Post by Rogier van Vlissingen on Oct 12, 2006 2:33:07 GMT -5
The following was the introduction to a series of discusssions on the DU forum at Yahoo, about the GoTh logia as they appear in Your Immortal Reality. At this writing the series is still going on and I'm posting them here to have the materials for a book on this topic together in one place.
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:06:12 -0400, Ossie <ossiedreamson@aol.com> wrote:
> Oh goodie, goodie, goodie
>
> Now you know Rogier, we are not going to turn this opportunity down. Let us know when you want to start. I am in favor of you leading it because with the huge influx of folks coming and going it would be confusing to try to keep up with more than one facilitor.
>
> Peace
> Ossie
>
I think I should first write some introductory notes.
First as a practical hint, the old emails are easy to search for since all of them have the word Logion in the title. Logion being the Greek for "Saying," or "Word," and being the accepted term to refer to Jesus quotes in the literature, hence "sayings Gospels." I think it pays for folks to look those up.
Second, before we go into this, it pays to remember the hows and whys and wherefores, of what is now becoming the more or less main stream position of GoTh (abbreviation for Gospel of Thomas), to wit that while the extant manuscripts are rather later, which caused the book to be initially mischaracterized as a later "gnostic" product, internal evidence suggests that it dates from before the synoptic gospels which date from ca 65 Mark,
and 75 (Luke and Matthew). Since there are quotes in those Gospels whose original form clearly comes from GoTh, thus for Mark in ca 60-65, and Luke and Matthew to be quoting from Thomas, Thomas had to have been available and thus older, and interestingly, seems to be free of any theological flourishes from a Pauline direction which are otherwise felt in the synoptics, though perhaps strongest in Luke, since it was written by Paul's secretary, as was acts, and served primarily as a justification and
hagiography of the founders of what was to become the church.
Thus it is now thought that GoTh must date from ca 50 AD, whereas Paul started publishing a little later, though before the Synoptics. As a practical matter In one of the first translations of Thomas from 1959 by Guillaumont, Puech, Quispel, Till and Yassah ábd al Masih, the introduction states that the Coptic text found seems to go back to a Greek text from ca 140AD, and appears to rest on sources that are still older.
Of course the work was hampered by the fact that the church heavily favored the notion that this was a rather late Gnostic document and not original at all, so that it could not upset the apple-cart of Christian (read: Pauline) theology. The cat seems to be out of the bag now, since so many scholars believe the outline I just gave is the correct one. A few are hindered by their Christian affiliations from being able to support that position.
Now I have periodically been accused of being scholarly, and to uphold that image I would simply state that I will herewith simply commit the very unscholarly act of assuming in all that follows that the wording given by Pursah in YIR is actually better than the best translations, so I will frame this discussion in that light. Since I admit it on grounds that seem entirely reasonable to me, perhaps I can uphold the pretense of being scholarly, by accounting for I disagreeumptions. That also makes it easier, so
that anyone who doesn't agree with that premise doesn't have to bother with reading any of it. We will then perhaps jointly look at both the translated form, from Gary's favorite translation of Marvin Meyer, and parallels in Course and NT, while we will try like good Course students to focus on content and not form. Though I will observe the following going in: generally the literature from that time does not much use the abstract
forms of expression which we do find in Indian traditions and also in our beloved Course. Once you become comfortable with the imagery being used, and how it is being used, it quickly becomes evident that this way of speaking is just as profound as any more abstract formulation that may seem more "to the point" to us. Here it pays to remember always Jesus' word that everything comes in parables, that was (and is) his method of teaching.
With that I'll let this rest, and some time this weekend I'll kick it off
with the first quote and we'll see where we end up with all of this... I will once again use the word Logion and the accepted numbering, as well as YIR as a reference.
--
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:06:12 -0400, Ossie <ossiedreamson@aol.com> wrote:
> Oh goodie, goodie, goodie
>
> Now you know Rogier, we are not going to turn this opportunity down. Let us know when you want to start. I am in favor of you leading it because with the huge influx of folks coming and going it would be confusing to try to keep up with more than one facilitor.
>
> Peace
> Ossie
>
I think I should first write some introductory notes.
First as a practical hint, the old emails are easy to search for since all of them have the word Logion in the title. Logion being the Greek for "Saying," or "Word," and being the accepted term to refer to Jesus quotes in the literature, hence "sayings Gospels." I think it pays for folks to look those up.
Second, before we go into this, it pays to remember the hows and whys and wherefores, of what is now becoming the more or less main stream position of GoTh (abbreviation for Gospel of Thomas), to wit that while the extant manuscripts are rather later, which caused the book to be initially mischaracterized as a later "gnostic" product, internal evidence suggests that it dates from before the synoptic gospels which date from ca 65 Mark,
and 75 (Luke and Matthew). Since there are quotes in those Gospels whose original form clearly comes from GoTh, thus for Mark in ca 60-65, and Luke and Matthew to be quoting from Thomas, Thomas had to have been available and thus older, and interestingly, seems to be free of any theological flourishes from a Pauline direction which are otherwise felt in the synoptics, though perhaps strongest in Luke, since it was written by Paul's secretary, as was acts, and served primarily as a justification and
hagiography of the founders of what was to become the church.
Thus it is now thought that GoTh must date from ca 50 AD, whereas Paul started publishing a little later, though before the Synoptics. As a practical matter In one of the first translations of Thomas from 1959 by Guillaumont, Puech, Quispel, Till and Yassah ábd al Masih, the introduction states that the Coptic text found seems to go back to a Greek text from ca 140AD, and appears to rest on sources that are still older.
Of course the work was hampered by the fact that the church heavily favored the notion that this was a rather late Gnostic document and not original at all, so that it could not upset the apple-cart of Christian (read: Pauline) theology. The cat seems to be out of the bag now, since so many scholars believe the outline I just gave is the correct one. A few are hindered by their Christian affiliations from being able to support that position.
Now I have periodically been accused of being scholarly, and to uphold that image I would simply state that I will herewith simply commit the very unscholarly act of assuming in all that follows that the wording given by Pursah in YIR is actually better than the best translations, so I will frame this discussion in that light. Since I admit it on grounds that seem entirely reasonable to me, perhaps I can uphold the pretense of being scholarly, by accounting for I disagreeumptions. That also makes it easier, so
that anyone who doesn't agree with that premise doesn't have to bother with reading any of it. We will then perhaps jointly look at both the translated form, from Gary's favorite translation of Marvin Meyer, and parallels in Course and NT, while we will try like good Course students to focus on content and not form. Though I will observe the following going in: generally the literature from that time does not much use the abstract
forms of expression which we do find in Indian traditions and also in our beloved Course. Once you become comfortable with the imagery being used, and how it is being used, it quickly becomes evident that this way of speaking is just as profound as any more abstract formulation that may seem more "to the point" to us. Here it pays to remember always Jesus' word that everything comes in parables, that was (and is) his method of teaching.
With that I'll let this rest, and some time this weekend I'll kick it off
with the first quote and we'll see where we end up with all of this... I will once again use the word Logion and the accepted numbering, as well as YIR as a reference.
--