The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas

The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas Literal Thomas, part V Martijn Linssen, MA Martijn Linssen 9-9-2019 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2 The structure of Thomas ..................................................................................................................2 Contrast and μεταμόρφωσις ............................................................................................................ 3 μεταμόρφωσις leads to change itself .......................................................................................... 4 Further unravelling of the στεγανός in logion 2 ..........................................................................5 The catalyst enables the metamorphosis, the completed metamorphosis produces the outcome........................................................................................................................................ 6 Metamorphosis is a means to an end, not a goal by itself ..........................................................7 The parable of the sower: illustration one of two ...........................................................................7 The parable of the mustard seed: illustration two of two .............................................................. 9 The abridged version of the catalyst-metamorphosis-outcome paradigm .................................. 10 The first dozen logia briefly dissected ............................................................................................ 11 Interlude.......................................................................................................................................... 13 The sixteen parables fully analysed................................................................................................ 14 The parable of the net (logion 8) ............................................................................................... 15 The parable of the sower (logion 9) ........................................................................................... 18 The parable of the mustard seed (logion 20) ............................................................................. 22 The parable of the house owner (logion 21)............................................................................... 23 The parable of the strong man (logion 35) ................................................................................ 25 The parable of the seed and the weeds (logion 57) ...................................................................26 The parable of the rich man (logion 63) ....................................................................................28 The parable of the dinner (logion 64) ........................................................................................ 30 The parable of the vineyard (logion 65)..................................................................................... 31 The parable of the pearl (logion 76)........................................................................................... 38 The parable of the leaven (logion 96) ....................................................................................... 40 The parable of the jar (logion 97)............................................................................................... 41 The parable of the powerful man (logion 98)............................................................................42 The parable of the brigands (logion 103) ...................................................................................47 The parable of the shepherd and the sheep leaving the 99 (logion 107) ................................. 48 The parable of the hidden treasure (logion 109) ....................................................................... 51 Summary .........................................................................................................................................54 Thomas explained...........................................................................................................................56 Motivation...................................................................................................................................... 64 Implications ....................................................................................................................................67 Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 1 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 Introduction Almost 75 years ago the gospel of Thomas (Thomas) was recovered among the manuscripts of Nag Hammadi. The first photographic edition was published in 1956, and its first critical analysis appeared in 1959. Tens of thousands of attempts have been made to interpret it, among others placing it in a biblical context, a Gnostic context, even Buddhist and Zen contexts. This paper will look at Thomas from a strictly textual point of view: it will consider content, not context. And reveal the message of μεταμόρφωσις that Thomas wants to convey; his instruction on how to read his text. This paper is a compilation of three previously and separately published papers, Metamorphosis as a means - the steganography of Thomas revealed by logion 21, Complete metamorphosis in each Jesus parable of Thomas2 and The parable of the farmers in GoT logion 65: Perhaps they/he didn't recognise/know him/them 3. Since publishing those I have come to considerably new insights which is the reason why I am combining them all in this paper. The structure of Thomas Thomas is a collection of sayings that at first glance (and second, and third, if you believe countless scholars) looks disordered, chaotic even. Dialogues, small narratives, parables, instructions: these all appear throughout the text in seeming disorder. We find common themes such as living and dead, light and darkness, poverty and richness, heaven and earth: the contrast between each pair is evident. When zooming in on some of those, a relation between the parts of a pair seems to be expressed; we see something happening between two contrasting extremes: (4) Jesus said, "The man old in days will not hesitate to ask a small child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live. For many who are first will become last, and they will become one and the same." 1 https://www.academia.edu/39898763/Metamorphosis_as_a_means__the_steganography_of_Thomas_revealed_by_logion_2 2 https://www.academia.edu/39922313/Complete_metamorphosis_in_each_Jesus_parable_of_Thomas 3 https://www.academia.edu/39868220/The_parable_of_the_tenants_in_GoT_logion_65_Perhaps_they_h e_didnt_recognise_know_him_them Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 2 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 Contrast and μεταμόρφωσις An old man and a very young child; that is the first contrast of this logion. Another contrast is shown in 'many who are first will become last', and in the latter we see something happening, with one extreme changing into the other. More contrasts can be found, for instance in logion 8: (8) And he said, "The man is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of small fish. Among them the wise fisherman found a fine large fish. He threw all the small fish back into the sea and chose the large fish without difficulty. Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear." A large fish is found, and then chosen - when a net full of small fish has been transformed into a net from which all the small fish have been thrown back. Again, we see that there is something happening between two extremes of a contrasting pair: at one point there is a net full of small fish, at another point there is a net devoid of small fish. One part of a pair turns into the other part of the pair, and the pair parts in these two example logia are opposites of one another: first becomes last, full becomes empty – we witness a transformation from one extreme position or state to its opposite, a metamorphosis where something becomes quite something else, something quite the contrary. In these two examples we also see that each logion contains more than one metamorphosis: the metamorphosis in logion 8, from full to empty, leads to the change of a fish being found to a fish being chosen, just as "first people becoming last" in logion 4 seems to illustrate and even explain how an old man asking a very young child ("about the place of life") will suddenly (become a)"live". Metamorphosis leads to something else; change facilitates change. However, where the first metamorphosis is a rather radical one, with one extreme turning into its opposite, the change that occurs as a result of that metamorphosis doesn't contain those explicitly named opposites: and old man will live, and a fish found is chosen – that does denote change, and quite a bit of contrast, but it's not a metamorphosis between two opposite states. An old man becoming young again would be a metamorphosis, or a dead man becoming alive; a lost fish being found or a rejected fish being chosen would also be fine examples of a metamorphosis with contrasting states – but not these phrases, they express a different kind of change. Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 3 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 μεταμόρφωσις leads to change itself It certainly is no coincidence that we find this paradigm in Thomas, with metamorphosis leading to change. Thomas starts with a preface, a subtitle: These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down. The hidden undertone is evidently hinted at, and then the text starts with logion 1: (1) And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death." Most if not all scholars agree that 'death' here is meant figuratively, in a mental, spiritual or philosophical way; Thomas points many times at people who are dead while they are living, for instance in logion 11.b 'The dead are not alive, and the living will not die'. Logion 1 is, although puzzling with regards to the "how", very clear: if you manage to decipher, decrypt, or simply know how to read this text, you will magnificently advance in mental state. As the first logion in Thomas it immediately attracts attention; and even if Thomas means real physical death here, that doesn't change the conceptual message of this logion: read between the lines of this text and you will achieve something extraordinary. Having said that, the metamorphosis is clear: from the implicit not knowing how to interpret this text, to the explicit knowing how to interpret this text – that is the transformation, and it will lead to change, in this case to 'not experience death': Thomas starts his very text with metamorphosis leading to change! What can we expect, then, of the next logion? Clearly, if we just read what logion 1 says, then we are left with one main, burning question: well then how can we find the interpretation of these sayings? (2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All." Likewise, we have a metamorphosis: from seeking to finding. Likewise, that will lead to change: becoming troubled, then being astonished, and finally 'ruling over the All'. Without a doubt this is the answer to the "how" question that logion 1 inevitably evokes: if you want to rule over the All (and I think the majority of people would at least be interested in knowing how such a thing would come about), then you must start and complete the Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 4 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 metamorphosis: change, and you will facilitate change. Thomas seems to be stressing that last change here, by splitting up the last two sentences in smaller phrases that gradually transition from finding to ruling over the All – is he trying to draw our attention? Further unravelling of the στεγανός in logion 2 The finished metamorphosis brings about change; yet another state is reached. For a precise evaluation of the phrase that expresses that change we best consult the literal translation4, which reads: and when he-should-find, he-will-be-troubled, and if-he-should be-troubled, he-will-becomeamazed, and he-will-become-king over-the-All. This translation is much better as the change brought about is at the end: you will become amazed (and king over the All) – because you will be troubled when you find. In the Lambdin translation the result of the metamorphosis seems to become troubled, of which being amazed and king over the All seems to be a side-effect; yet becoming troubled is not the final result, however. An explanation is in place, I think: the change facilitated by the completion of the metamorphosis is a minor metamorphosis in itself, a bit of change, transitioning to another state – so words like 'become' prevail over words like 'will be' because the latter indicate simultaneity, whereas the former indicate divergence: "becoming amazed and king over the All" is the final outcome and change, not "becoming troubled". In this logion Thomas does put great focus on the result of the metamorphosis, next to very clearly instructing how the metamorphosis works: it is not a great step from seeking to continuing seeking, nor is the link between seeking and finding particularly hard to make those are dead give-aways, in fact, and acutely related. Thomas calls to action, and I call that the metamorphosis catalyst: it is always an action that brings about the metamorphosis, the transformation from one contrasting state to the other. 