is reserved for 82) goes hand in hand with the sword, and War is an interesting Greek loanword out of necessity: Egyptian doesn't have a word for that (and evidently also loans for Peace).
Eyes, ears, hands and heart/mind: we view and see through the myopic eye of the Ego, we hear through his ears, we are fed with the spiritual hands of Ego and Self, and all that ends up in our own heart/mind (the word indeed means both in Egyptian). How could we possibly experience anything real without the severest of distortions?
18 and 19 are brilliant, juxtaposing the Greek Beginning to the native Coptic beginning. We Begin when we split, we become someone(s!) else entirely - yet we don't know, and the disciples once again ruminate their Judaic mantra, oblivious of that what is REALLY important. Harsh as always is his critique when he posits to his disciples the possibility of them becoming such to him. Listening to words naturally will not achieve anything, only knowing and understanding does so. Sarcastically, he baits them with the proposition that stones (who are devoid of eyes, ears, hands as well as heart/mind) would actually Serve (διακονέω!) them.
Here comes the last sentence:

Quote

you Indeed have inthere the five trees in Paradise; they move not, within summer, within winter, and not usually their leaves fall outward. he who will know them, will not take taste of mother+

This is really what the text says: it is the disciples that cherish this image. Five points IMO to the divisive number in logion 16, not to the five (Epicurean?) senses.
Think about it for 5 seconds and then answer the question straight away: trees that don't move all year around, and never shed a single leaf - what specific type of tree are they?
Know to recognise a fable, an illusion, and you indeed will not taste death - or rather, be corrupted by mother's education, as that is full of fables and old tales, ideas and illusions. For the epitome of that all, Logion 47 is the centerpiece of our psychological Becoming (as well as a direct link to Plato’s charioteer of Phaedrus 253d and its white horse (τιμῆς ἐραστὴς, ‘of-honour lover’) versus its black horse in 253e (ὕβρεως, hubristic)

+++++ +++++

I could go on indefinitely, and it's impossible for me to be more concise than this, I see. So I'll stop here.

Pros:

1. Rejection of religion
2. Rejection of the proverbial pot of gold
3. Indifference to gods
4. A stress on (autonomous!) movement and action
5. Rejection of everything outside, and sole focus on the inside
6. Rejection of reincarnation (e.g. 27, 89, 112)
7. Rejection of leaders, status

Cons:

A. Not a single mention of pleasure, and only one mention of 'my soul gave pain' in (28)
B. Thomas doesn't bother at all with any cosmogony of any kind, which fits with rejecting anything on the outside. I find the Epictetus idea of only caring for that which is in your control particularly strong in Thomas. Let's be honest, all ideas about any cosmogony are mere opinions.
C. Desire is a twin pair: desire ⲟⲩⲱϣ Noun masculine 99, Desire ⲉⲡⲓⲑⲩⲙⲉⲓ Verb 38, 47. I can't evaluate it in an Epicurean sense.
D. Nowt about friendship. Thomas' Quest is a lonely, utterly solitary one where it is even strongly recommended to avoid everyone (64, 65).
E. Knowledge comes from empiricism by oneself about oneself inside oneself. It's the only knowledge of use, and when devoid of it you are doomed, and dead

1. Nothing Can Be Created From Nothing.
2. The Universe Is Infinite In Size And Eternal In Time And Has No Gods Over It.
3. The Nature of Gods Contains Nothing That Is Inconsistent With Incorruption And Blessedness.
4. Death Is Nothing To Us.
5. There Is No Necessity To Live Under The Control Of Necessity.
6. He Who Says "Nothing Can Be Known" Knows Nothing.
7. All Sensations Are "True."
8. Virtue Is Not Absolute Or An End In Itself - All Good And Evil Consists In Sensation.
9. Pleasure is The Guide of Life.
10. By "Pleasure" We Mean All Experience That Is Not Painful
11. Life Is Desirable, But Unlimited Time Contains No Greater Pleasure Than Limited Time.

The above are all left unaddressed by Thomas. I get the impression (and cherish the stealth desire LOL) that most of these are reactions by Epicurus. If I'm correct that the Sea represents all schools of thought, Thomas simple wipes the entire table clean. He is a radical revolutionary interested in nothing but his own empiricism about himself - and as such hardly can be compared to full Epicureanism, I reckon.
Still: there are parallels, and Thomas most definitely is no signboard for anything in particular

A last one: Thomas shows us how to become Son of Man, Child of the Human (106) - it is the closest to the father that we will ever come. Free of our 'garments', free from the yoke of Ego and Self, free from that hobble that limited our movement (23). Free from shame and fear. Free from our slaveowner the Ego. No rules, no plans, no paths. No worries, no virtues, no higher goals

This is my first thread. Feel free to use the red pen and I will happily comply! I've gone by most of the introductory material in all kinds of aspects, but you never know...