4 All literal translations in this paper are - very gratefully - taken from the one by Michael Grondin (gospel-thomas.net) Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 5 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 The catalyst enables the metamorphosis, the completed metamorphosis produces the outcome Let's break this down even further: there is an evident, clear change from the state of seeking to the strongly and starkly contrasting, opposite state of finding. Undeniably the seeking is the starting point just as finding is the endpoint, and not the other way around. Unquestionably the continuing of seeking brings about the metamorphosis, as seeking morphs, changes, evolves, into finding: the state of seeking ends when the state of finding is reached - the metamorphosis is complete, the catalyst has worked - job done. What isn't related, is the result - there is absolutely no logical connection to being troubled in relation to finding, nor is there a connection between being troubled, and becoming amazed and king over the All: content-wise there still is a mystery to solve here when we closely scrutinise this logion and wonder about its interpretation - but that is irrelevant for now. What is relevant is the undeniably logical and natural, unambiguous cohesion between the metamorphosis states and the catalyst. Equally relevant and indisputable is the link between the transition state achieved by and at the end of the metamorphosis, and its result, the fact that there is an (extra) outcome of the completed metamorphosis. We can easily work our way backwards, and start with that result: "becoming amazed and king over the All" is the very last phrase. If you want to become amazed, you must first be troubled – and troubled is what you will be when you find, when the metamorphosis is completed. Finding is something that is enabled by the metamorphosis catalyst of continuing to seek, and you can only continue to seek when you are already seeking: here is where we see that the metamorphosis requires a starting state, a starting position, that in this case is explicitly stated. Why does Thomas explicitly mention the starting state in this logion? Because he either wants to present the complete model, or perhaps because Thomas is trying to measure up his audience here, stating that you have no business with his text if you're not "a seeker"? There's a question around most every corner of Thomas, and I will park this one for now: there is an explicit starting state in this first metamorphosis example and showcase, and if we write it all down then we get the following model: Let him who seeks - the required starting state for the metamorphosis, the point of departure; continue seeking - the catalyst for the metamorphosis; until he finds. - the transition state, the endpoint of the metamorphosis; Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 6 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 (When he finds, he will be troubled, and when he is troubled,) he will become amazed, and he will become king over the All. - the result of the metamorphosis, its outcome. Metamorphosis is a means to an end, not a goal by itself It seems to me that by constructing this logion in this precise way, with the very elaborate breakdown of the metamorphosis result, Thomas is almost screaming to focus on the outcome of the metamorphosis: morph, transform, change - and you will be rewarded by what happens when the metamorphosis is complete. The metamorphosis is not a goal, it is a means to an end; and that end is the goal, the outcome - for lack of a better word. Catalysts lead to metamorphosis in Thomas and are implemented by action, and when the metamorphosis is complete, there is an outcome, the outcome: a result, the goal. I will use two other logia in order to demonstrate this metamorphosis model: the scattered handful (of seeds) in the parable of the sower that 'falls on good soil' (and whose complete metamorphosis is to 'produce(d) good fruit'), leads to something extra: 'it bore sixty per measure and a hundred and twenty per measure'. Likewise, in the parable of the mustard seed the "falling on tilled soil" leads to the situation that the mustard seed ('produces a great plant' and) 'becomes a shelter for birds of the sky'. Riddles are abound in Thomas, such as the result of the good fruit produced, but it is clear that this bearing of sixty per measure and a hundred and twenty per measure is a result, a byproduct, of producing good fruit: it is the end product, the final product, that remains, or rather is created, after the metamorphosis has been completed. In both parables the catalyst is falling on good or tilled soil. I have selected these two other examples of the handful (of seeds) and the mustard seed to illustrate the metamorphosis leading to change, as it is in the parables that we see a full metamorphosis with all its elements present: all sixteen parables in Thomas have a full and complete metamorphosis with a starting state, a catalyst, a transition state, and an outcome. And that is far, so very, very far, from all. The parable of the sower: illustration one of two (9) Jesus said, "Now the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), and scattered them. Some fell on the road; the birds came and gathered them up. Others fell on the rock, did not take root in the soil, and did not produce ears. And others fell on thorns; they choked the seed(s) and worms Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 7 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 ate them. And others fell on the good soil and it produced good fruit: it bore sixty per measure and a hundred and twenty per measure." This is the famous parable of the sower, and again we witness a transformation as the scattered seed undergoes a metamorphosis: when it falls on good soil it produces good fruit. In this logion Thomas draws our attention to the catalyst for the metamorphosis by first naming three actions that don't facilitate change: falling on the road, on rock, and on thorns; only falling on good soil enables the metamorphosis, and the outcome of the metamorphosis is the puzzling 'it bore sixty per measure and a hundred and twenty per measure': as in logion 4 the completed metamorphosis is not the end of the logion; it is merely a transition state that exists prior to the end product, the real and final outcome. If we break down this parable, we can visualise the various elements by reformatting the logion: Jesus said, "Now the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), (1) and scattered them. (2) Some fell on the road; the birds came and gathered them up. (3) Others fell on the rock, did not take root in the soil, and did not produce ears. (4) And others fell on thorns; they choked the seed(s) and worms ate them. (5) And others fell on the good soil (6) and it produced good fruit: (7) it bore sixty per measure and a hundred and twenty per measure." The metamorphosis starting state is in (1), where the handful gets scattered: 'cast' is the literal translation, the seeds (that are unnamed in the literal translation, where the subject simply is the 'handful' that the sower took) get thrown away from and by the sower. Then Thomas proposes three catalyst actions that don't facilitate the required change: 2, 3 and 4. The right catalyst is in (5), falling on good soil, and that leads to the metamorphosis transition state of (6), producing good fruit. The outcome of the completed metamorphosis is in (7), the "bearing 60 and 120 per measure". If we use and reorder only the essential elements of the parable and move the catalyst to the end, this is what comes up: (0) a handful (of seeds), Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 8 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 (1) scattered, (2) produced good fruit (3) and bore sixty per measure and a hundred and twenty per measure (4) when [others] fell on the good soil The subject appears in (0) and the two metamorphosis states become juxtaposed in (1) and (2), while the outcome (3) becomes juxtaposed to the catalyst (4): the two primary elements of the metamorphosis model thus end up next to each other at the end. And we end up with a very concise logion, which neatly displays the metamorphosis and its cause and effect. The parable of the mustard seed: illustration two of two Logion 20, the mustard seed, contains all elements in one sentence: (20) The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us what the kingdom of heaven is like." He said to them, "It is like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds; but when it falls on tilled soil, it produces a great plant and becomes a shelter for birds of the sky." Breaking it down by reformatting it once more helps to visualise the elements: The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us what the kingdom of heaven is like." He said to them, (0) "It is like a mustard seed. (1) It is the smallest of all seeds. (2) But when it falls on tilled soil, (3) it produces a great plant (4) and becomes a shelter for birds of the sky." This time I have already included the subject in the elements. Moving the catalyst to the end and making it all concise, we get: (0) a mustard seed, (1) the smallest of all seeds, (2) produces a great plant (3) and becomes a shelter for birds of the sky, Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 9 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 (4) when it falls on tilled soil Isn't that beautifully simple and straightforward? Falling on good soil, failing on tilled soil: the link between the two parables is brutally evident, and the essential action required for the transition of the magnificently contrasting metamorphosis states is crystal clear. The abridged version of the catalyst-metamorphosis-outcome paradigm If all this is the essence of deciphering the riddles of Thomas, where do we find a metamorphosis, the catalyst of which will facilitate it and lead to an outcome? All over Thomas, in fact. Where would we expect it to be? In places and situations where Thomas calls for action, even if that is an implicit one like in logion 1: (1) And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death." This is another type of metamorphosis, a more concise one. The outcome is clear (to not experience death) but the rest is one big lump: "having found the interpretation of these sayings". There is a verb and a subject in that phrase yet both seem to make up the transition state as well as the catalyst together; if I were to rewrite it in full it would say something like: And he said, "If you haven't found the interpretation of these sayings, seek! Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death." I have created a starting state by taking the opposite of the transition state, and the catalyst then appears almost by itself in the form of the verb 'seek'. I am not adding anything to Thomas, nor am I changing anything; I am merely trying to demonstrate that this could also be a complete metamorphosis according to the model, but it is obvious that it needn't be: since the transition state consists of both a noun (part) and a verb (part), and because the rules of the model are so clear and consistent, a logion like this can do without a full metamorphosis where the starting state and the catalyst would be explicitly mentioned. What is present is the outcome, and the transition state, and as long as we can unambiguously distil the catalyst from this verb-noun transition state, implicitly, we are good to go. Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 10 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 The first dozen logia briefly dissected Having identified these two types of "exhortation to change", there are similarities between the two forms of the model and I will use labels to identify those. I will call the Action Alpha (α) and the Outcome Omega (Ω), the Starting state Sigma (Σ) and the Transition state Tau (T). In a full metamorphosis we will thus distinguish ΣαTΩ and in an abridged one, like logion 1, there will be αTΩ – the action and transition state are combined and I will try to label them appropriately. Just remember: if there's no Σ then the αT is the combined action-transition state. Logia will be as short as possible and only mention those parts that are applicable to the metamorphosis; if legibility requires parts to be present that don't fulfil any of the metamorphosis elements then those will be emphasised in italics. If there is more than one metamorphosis in one logion, it will start at a new line. I am going to try my hand at the first dozen logia and then call it a day: I have noticed that breaking down logia via this model reveals an entirely new angle: first of all, the translation often appears to leave something to be desired, and in every single case the so very literal translation by Grondin greatly illuminates the real structure. Second of all, some logia consist of more than one metamorphosis, such as the parable of the net, and when breaking down those, all room for interpretation vanishes into thin air. Third of all, a whole new Thomas surfaces and it is impossible for me at this point to just classify all 114 logia without going into much greater detail, and a tremendous magnitude of further work to be done presents itself. (1) And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings (αT) will not experience death (Ω)." (2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks (Σ) continue seeking (α) until he finds (T). When he finds, he will be troubled. When he is troubled, he will become astonished (Ω1), and become king over the All (Ω2)." (3) When you come to know yourselves (αT), then you will become known (Ω1), and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father (Ω2). But if you will not know yourselves (αT), you dwell in poverty (Ω1) and it is you who are that poverty (Ω2)." (4) The man old in days (Σ) will not hesitate to ask (α1) a small child seven days old (T) about the place of life (α2), and he will live (Ω). For many who are first (Σ) will become last (αT), and they will become one and the same (Ω). Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 11 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 (5) Recognize what is in your sight (αT), and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you (Ω). The outcome is a metamorphosis in itself, and spelled out as such in the next logion: (6) For nothing hidden (Σ) will not become (α) manifest (T), and nothing covered (Σ) will remain (α) without being uncovered (T). No outcome here, surprisingly - or not? In the context of the logion this sentence is a justification for the reason not to lie or do things that you hate (such as praying, fasting and giving alms) (7) Blessed (Ω) is the lion (Σ) which becomes man (T) when consumed by man (α) cursed (Ω) is the man (T) whom the lion consumes (α), and the man becomes lion5 (T)." Logion 8 is the core parable of Thomas and only the main metamorphosis will be shown here, as all parables will be discussed later in much greater detail: (8) The man is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of small fish (Σ). Among them the wise fisherman found a fine large fish (α). He threw all the small fish back into the sea (T) and chose the large fish without difficulty (Ω). (9) Jesus said, "Now the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), and scattered them (Σ). Some fell on the road (α x1); the birds came and gathered them up. Others fell on the rock (α x2), did not take root in the soil, and did not produce ears. And others fell on thorns (α x3); they choked the seed(s) and worms ate them. And others fell on the good soil (α) and it produced good fruit (T): it bore sixty per measure and a hundred and twenty per measure (Ω)." The three failing catalysts are labelled with an x(1,2,3); they each have their own transition state as well. 5 The subject and object are switched in the last phrase. Ivan Miroshnikov has a very compelling case for reading the last phrase this way: The Gospel of Thomas and Plato: A Study of the Impact of Platonism on the Fifth Gospel (academia.edu) Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 12 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 (10) Jesus said, "I have cast fire upon the world (Σ), and see, I am guarding it (α) until it blazes (T)." A surprise right here: only states and a catalyst, no outcome. We are to wonder, perhaps, about the outcome? (11) In the days when you consumed what is dead (αT), you made it what is alive (Ω). When you come to dwell in the light (αT), what will you do (Ω)? On the day when you were one you created the two. But when you become two (αT), what will you do (Ω)?" (12) The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are (Σ), you are to go (α) to Jacob the righteous (T), for whose sake heaven and earth came into being (inverse Ω?)." Interlude Applying the metamorphosis model to this first dozen logia produces mixed results, to be honest. There appears to be a third type, which isn't a call to action but merely a narrative, a story that is told, as in these examples of logion 4, 6 and 10. On the other hand, the parables in logion 8 and 9 show that those have a perfectly full metamorphosis that even includes a subject. Yet in logion 12 we have another feature, that of something like an inverse Omega or outcome: the literal translation of the last phrase is 'the-one has-the-sky and-the-earth comeinto-being because-of-him' and that does reveal that heaven and earth coming into being was caused by said Jacob the Righteous - but such is not the outcome of the logion itself, in fact, the logion has no outcome, just like some others also don't have one. What are we to make of this? Is my metamorphosis model not so solid after all? Granted, this dozen doesn't wholly convince; not everything is an exhortation to action and not every exhortation to action has an outcome, although logion 12 being an exhortation to action is doubtful: the disciples in Thomas are depicted as ignorants, and I interpret logion 12 as saying "I give up on you, so just go to the proverbial Jacob the Righteous6, if you are so prone on handing over your freedom and responsibility by seeking a leader; find your cure in "Israel" and Judaism, the Institute and System par exemple. Go, to those whose central theme and core is 'righteous', and who embrace the dualistic concept of heaven and earth – you'll surely feel 6 Genesis 28:10–19 Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 13 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 comfortable there. Go ahead and waste your life, continue to be dead if you so desperately desire that". An unorthodox interpretation, undoubtedly, yet one that fits my interpretation of Thomas: Thomas refers to many schools of thought and religious concepts, yet he embraces none of those. Platonism can be found, asceticism, duality in general, heaven and God, and religious rituals such as fasting, praying, giving alms, and observing the Sabbath - but Thomas rejects them all. Thomas indeed seems to not be hindered by any notion of the Jesus we know; in fact, Thomas writes as if his Jesus were his alone. There is no resurrection, no crucifixion, no betrayal by Judas (although it perhaps is a remarkable coincidence that Thomas names himself also Judas), no healing of sick or driving out demons, no nothing - of what is in the canonicals. Thomas appears to be about something entirely different, as analysing his sixteen parables will illustrate: those tell a tantalising tale in perfectly logical and chronological order, neatly constructed in and grouped by separate sets of logia. Didn't you ever wonder about logion 17? 'I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind.' The sixteen parables fully analysed Parable has become a perturbed word, with multitudes of people giving multiple meanings to it. The parable industry thrives, with even complete Bible books such as Esther having been labelled as 'parable'. Challenge parables, attack parables, all types of parables have been invented, and by creating new definitions of 'parable' the volume of books and articles to publish on all that has become unlimited - with the result that we only drift away from analysing what we all understand a parable to be, within the context of Biblical and Christian research: those that are in the gospels, which are defined loosely enough as it is already. When I speak of the sixteen parables in Thomas, those are the thirteen that are in the canonicals, next to three that aren't: the parable of the jar, the parable of the powerful man, and the parable of the brigands (of which there arguably is a part already in Luke's version of the parable of the strong man in 11:21-22). Is that an arbitrary collection, or a complete one? Perhaps, perhaps not - but it's a pretty good start, I think. Why do I refer to them as parables? Because they have become known as such for centuries (save for Thomas' ones of course), and Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 14 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 I have taken the list of Anne McGuire's from the Haverford Department of Religion courses7, which certainly doesn't seem to be a bad point of reference. Each parable will be presented with its subject (1), starting state (2), catalyst (3), transition state (4) and outcome (5): you will find that almost all are already in the proper order. Following that I will summarise it in a different order so that it ends with the outcome and the catalyst, in order to juxtapose those two and show how the metamorphosis goal can be achieved by the catalyst action. I will use commas to separate the phrases, as using bold / italic etc for emphasis will make it all quite illegible. Speaking of which, I will sometimes (have to) add words between parentheses in order to create a fluid sentence. Doing so I will always opt for a neutral connective such as 'and', 'then' and 'when'. The parable of the net (logion 8) The very first parable is the parable of the net, and it is a double (or triple) parable; the main story can be divided into two sub-stories and all three reveal a full metamorphosis. To identify the second sub-metamorphosis, the outcome of the first will (have to) be used as starting state for the second: (A) 1. a wise fisherman, 2. drew net up from the sea full of small fish, 3. found a fine large fish, 4. threw all the small fish back into the sea, 5. and chose the large fish without difficulty; (A1) 1. a wise fisherman, 2. cast his net into the sea, 3. drew it up from the sea, 4. full of small fish, 5. found a fine large fish; (A2) 1. wise fisherman, 2. found a fine large fish, 3. threw all the small fish back into the sea, 4. chose the large fish, 5. without difficulty: (A) A wise fisherman, drew net up from the sea full of small fish, threw all the small fish back into the sea, and chose the large fish without difficulty, (when he) found a fine large fish (A1) A wise fisherman, cast his net into the sea, full of small fish, (and) found a fine large fish, (when he) drew it up from the sea (A2) A wise fisherman, found a fine large fish, and chose the large fish, without difficulty, (when he) threw all the small fish back into the sea This is the core parable of Thomas. The scenery is clear, with a fisherman on stage, a net in his hands, and a sea, full of small fish. Is the fisherman in a boat, is he with others, is it a windy or 7 http://ww3.haverford.edu/religion/courses/301F09/List of Parables.htm Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 