This is it. I'll eagerly await any reactions. So far I haven't been able to link Thomas to anything in particular

In an attempt to ascertain whether the text of Thomas matches with Epicurean ideas, I will present what is in it.
At the current point, Thomas is unrelated to Epicurean thought at large. In addition to that, it started as a hobby of mine, so posting it here seems the least intrusive thing to do. Granted, not posting anything at all is even far less intrusive

The earliest Thomas translations, those in 1958-1960 by Germans and Scandinavians, are most precise. Guillaumont has a very precise one although already harmonised with orthodoxy, and the translation by Detlev Koepke is most precise. Lambdin, Layton, Brakke, Meyer, and so forth: they strongly harmonise all of Thomas with the Christian canonicals, changing explicit singulars into plurals, provding words that aren't supported by any dictionary or lexicon, and 'emending' without comment whatever they Need to see emended

My Translation ("the true words of Thomas") provides dictionary links for every single lemma and will enable everyone to verify any translation. Never take anyone's word for anything, and solely judge for yourself

A. Coptic - the Vorlage of Thomas

The full text, lacunose only at a few places, is in Coptic.
Coptic gets subdivided in any kind of classes but basically the Egyptians, when Alexander rolled up their country as well, were particularly enamoured by the idea to use the Greek alphabet. Until that time, hieroglyphs were sacred and reserved for the upper elite, and the plebs had to do with whatever they cooked up, among which Hieratic and "demotic" that typically sketches the problem and solution: the "demos" itself was inventing a language here, left entirely to its own. And that shows. Hieroglyphs are sounds, and so is Coptic, and we find all pretty as well as petty linguistic obscenities: R for L, EI for AI (the e is an extremely weak vowel and EI is considered to be identical to I), and we find a free exchange of labials, gutturals, and contraction and metathesis is very common. If I could be blunt (and I can, to be frank), Coptic is a bit of a creole language really. A true blessing compared to Greek, such is for sure!

A1.

Not surprisingly, Coptic is replete with Greek loanwords.
Most surprisingly, Thomas uses these next to native Greek words, frequently in one and the same sentence:

Greek-Coptic word twins in GoT express various shades of meaning

The Greek twin always has a higher metaphysical meaning, for instance in the so very biting anti-Judaic Logion 53:

Quote

53. his Disciples said to him: is the circumcision Useful (ⲱⲫⲉⲗⲉⲓ) Or no? he said to them: were he Useful, their father would beget them from their mother circumcised. Rather, the true circumcision in Spirit found all usefulness (ϩⲏⲩ)

Where we could annotate the Greek with "how does it help / assist", the Coptic primarily means profitable - and do observe that the last phrase is in the past!

B. Coptic dialects

Given the history of Coptic, we find countless dialects and as such different forms of one and the same noun declension (Coptic is a breeze compared to Greek and knows only 4 different verb forms, which however can't be compared to regular verb declension).
What is striking in Thomas is that he uses a mix of dialects, and pretty much all of them appear - and that also is a sign of the text being very early, although Thomas certainly stresses its use

B1.

The predominant dialects in Thomas are Sahidic, Akhmimic and Subakhmimic, but we also find Lycopolitan, Fayyumic and Bohairic, and even dialect forms that are unattested in the main and authoritative dictionary of Coptic, the one by Crum

Thomas abuses this in order to embed ambivalence in his text: 'beginning' and 'path' both are (the feminine) ϩⲓⲏ in the text, while (the masculine) 'death' and (feminine) 'mother' both exist as ⲙⲟⲩ, among others - and the first decision on these has to be made in Logion 3, where the kingdom is 'of your inside' and 'of your eye / outside': ⲃⲁⲗ can indeed be a dialect variant of ⲃⲟⲗ

C. Coptic is really very uncomplicated

In Coptic nouns and verbs often are identical, and words are short. Frequently only the gender of a noun distinguishes between meanings, and Thomas frequently uses nouns anarthrously next to using them with the definite article

C1.

That is how 'taking taste of the death' can mean only one thing, whereas 'taking taste of mother' is grammatically possible

D. Scriptio continua, a puzzle even before one starts

Last but not least, the text is written in Scriptio continua, one long consecutive string of letters without any interpunction whatsoever. It is very well possible to lemmatise a sentence in a few different ways

D1.

The infamous corner stone Logion, 66, is a splendid example: the word stone, ⲱⲱⲛⲉ, even is unattested:

Quote

ⲛ̅ⲧⲟϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲱⲱⲛⲉ ⲛ̅ ⲕⲱϩ - he is turnaround of envy
ⲛ̅ⲧⲟϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡ ⲱⲱⲛⲉ ⲛ̅ ⲕⲱϩ - he is the stone of corner

Yes, that last word becomes a homonym via its anarthrous use!

+++++ +++++

I hear you - but after 80 years of everyone utterly failing to make sense of Thomas, the simplest conclusion is that no one has found the correct pathway in, and that we have to dig deeper.
And obviously the result of this "tinkering" determines its feasibility, hence why I have gone to incredibly great lengths to make my Thomas translation fully traceable and verifiable. None of this is interpretation, all of this is grammatically viable variation

And this doesn't come from nowhere: in logion 74 for instance we find the words 'separation' and 'sickness', both of which always get obscured without comment: for a plain Christian text, even peri-Christian ones, Thomas contains some really bizarre and crazy elements

No peer reviews? On the contrary, this Translation has been pulbished some 20 times now in the past 5 years, and this is the final version. It demonstrates how peer review has failed hard across all other translations for Logion 74 and 96 ('leaven' is not an option at all, only 'colostrum'), for example.
The dictionary always prevails over the opinions of peer reviewers

Next: I come to the point

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

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.

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"