15 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 sunny day? All that seems to be irrelevant, as Thomas doesn't pay any attention to details like that. The fisherman, the net, the sea: that's all there is to it. The story evolves quickly and simply: the fisherman throws his net into the sea, draws it up, finds a large fish, throws back fish, and chooses the large fish - and the "without difficulty" there immediately attracts our attention as well, as does the large fish. Looking at the main parable (A) the question is clear: how can one find a large fish in a net drawn up from a sea full of small fish, and how could finding a large fish possibly lead to choosing the large fish "without difficulty"? When we look at the first sub-metamorphosis (A1) we find a more accessible story, and our first assumption is confirmed: drawing up the net from a sea full of small fish does indeed lead to finding a large fish - that is odd, and our first object of attention. The literal translation is beautiful with 'he-drew her up from-the-sea, shebeing-full of-fish, little-ones from-below' not being conclusive about exactly what is full of small fish: the sea, the net, or both? Then the second sub-metamorphosis starts, and again we see the beautifully sequentially arranged metamorphosis elements, the starkly contrasting states, the action of the catalyst that so logically follows the initial state and equally logically enables the transition state, followed by the final outcome that now makes more semantic sense: the 'without difficulty' is the outcome of the transition state of choosing the large fish, and is enabled by the catalyst action of throwing back all the small fish. But that still makes us wonder, doesn't it? The message of the second sub-metamorphosis thus is that the fisherman chose the large fish (T) without difficulty (Ω) when he threw back all the small fish (α) after having found a fine large fish (Σ), and the message of the first sub-metamorphosis is that finding said large fish (Ω) is the outcome of drawing up the net (α) full of small fish (T) after having cast his net into the sea (Σ). Everything is perfectly in sync: the contrasting states of the first sub-metamorphosis where a (presumably empty) net thrown into the sea becomes full, and the second submetamorphosis where a fish found becomes a fish being chosen. Where the catalyst of the first sub-metamorphosis, drawing up the net, leads to the fish being found, the second completely clarifies the 'without difficulty' that was so riddling in the first place: throwing back all the fish is the catalyst for that, apparently making it very easy to choose the large fish. And we witness the not so obvious and perhaps even illogical connection between the transition state and the outcome: the first sub-metamorphosis connects the outcome of finding a large fish to a net being full of small fish, and the second sub-metamorphosis connects the outcome of 'without difficulty' to the transition state of 'chose the large fish'. Does that make sense? Absolutely not. Is the connection between each outcome and its transition state evident? Absolutely. But still, Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 16 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 the riddle of finding a fine large fish among a net full of small fish remains - for one more minute. What about the meaning of this logion, its interpretation? The story has been broken down into perfect little pieces, detailing every single step. It is now crystal-clear that the action of throwing back all the small fish leads to the result of there being no difficulty at all (in choosing the large fish). It is highly plausible that when you throw back all the small fish from a net full of small fish, that the net will become... empty. Completely empty. The fisherman, upon drawing up his net, thus only thinks that there is a large fish among them; if there really were a large fish among all the small ones he could pick it right away, easily, because the large one would stand out among all the small ones - but he can't, because he doesn't, and the logion continues. The fisherman can't actually choose the large fish until the net becomes empty - so where did that large fish go, what is there left to choose? Well, exactly what remains: nothing. Completely nothing. At the end of the logion the fisherman doesn't physically pick the large fish, he doesn't actually take the large fish in his hands, because there is nothing to pick - the choice is a mental one, not a physical one. The fisherman makes the mental choice that there isn't a large fish to choose, because the large fish he thought he found appears to not be there, wasn't there, and never will be there. The sea is full of small fish only. Are you Seeking for The Secret, the Meaning of Life, The Truth? Do you think that it's out there, in the sea of small fish that you haul in every day, the daily battles you pick, the news you follow, the opinions you defend and attack each and every day, the articles and books you read, the sessions or lectures you follow, the churches you visit, the deeply philosophical nightly sessions you have with dear friends and cerebral celebs? In short, do you think there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Think again - there ain't. Thomas already told us so in logion 3: 'Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you'. Everything is nothing, and nothing is everything. You get one shot at life, and you'd better make the best of it. Thus starts the very first parable of Thomas, the very first full metamorphosis save for the showcase of logion 2. It is a devastating spoiler, perhaps, a ruthless and brutal introduction into Thomas, the journey we thought was about and towards revelation, liberation, enlightenment, divinity perhaps? Immortality, even? What about logion 2 then, aren't we supposed to seek? If there's nothing to seek, why seek? To find out that there's nothing to find? Well anyway, how then do we seek? Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 17 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 The parable of the sower (logion 9) 1. a handful (of seeds), 2. scattered, 3. fell on good soil, 4. produced good fruit, 5. bearing 60 / 120 per measure: A handful (of seeds), scattered, produced good fruit, bearing 60 / 120 per measure, (when) they fell on good soil It seems a simple story about someone sowing, carelessly throwing around seeds without paying attention (Σ), where a (guessed) minority of them lands on good soil (α) and produces good fruit (T) - which leads to the outcome of 60/120 per measure (Ω). Good soil is the essence and catalyst, yet if only someone would explain to me what the 60/120 per measure really mean! Grondin's work on that8 is very appealing and I will include it in my interpretation. The literal translation deserves our attention, among others given its very beginning: (8) Said-JS this: Behold, he-came out, viz-he-who-sows; he-fills-his-hand, he-cast; did-some, indeed, fall onto-the-road; they-came, viz-the-birds; they-gathered-them; some-others, they-fell onto-the-rock, and did-not()send-roots(down) to-the-earth, and did-not()send-ears rising to-thesky. And some-others, they-fell onto-thorns; they-choked the-seed, and did-the-worm eat-them; and did-some-others fall upon-the-earth which-was-good(), and it(m)-gave-fruit up to-the-sky good(); did-he-come 60 per-measure, and 120 per-measure. Someone who sows came out - that seems to be a significant detail; he came out of what, and went into what else? There is no such thing as a sower of course, that is not a fulltime or even part-time profession of any kind, so this is describing a particular and perhaps even peculiar situation. He fills his hand is in the present tense, and next to 'sows' it is the only verb as such, the rest is in past tense - that is odd. What is in his hand? We think that it is "seeds", but it is unnamed. And so we have three questions that we like answers to, although the remainder of the story evolves in a straightforward fashion; I will repeat the full breakdown given the literal translation and present the reordered metamorphosis in a concise form: 1. he-fills-his-hand, 2. he-cast; 3X1. did-some, indeed, fall onto-the-road; they-came, viz-thebirds; they-gathered-them; 3X2. some-others, they-fell onto-the-rock, and did-not()send- 8 The 60 and the 120 L111 and 112 as the Good Fruit of L9.5 Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 18 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 roots(down) to-the-earth, and did-not()send-ears rising to-the-sky. 3X3. And some-others, they-fell onto-thorns; they-choked the-seed, and did-the-worm eat-them; 3. and did-someothers fall upon-the-earth which-was-good(), 4. and it(m)-gave-fruit up to-the-sky good(); 5. did-he-come 60 per-measure, and 120 per-measure. he-fills-his-hand, he-cast; and it(m)-gave-fruit up to-the-sky good(); did-he-come 60 per-measure, and 120 per-measure, (when) did-some-others fall upon-the-earth whichwas-good() The metamorphosis development is clear, with the three failed catalysts pointing us to the fact that only a proper catalyst leads to a correct transition state and outcome - among others, which I will address in a bit. The transition states show fine contrasts with 'cast' (somethings) turning into good fruit, something fruitful; dispersed small (?) things become focussed into more tangible and sizeable things, and 'to-the-sky' is what draws our attention there as well. Whatever the 60/120 may mean, it is evident that it is the outcome, and a pay-off of the fruit. What about the meaning of this logion, its interpretation? 'Behold, he-came out' marks a significant event, and it is related to logion 8 and indicates the start of seeking: you come out (of your comfort zone), you get up, you undertake action that is significantly different: you change, you have made a decision to leave something behind and enter into something new: you start a journey, the journey of seeking. The present tense of the verbs "to sow" and "to fill" stands out among the others, which are past tense, and it seems to indicate that filling the hand is a reiterative process step within this overall process of sowing: you cast and check where that appears fruitful, then you fill your hand again and repeat the process. What do you fill your hand with? Thomas doesn't mention that, and omitting that detail is of great significance; it draws our attention away from the object of what is in the hand, and onto the process itself: casting, and checking where that leads to something. All parables in Thomas have explicitly named subjects, save for this one: another pointer that something is worthy of inquiry here, and my conclusion is that it is "ideas" that you fill your hand with - this is how you seek. You don't know where to start seeking so you just throw your ideas around you, out in the open, out in the wild. The majority will lead to nothing but the minority that does will point you to fruitful places that deserve further attention. Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 19 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 The transition phrase 'it(m)-gave-fruit up to-the-sky good()' is important, and ⲉⲧⲡⲉ which is translated 'to-the-sky' also means "above, upper part"9, which I associate with the mind: "food for thought" is a very modern translation here, fruit for the upper part: some of the ideas that the sower casts around him give good food for thought. What remains then is the outcome, and what I pick from Grondin's findings is that there are only two logia with that number of letters: logion 81 (60 letters) and logion 69 (120 letters). Their literal translations state, presented in the order of 60 letters versus 120: (81) Said-JS this: whoever-has-become-rich, let-him-become-king, and he-who-has-he (a)power, let-him-abdicate. (69) Said-JS (this) blessed-ones are these they-have-persecuted them down in-their-mind; thosewho-are-there, they-have-known-the-father (truly). (among)-blessed-ones (are) those-who-arehungry, so they-may-satisfy the-belly of-he-who-desires. Richness and poverty are references to knowledge and lack thereof, power is "real" power; a slightly better translation for ⲁⲣⲛⲁ than 'abdicate' is "reject, renounce, deny"10: more of the same perhaps but abdication suggests that you are someone of great power recognised by countless others, something like a king indeed - but this is an exhortation to everyone. Reject your power, any power; not only is it worthless on your journey but it will hinder you, even impede your growth, becomes it comes from the past, the world you unknowingly and unwillingly acquired and embraced. Don't pursue knowledge in order to become powerful, but in order to have knowledge. And don't think that you can compensate a lack of knowledge with power. Logion 69 immediately draws our attention to the mind, and given the (negative) connotations of the word 'persecute' I prefer to translate ⲇⲓⲱⲕⲉ as "chase, drive"11: become driven, haunt 9 TLA lemma no. C4396 (ⲉⲧⲡⲉ), in: Coptic Dictionary Online, ed. by the Koptische/Coptic Electronic Language and Literature International Alliance (KELLIA), https://copticdictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C4396 (accessed 2019-08-15) 10 TLA lemma no. C8438 (ⲁⲣⲛⲁ), in: Coptic Dictionary Online, ed. by the Koptische/Coptic Electronic Language and Literature International Alliance (KELLIA), https://copticdictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C8438 (accessed 2019-08-17). 11 TLA lemma no. C8810 (ⲇⲓⲱⲕⲉ), in: Coptic Dictionary Online, ed. by the Koptische/Coptic Electronic Language and Literature International Alliance (KELLIA), https://copticdictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C8810 (accessed 2019-08-21). Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 20 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 yourself by chasing everything that occurs in your mind. Question yourself, every single action, be hungry for everything that occurs and takes place in your life. My "food for thought" thus leads to the outcome of acquiring knowledge for the sake of knowledge - not power - as well as chasing every thought, devouring it, with a hunger impossible to still. The moral of this parable thus is to throw your ideas around you and seek everywhere: the majority will yield nothing but some might take root and be fruitful; give good fruit to the upper part above, the mind: become food for thought. Continue doing so in the pursuit of knowledge, not power, and chase your mind, devour everything that comes across your path. Follow up on that, and there is where the mustard seed metamorphosis comes in. But first, a word on the two failed catalysts that have too many words in them to not arise suspicion. 3X2. some-others, they-fell onto-the-rock, and did-not()send-roots(down) to-the-earth, and didnot()send-ears rising to-the-sky. 3X3. And some-others, they-fell onto-thorns; they-choked the-seed, and did-the-worm eat-them. Thomas is fond of wordplay. Actually, to state that Thomas is fond of wordplay would be an understatement - and yes, I like wordplay too. Every word, every letter in Thomas has purpose. When we look at the first sentence, we see a clear pattern: subject, action, outcome. Yet that outcome travels in pairs, in these two examples. When looking at the sentence of the very first failed catalyst, we see only one: the birds (came and) gathered them. It is perhaps more than strictly necessary, as the part between parentheses could have been left out, but the act of coming is not of major significance, it doesn't lead to anything: gathering does, that is the equivalent of moving the seeds (out of reach). But the outcomes in the two example sentences have a lot more than merely an extra verb: they have an additional entire sentence: 'did-not()send-ears rising to-the-sky' and did-the-worm eat-them'. Those not only are entire sentences, but those express something quite different from the other outcome. In the first outcome, the extra sentence or ears rising to the sky is a consequence of the first: 'did-not()send-roots(down) to-the-earth' but it is a pun on the so very Thomasine 'Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear' that appears six times throughout his text. The seeds that land on rock thus "fail to listen" is what Thomas seems to playfully suggest; not following his relentless instruction of "Hear hear!" will be as fruitful as seed landing on dry rock, or is it only the other way around? Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 21 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 The outcome in the second example has 'did-the-worm eat-them' in addition to 'they-choked the-seed'. Isaiah 51:8 'For the moth will eat them up like a garment, and the worm will eat them like wool; but my righteousness will be forever, and my salvation to all generations."' points to worms, just as does Deuteronomy 28:39 'You will plant vineyards and dress them, but you will neither drink of the wine, nor harvest, because worms will eat them' does. Are there worms among thorns? There is no Tanakh reference to thorns in combination with either of these extra sentences, by which I could link the worm to the thorns and vice versa. It links to logion 76 (it's in this paper), perhaps: that most certainly bears great resemblance to it. Perhaps it is a pointer, perhaps it isn't - but the case of the ears is clear, and it's not the last one. The parable of the mustard seed (logion 20) 1. mustard seed, 2. smallest of all seeds, 3. falls on tilled soil, 4. produces a great plant, 5. becomes a shelter for birds of the sky: A mustard seed, smallest of all seeds, produces a great plant, and becomes a shelter for birds of the sky, when it falls on tilled soil Tilled soil is the essence for the mustard plant miracle, and the link with the good soil in the parable of the sower immediately becomes evident; the literal translation is 'she-should-fall onto-the-earth which-they-did-work on-him'. Tilled soil is a very fine translation for ground or earth that has been worked upon, has received attention and care: energy must be spent in changing ordinary soil into tilled soil, and that is what you should do if a seed of "the sower" lands on fertile ground: work the ground where it falls, cultivate it, so it can grow into something magnificent. The metamorphosis elements are once more impressive, with the opposites of smallest (Σ) and great (plant) (T); the literal translation is 'does-he-send out a-great branch &()-comes-to-be shelter (for) the-birds of-the-sky.' The catalyst of tilled soil (α) leads to the shelter for birds of the sky (Ω): it is evident that the catalyst leads to this outcome, as distantly related as the two might seem, just as evident that the outcome is a result of the transition state, both of which are much closer related. What about the meaning of this logion, its interpretation? The link between the parables is evident, and this is a very efficient way of seeking when you don't know what to seek and where to seek: shoot at everything that moves (a very freely and Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 22 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 concise interpretation of the parable of the sower), and the resulting reaction will give you a clue where to follow up on: where the good fruit comes up, till that soil. Both parables are interlinked, not only in theme and catalyst but they directly follow upon one another, and we now know why Thomas doesn't use an explicit subject in the parable of the sower. The mustard seed also gets new meaning: it perhaps is the generally undesired ideas that will prove fertile, the "ideas that are frowned upon": wild mustard is a weed, and an aggressive one at that. As much as a no-brainer the metamorphosis development seems to be this way, a part of the outcome is puzzling: birds of the sky, is that perhaps a clever pun on the birds of the sky in logion 3, where Thomas ridicules the (Judaic) concept of heaven? "Really work on growth and development and you will be ready for real heaven?" Thomas is very fond of wordplay indeed and this would be a brilliant one, and it would be yet more evidence of how most excellent a thinker and writer Thomas was, combining this utterly concise and well-wrought logion with such a pejorative reference. These three parables are about the act of seeking; we now know what to seek, and how to seek, and how to cultivate fertile ideas that prove fruitful. What we have here is a pretty perfect set of three logia, three parables, three metamorphoses that are tightly and closely connected, and all deal with the act of seeking. They follow upon one another without any other parables in between, and their order is a logical one: the parable of the net has shattered our illusion of finding The Truth, the parable of the sower has shown us how start our seeking process, and the parable of the mustard seed has shown us how to follow up on that very start. And that very order is also a perfectly chronological one. What if we take up this seeking in this way, follow up on it and continue it: how do we go about our regular life, and most especially vice versa - how will our environment react? That is what the next set of three parables explains. The parable of the house owner (logion 21) 1. the owner of a house, 2. if he knows that the thief is coming, 3. will begin his vigil before the thief comes, 4. and will not let him dig through, 5. to carry away his goods: The owner of a house, if he knows that the thief is coming, will not let him dig through, to carry away his goods, (when he) will begin his vigil before the thief comes Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 23 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 The model helps to break down and identify the function and order of the various phrases here; if the owner of a house begins his vigil before the thief comes (α) then the thief will not carry away his goods (Ω), an outcome which is perfectly preceding the immediately following 'You, then, be on your guard against the world. Arm yourselves with great strength lest the robbers find a way to come to you, for the difficulty which you expect will (surely) materialize'. The not letting the thief dig through (T) (Grondin uses the splendid 'tunnel into') is a fine transition state, one that describes the end of a lengthy process - at the end of which indeed you are lost, up for grabs. It is not a perfectly opposite state to knowing that the thief is coming (Σ) but it is the end of the metamorphosis: the thieves might enter but because of your vigilance they will not break through, and the outcome is that they will leave your 'goods' alone. What about the meaning of this logion, its interpretation? There are people out there who are after your property, your possessions, and they will rob you blind. Are those real physical possessions? Surely not, this logion describes the attempts by others to rob you of your happiness and spirit, to own you, intrude your life, hook you on their words and images, and run away with the prize: you. Are these any groups in particular, as for instance the Pharisees, and is this a reaction to your seeking? With regards to the latter, I like to believe that such is the case as well, as you will draw attention, you will start to be (increasingly) different from others, by conducting your search. But perhaps for Thomas it all boils down to you keeping your wits, not being made captive by stories that promise you "God and glory" in general: those will make you addicted, take away your freedom and enslave you, turn you into their puppet and become your master, whether they are real people or just your own fantasies and mental models - usually both. Why and how is that? Because those always carry a carrot and a stick; when you take the carrot, the stick comes down, making you want the carrot again - it's an endless loop. The thing is, the owner of the house doesn't know where or when thieves will enter his house, only that they might. Be on guard against the world, begin your vigil right now. Beware, pay attention, don't trust anyone or anything - Thomas is warning us that when we go on this quest we will attract unwanted attention from others, others who are after our (likely newly acquired) ideas, our knowledge. Interpretation here, alas, solely depends on what you read into 'goods' - and that leaves an enormous amount of margin to take this logion either left or right; it is not very helpful here to use the metamorphosis model in order to pinpoint the meaning, as it is in the sowing parables. Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 24 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 The parable of the strong man (logion 35) I am including this logion in full as it is the odd one out: (35) Jesus said, "It is not possible for anyone to enter the house of a strong man and take it by force unless he binds his hands; then he will (be able to) ransack his house." 1. not (…) anyone, 2. (can) enter the house of a strong man, 3. unless he binds his hands, 4. and take it by force, 5. then he will (be able to) ransack his house: Not (…) anyone, (can) enter the house of a strong man, and take it by force, (and) ransack his house, unless he binds his hands This is the first logion that doesn't have the metamorphosis elements in the right order - which might be caused by the negative, and it is a messy result to shift the elements around. The Lambdin translation is highly interpretive, if we look at the literal translation: Said-JS (this) no-way can-one go in to-the-house of-the-strong &()-take-him by-force, unless ()he-bind his-hands; then he-will-move out of-his-house. "Move out of his house": it is unclear why Lambdin, Blatz, Layton and Doresse all have interpreted plundering, ransacking, especially as there is no prior subject or object that refers to such "things' being moved out of the house. It is once more puzzling: what or who will move or be moved out of the house? The 'anyone', the strong man, or unnamed "stuff" which would justify using the verb "ransack"? The metamorphosis states are fine, with "entering" and "taking by force" fair opposites of each other, although "moving out of the house" would of course be the perfect contrasting state for entering, when serving as transition state. If we take that as such, in theory either "taking by force" or "binding his hands" would be the outcome. "Binding his hands" clearly precedes "taking by force", so this is what the metamorphosis of the literal translation should look like if we try the alternative: 1. not anyone, 2. (can) enter the house of a strong man, 3. unless he binds his hands, 4. move out of his house, 5. and take him by force: Not anyone, (can) enter the house of a strong man, move out of his house, and take him by force, unless he binds his hands Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 25 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 Is this how it is supposed to be read? The states are perfectly contrasting now, with the starting state of 'enter the house' (Σ) being exactly the opposite of the transition state of 'move out of his house' (T), of which the odd (and thus not unlikely) outcome of 'take him by force' (Ω) is enabled by the catalyst of 'bind(s) his hands' (α), which also makes sense. The starting state facilitates the binding of hands: you can (only) bind his hands when you're inside his house. Having bound his hands, you can also leave his house - safely. What about the meaning of this logion, its interpretation? Is Thomas warning us for thieves as in logion 21, that I paraphrased as captivating stories? They won't leave you alone, won't leave your house, until they have bound your hands - upon which they will have overcome you and have you in their power. Whatever they offer you, it might seem small; a catching story, a call for help, perhaps even an offer to help you with something but it is always in return for something else. You (likely) have successfully deflected the thieves, and hence are known as a strong man, so now they just walk in through the front door as Greek bearing gifts. They won't need to hit you over the head in order to overcome you but will use a subtler approach, they just need to immobilise you, render you powerless. Like Samson was overcome by merely cutting his hair, so you can be overcome by merely "tying your hands". All they need is to hook you with a story. Like the previous one, this logion also heavily relies on interpretation even after applying the metamorphosis model. Is the strong man you, or the image you have of yourself - or does the strong man represent others, and are those real persons? Is the 'anyone' you, your non-dual you, others? If we follow the theme of the previous logion then we are provided with a nuanced version of that one, where the thieves don't enter your house in order to take away 'goods' but merely to have a conversation, or use another pretence that seems inconspicuous but will serve the same goal. The parable of the seed and the weeds (logion 57) 1. weeds, 2. sown among good seed, 3. (which) the man did not allow them to pull up, 4. will be plainly visible on the day of the harvest, 5. and pulled up and burned: Weeds, sown among good seed, will be plainly visible on the day of the harvest, and pulled up and burned, (when) the man did not allow them to pull up the weeds Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 26 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 Whereas the previous logion could be applied both ways, with you taking a strong man by force just as well as others taking you by force, this third logion in this second set of three is unequivocally directed towards you: 'His enemy came by night and sowed weeds among the good seed'. A reference to the Thomas theme of hidden and visible, the states are once more beautifully in contrast: invisible seeds (Σ) will be plainly visible on the day of the harvest (T). The punch line is a formidable word play with the weeds being pulled up (and burned) (Ω) because the man didn't allow them to pull up the weeds (α). We can easily envisage this to be a lengthy process from starting state to transition state, and the conversation of the man with 'them' (a mute group of actors put on stage with the sole purpose so that the man doesn't have to talk to himself out loud) takes place somewhere in between, when the weeds have already become visible. What about the meaning of this logion, its interpretation? Undoubtedly the good seed is the seed from logion 8, landed on the ground you will be toiling in logion 9. The thieves haven't carried away your goods, your hands haven't been bound, so now plan C comes into action: after the most straightforward and regular approach followed a quite subtle approach. That one also failed so now it's time for brute force: the others are now sowing counter seeds, weeds. Are your ideas being refuted, or is gossip being spread about you, perhaps even accusations are being made about you having suddenly become such a poor example of an obedient citizen, having neglected your duties and obligations? The possibilities are endless, I suppose. You can try and react to these weeds, take on the battles and follow all the leads to "the source(s) of evil" and figure out "whodunnit", but apart from the energy it will take to eradicate all weeds you will harm your own growth in the process, deprive itself of the energy used. The alternative is to sit it out and wait: some of the weeds might stop growing, and those that don't only will become more visible and easier to spot. Either way, when you are ready to harvest the fruits of your growth, the weeds will all vanish into thin air - most certainly in your perception. When you have your moment of revelation, those weeds will appear to be insignificantly innocuous. It might seem to be not a very perceptive parable, only telling us to have patience and act when the time is right - which is a welcome interlude. But it also is instructing us to not take drastic measures whenever there is something threatening our growth; your growth can coexist among others, even if those growths are the creations of your enemies and explicitly targeted against you. It will certainly deprive you of some energy, but that's a lot better than the suggested alternative. Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 27 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 This third logion concludes the second set of three parables. The first three were about the process and way of seeking, and these second three are a logical and chronological follow up, demonstrating the adversaries you would meet on your path of seeking: you have been on this quest for a while, acquired some new knowledge and have become remarkable to some outsiders as well - who don't like what they see. The next and third set of three parables is about the opposite of adversaries: your companions, your friends. And the way in which all those three parables are constructed is a warning right from the start; the metamorphosis of all three parables fails to develop. This third set seems to carry great weight as it is a consecutive trio: logia 63, 64 and 65. The parable of the rich man (logion 63) 1. a rich man, 2. who had much money, 3. (would) put his money to use, 4. and fill his storehouse with produce, 5. with the result that he would lack nothing: A rich man, who had much money, (would) fill his storehouse with produce, with the result that he would lack nothing, (if he had) put his money to use This logion kicks off a series of three parables whose catalyst fails to complete the transition state. That is purposely done so by Thomas for reasons which will become clear further on, and alas I have to insert relatively quite a bit of words in order to still make it all legible after reordering these phrases. Having much money and filling a storehouse with produce isn't quite a clear contrast, perhaps the sowing reaping and planting would be a better initial state and am I led by the nose by the rich man having much money? The order is odd there, I'd expect sow / plant / reap. Let's consult the literal translation: (63) Said-JS this: There-was-a-man of-wealth who-had-he-there many riches. Said-he this: "I-willmake-use of-my-riches, so that I-might-sow, &()reap, &()plant, &()fill my-treasurehouse withfruit, so that I-not-need anything." These were his-thoughts about-them in-his-mind; and in-thenight which-was-there, he-died. He-who-has-ear(sic) of-him let-him-listen. It does say ear even though the word is ⲙⲁϫⲉ instead of ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ, hence the comment of "(sic)" by Grondin. Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 28 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 A future metamorphosis, announced by a man of wealth with many riches: Thomas stresses that this man is really wealthy. The metamorphosis goal is 'not need anything' (Ω) and that outcome is facilitated by the transition state of a treasure house full of fruit (T). The perfect contrasting opposite to that would be an empty treasure house, devoid of fruit, but there isn't such a thing. Sowing reaping and planting will lead to (the presence of) fruit so that comes close, but if that is the starting state then what is the catalyst? The sowing reaping and planting seems to be the equivalent of 'make-use of-my-riches' and that leaves only the 'hadhe-there many riches' (Σ) as starting state, as that couldn't possibly be a catalyst. If that is the starting state then 'make-use of-my-riches (so that I-might-sow, &()reap, &()plant)' (α) is the catalyst - the metamorphosis breakdown was correct. What about the meaning of this logion, its interpretation? The wealth and riches stand for knowledge, and this logion kicks off a series of advice on what to do when you are in the midst of the seeking process: you have repeated the actions of sowing and toiling (the sowing reaping and planting form a fine pointer to that), cleverly evaded and endured all counter actions, and meanwhile acquired a fair amount of knowledge. The excitement perhaps has worn off and you might have that "rinse and repeat" feeling beginning to overcome you. The remainder of my interpretation goes in two separate directions: either you decide to put the entire process on hold and savour the preliminary results (the fruit in the treasure house is a very fine pointer to that as it points to logion 9 and not logion 20), or you temporarily rest on your laurels. Either way, you die - figuratively speaking of course, you are thrown back into life as you knew it before you know it, just like that. Relentlessly seek every single second of every waking hour, as logion 86 instructs: 'Jesus said, "The foxes have their holes and the birds have their nests, but the son of man has no place to lay his head and rest."'. Just two logia earlier, in logion 61, Thomas reminds us that you are still dual: '"Two will rest on a bed: the one will die, and the other will live."'. You can rest, but then the dead "you" will immediately return. Is there a Thomasine hint in this logion that I should dig deeper? Is the 'ear' trying to tell us something? The order of sow reap plant is odd, and if we take the first letter of every single of the three words, we get ϫⲱⲧ - "to long for". I don't qualify myself as being knowledgeable enough about Coptic, although the Apocryphon Johannis serves as a fine guide, but smarter people might be able to find something here. Longing for a treasure house filled with fruit would fit in well with both inaction and mistaking means for a goal, and together with the Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 29 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 failed catalyst this might be an extra instruction by Thomas to not rest for a single minute: only with your mind on full alert all the time is this quest to be carried out. The parable of the dinner (logion 64) 1. a man who had received visitors, 2. had prepared the dinner, 3. sent his servant to invite the guests, 4. so that they may dine, 5. (and) enter the places of (his) father: A man who had received visitors, had prepared the dinner, so that they may dine, (and) enter the places of (his) father, (and) sent his servant to invite the guests Yet another catalyst failure, the dinner is prepared (Σ) but all guests decline the offer for dinner. Consequently, there is no dining (T) and with that transition state being incomplete, completely absent even, naturally there is no 'entering the places of my father' (Ω). The catalyst of inviting the guests (α) together with both states form a completely logical cohesion, with the outcome being rather surprising, yet undeniably linked to the transition state. What about the meaning of this logion, its interpretation? Thomas seems to be warning that a lot of people might appear to be coming along with you on your journey, but that no one is prepared to go all the way. This is a quite sobering story about getting to know your friends: you invite them to dinner, they (all?) come so are already at your place. Then you go off to the kitchen to prepare the dinner and only an hour or so later you call them inside, and suddenly they all start making up lame excuses. Placing orders with traders, not being at rest (because of a newly bought house), having to make dinner for a friend who just got married, and collecting taxes from a newly bought farm are the (literal) excuses used. Lambdin needlessly confuses matters by using 'visitors' as well as 'guests', but it's the same word in Coptic, so they are the same people. The friends aren't friends though, nor are they visitors: Grondin also has 'visitors', but the correct translation for ϣⲙⲙⲟ is "strangers"12. The excuses they make are all worldly ones, buyers and traders is what the man calls them, at which point the sixth occurrence of ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ is used in this logion. Inviting strangers to "dinner" - should the "lord" be really that surprised? Only logia before, Thomas told: 12 TLA lemma no. C5893 (ϣⲙⲙⲟ), in: Coptic Dictionary Online, ed. by the Koptische/Coptic Electronic Language and Literature International Alliance (KELLIA), https://copticdictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C5893 (accessed 2019-08-21). Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 30 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 (62) Jesus said, "It is to those who are worthy of my mysteries that I tell my mysteries. Do not let your left (hand) know what your right (hand) is doing." The setting is an odd one for strangers, as is the drastic measure that the frustrated man takes: inviting real strangers instead. The starting scene would best fit a company of (good) friends or at least acquaintances; does Thomas hint at those actually being strangers (to your cause)? Does Thomas say that our friends aren't worthy to be included on your journey? I think he does, and the references to 'solitary' in logia 49 and 75 underline that. Thomas is also trying to tell us, it seems, that we will alienate our friends and vice versa, that our quest will also rip apart that construction. We made these friends in our previous life, based on what we shared from the world, in the world - but they aren't friends (to us anymore?), in reality they are strangers (now); hence why Thomas uses that literal word in this setting befitting friends, good friends even: 'strangers'. The parable of the vineyard (logion 65) 1. good man, 2. gave a vineyard to farmers so that they might work it, 3. sent servant(s) so that, 4. farmers give him his fruit, 5. farmers killed his son: A good man, who gave a vineyard to farmers so that they might work it, so that farmers give him his fruit, (yet) farmers killed his son, (when) he sent servant(s) The third catalyst failure in a row. With no functioning catalyst there is no transition state of the farmers giving the produce, and yet ... the catalyst leads to the outcome that the son gets killed. This parable does have an outcome, even though the catalyst failed. And that is perfectly intentional. Please do sit back for a very lengthy explanation, as also this logion's copy in the canonicals is hotly debated, and I will give it another extra spin or two in addition. I have opted to use my own translation from the start, the "leasing to tenants" is a double interpretation by Lambdin and Blatz whereas Layton and Doresse opt for the literal translation, while Grondin uses 'tenants' as well. The place itself literally is "a place of grapes" but vineyard will do. The metamorphosis is perfect again: the starting state is rather (overly?) complete with 'hegave-him to-some-tenants (so they-might-do-work on-him, &-he-take his-fruit from-their-hand)' (Σ). The transition state is repeated when the catalyst takes place for the first time: "He sent Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 31 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 his servant (α) so that the famers might give him the fruit of the vineyard (T)". The outcome is hinted at straight away as the first servant is physically abused, and the final physical abuse of this metamorphosis is "(Because the farmers knew that it was he who was the heir to the vineyard,) they seized him and killed him" (Ω). Sending the servants is in vain and only results in their physical abuse; sending the son has a similar result, with the difference that he dies. There is no "giving of his fruit" by the farmers to the man - no transition state, yet there is a result - an outcome. And that is completely against the metamorphosis rules. What about the meaning of this logion, its interpretation? The overwhelming majority of scholars links this parable to the Synoptic gospels, where all three gospel-writers have a version of it. Conceptually those are interpreted as follows: the owner is God; the son is Jesus. The vineyard is Israel specifically or the Kingdom in general, the farmers are the Judaic religious leaders and the servants are God's prophets. And it is in that light that this parable of Thomas gets interpreted by most as well. I will postpone my opinion on that but state that I am absolutely certain that Thomas purposely created this parable, the last one of three failing metamorphoses in a row, to make a very strong statement. It is perfectly intentional that this parable, the last of three consecutive parables in a row with an incomplete metamorphosis due to a failing catalyst, does have an outcome. Thomas is fully aware that he is breaking his own rules here, and is doing so because he wants to tremendously stress what is happening right here. The question just is: what exactly is happening? First, there is the matter of a consistent mistranslation of one single sentence, and I will settle that prior to anything else. After the beating the first servant returns, and tells his master all. Then the master responds: His master said: Perhaps <they> did not know <him>13 His master said <to himself> ‘Perhaps he did not recognize them?14 Perhaps they did not recognize it (the slave)15 The master said, 'Perhaps he did not recognize them.'16 13 Beate Blatz translation Jean Doresse translation 15 Layton translation 16 Lambdin translation 14 Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 32 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 It is evident that the translators here are struggling with something, these discrepancies are enormous. First, let's assert that Grondin's is the literal translation: ⲙⲉϣⲁⲕ` ⲙⲡⲉϥ ` ⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛ ⲟⲩ Perhaps did-not-he(!) know them Four Coptic words, four corresponding parts in English - Grondin uses hyphens to link English words that are represented by one single Coptic word. Grondin inserts the exclamation mark to likely indicate that he is surprised by the literal text as well, but he doesn't bend and twist the translation to his liking - which I think is very highly commendable. How do I interpret this phrase? Rather simple and literally; the very scene unfolds upon the return of the first servant after he asked the farmers for the produce of the vineyard and received a stiff beating as the answer. 'The servant went back and told his master.' and this is the reaction of the master: a quite puzzling one, as it isn't obvious what 'he' refers to. At that very point in the parable we have seen four actors come to the stage: a good man, farmers, the servant, and his master: three persons in singular, one in plural. The only actor(s) that 'them' can refer to are the farmers; the actor that 'he' refers to leaves us with more than one choice. During the very sentence above, is the servant still with his master? That doesn't necessarily have to be the case; the master could be thinking out loud or talking to someone else, as Doresse tries to suggest. That however is unlikely, as Thomas specifically conjures servants out of thin air to talk to in the parable of the seed and the weeds, with the sole purpose that the man doesn't have to talk to himself. Is the master referring to himself? That would be twice odd, and can certainly be ruled out. So, if the 'he' is referring to the servant, with the master thinking out loud directly after the servant's comment, it would be even stranger if the master were to refer to the servant in the third person while in his presence. Did the servant leave (immediately) after having told his master? That is a possibility, but what then is the point of the master "thinking out loud" and nobody overhearing him - only the reader is there to witness his contemplation. There doesn't seem to be any, no further precautions are taken after this dear lesson of the servant receiving a beating, and although Thomas certainly is known for his unorthodox style, grammar and syntax, for instance very often using the past tense, such a thing would seem to be out of the ordinary even for Thomas. Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 33 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 Why would the servant even be supposed to recognise the farmers? It is a situation where it's clear that the vineyard has been given to the farmers, and that is that: no servant has been at their disposition. The servant didn't know the farmers? That doesn't make much sense either, for the master doesn't take any precaution with the next servant or his son, making sure that those do know the farmers, so it would be a vain statement and that most certainly is nothing like Thomas: every single word and phrase has purpose. So, we see that the literal translation poses problems - if we assume that 'he' refers to the servant. Yet there is another 'he' from the point of view of the master. The most - and only - plausible explanation is that the master is not the same person as the good man, and that the master is referring to the good man here: the good man gave the vineyard to the farmers, trusting them to work it and give him his fruit. In fact, the entire goal of giving the vineyard was to get the fruit: 'He gave a vineyard to farmers so that they might work it and he take his fruit from their hand' Well then who were the farmers, were they for instance recommended to him, did they advertise with yielding high returns, did they just happen to be the closest ones around? And there we have the clue: the good man gave the vineyard to (just) some farmers, expecting - supposing, presuming, assuming - that they would give him its produce to return the favour; but he didn't really know them - for who they were or otherwise he would have foreseen that they wouldn't keep their end of the bargain. The good man didn't know the farmers... The good man was naive, even gullible perhaps; he made an error of judgment; he was mistaken about their nature. He trusted the farmers to do what was right, what seemed fair, perhaps even 'righteous'. And he was wrong about doing so - he made a mistake, a fatal one. He failed. Miserably, given the final result. That is the story, its content. The master is not the same person as the main actor, the good man, but deviously inserted as a commentator on his initial action, much like a Waldorf and Staedtler: just a sidekick presenting his alternate (and usually disruptive and even contrarian) view. But, unfortunately, there is an issue with my interpretation: if the good man is not the master, then who is the master? But more importantly: why does the good man send the servant(s), and why does the master send the son? Because that is exactly what is happening if we follow everything to the letter. If we look closely at the text, the good man starts with doing only one thing: he gives the vineyard to the farmers: A-man of-justice was-having() a-place of-grapes; he-gave-him to- Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 34 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 some-tenants is Grondin's translation, which is still better than any other. Then the first servant is sent by a 'he': He-sent his-servant. Battered and bruised the servant returns: Did-theservant go; he-spoke to-his-Lord and here we have the first word that is not 'he': master, lord, owner: ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ. It is this same word for master or lord that is used to indicate who speaks the very words that are the topic at hand, and then another 'he' sends the next servant: He-sent another-servant and it is after that when we have absolute clarity about who is doing the sending this time: Then did-the-Lord send -his-son. Well, how inconvenient! It is clear, beyond the shred of a doubt, that the good man sends the first servant; no other actors have entered the stage at that moment. The master enters the stage only upon the return of said servant, and from that point on either he or the good man could have sent the second servant - but it is equally beyond the shred of a doubt that the master sends the son. His son. His own son? Yes, his own son: Then the owner sent his son and said, 'Perhaps they will show respect to my son.' But is that last part the literal translation? No, it isn't. It is very unfortunate in the Lambdin translation that he switches from one translation for ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ, namely master, to another, in this case owner. Lord is also one of the possible translations and to use either of the three is fine by me, but Lambdin is needlessly confusing matters here by using multiple English words for the exact same Coptic one: the 'owner' in his last sentence is the exact same Coptic word as the 'master' in his other sentences - yet using the word 'owner' here will likely lead people to think that it is the good man who is the one doing the sending this time; Lambdin's translation is dangerously inconsistent at this point. To make matters even worse, Lambdin decides that the two phrases must form one sentence and clubs them together - there are no punctuation marks justifying either use, yet where the subject of the first verb 'sent' is ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ, the subject of the second verb 'said' is ϥ`: 'Then did-the-Lord send-his-son. Said-he this: "Perhaps they-will-beashamed before-him, my-son.' It is clearly written that the master /owner / Lord / lord sends "his" son, and the same word is used to indicate the person who makes the vile comment: ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ. Yet again it's the same 'he' who makes the comment about the farmers being ashamed before "his" son. Are the master and the 'he' the exact same person? Not necessarily. And whose son is "his" son? Coptic Greek nor Greek can distinguish between your son or my son when a third person is referring to either of them: to that third person, both are "his" son. Let's consider the following example: "Jake had a son and Pete had a son. When Pete's son didn't listen to his dad, he sent his son Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 35 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 instead" is a perfectly unclear sentence where either man could be sending either son - and here we have a similar situation. Yes, that is nit-picking to the extreme, but if Thomas would want to deviously insert the master only as a commentator (and the sender of the son who isn't his own son), this would be the way to do it, perhaps the only possible way even. Let's recapitulate: the good man sends the first son, beyond the shred of a doubt. Both men could have sent the next servant but it is likely that the good man did so. The master sends the son, his son - but is the son the master's son, or the good man's son? It is equally speculative that it could again be either man who calls the son "my son" - if there are in fact two men instead of one, of course. I wouldn't have to bend over backwards trying to explain away what is in the text, giving myself the tiniest margin of interpretation for my view on this logion - and I will freely admit that to some that must most certainly seem to be what I am (perhaps desperately?) doing - if there were not three but only two instances of that one word in logion 65 of which there are six in logion 64: ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ. What if - what if - there is one word that was mistakenly inserted upon copying? Not two or two-and-a-half, as in the usual interpretation ("they recognised him" versus "he knew them"), but only one? It is commonly and I think widely accepted that "it should read they didn't recognise him" - that means that it is accepted that at least two words got swapped by a scribe. What if we are open to accept that, instead of that, only one word got changed elsewhere in this logion? That the word 'he' suddenly got changed, exchanged for 'master / lord/ owner'? Suddenly? In the entire range of sending, only 'he' does the sending, and the commenting on the son. There is only a very small script put away for the master, who is the destination of the first servant, the recipient of that servant's message, and the commentator, the originator of the very words 'Perhaps he didn't know them'. He remains unseen save for that one other sentence where the son is sent. The master doing the sending is an exception to the rule; three are sent and only the son is explicitly sent by the master - and the first servant is implicitly sent by the good man. And knowing Thomas, he wouldn't have mind cunningly leaving in the dark who exactly is doing the sending, and putting the master on stage just to make that potentially very vile comment, knowing that most wouldn't think twice about it and assume that said master is the same person as the good man. Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 36 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 I doubt that it's a scribal error, by the way - and only gut feeling is my entire defence for that. Yet I will leave it at that and continue: if this is the full story of logion 65, it can still be interpreted in two entirely different directions: in compliance with the highly eschatological interpretation of the canonicals, although those contain explicit elements of Isaiah 5 (and a lot more), or in compliance with my interpretation of Thomas so far. One thing we will all agree on without a doubt: if this logion were suddenly all about the Jews, God, prophets, Covenants and Promised Lands and such, that would really not at all befit my interpretation so far and the perfectly logical and chronological make up of and connection among these three sets of three logia. Yet if it were, it is clear that Thomas uses it to once more have a stab at Judaism, albeit a supremely brutal one this time: Thomas attacks other Judaic concepts such as the concept of heaven (logion 3, 11, 12, 111) and habitual rituals such as fasting, praying, giving alms and observing the Sabbath17 (logion 6, 14, 27, 104). Thomas also attacks prophecies and prophets themselves (logion 52, 78, 88) just as he attacks the Pharisees and their role as leaders and teachers (logion 39, 53, 66, 93, 102, 107). And ridicules a good part of Judaic food laws in logion 14 while at it. Is Thomas referring to Jesus being killed by the Jews? Not necessarily, even if this is an eschatological logion: there are enough prophecies about God sending his son (Psalms 2, Isaiah 9:6, and the rhetorical Proverbs 30:4). Is Thomas referring to Isaiah chapter 5? Not necessarily: the vineyard is a grateful subject and metaphor in the Tanakh, with over 100 verses containing the word, and Thomas frequently quotes from or refers to the Tanakh. But what if Thomas does mean to put this logion into a Judaic context, greatly relying on Tanakh content for the most significant elements of his storyline, and perhaps even the setting? If I am correct with the master playing only the role of vile commentator, and if this logion, exceptionally as that would be, is about the Jews and the Promised Land, then Thomas deals the ultimate blow here, attacking the system at its core: he ridicules God himself. Thomas accuses God of being naive, making a judgment error when thinking that giving the Promised Land to the Jews would actually amount to something; of everything Judaic that Thomas puts down and despises, this is a fatal strike at the very heart of it. 17 Logion 27, '...If you do not observe the Sabbath as a Sabbath, you will not see the father'? Again, I side with Grondin's translation: "...if-you(pl)-do-not-make the-sabbath(sp) sabbath". Make the Sabbath Sabbath, Sabbathise the Sabbath as Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1 literally states: it is a wordplay on and reference to the original Hebrew (‫)שבָּ ת‬, ַׁ "to stop / cease (from work)" - Thomas tells us to cease the ceasing (from work), stop (observing) the Sabbath, disregard the Sabbath entirely as yet another religious means of keeping checks and balances; and as such, this second phrase of logion perfectly fits with the first 'fast as regards the world': stop mindlessly consuming everything the "world" feeds you, abstain from all that. Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 37 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 If, however, this logion is not about anything Judaic, and if, perfectly predictable and in line with all previous parables, it is merely and solely about the process of Seeking - well then what is its meaning? One other thing is unambiguously undoubtful in my interpretation and the implementation of the metamorphosis model of logion 2: this is a truly exceptional logion, a masterly concocted exception to the rule, with Thomas sacrificing two other logia that defy his model in this third set of three, with the sole purpose that this logion can break the rules. The message that Thomas must be sending here, regardless of any direction of any interpretation, is that giving away your vineyard to someone under the assumption that he will work it and produce fruit, will lead to a catastrophic event and nothing else, good or bad. The first logion in this set of three taught us that postponing your quest for even a proverbial minute or hour will undo everything achieved: there is no going back. The second logion taught us that you will alienate your friends, estrange them, by going on this quest and that it is futile to expect anyone to join you: you are all alone, solitary, out there on your own - your friends have become strangers already. With that knowledge in mind you might come to the point that you want to call for help, hand over your responsibility, hand over your quest, to others. Not just others of course, but to people who are renowned to handle your spiritual quest just as well as farmers are expected to handle, say, for instance, a vineyard. You seek the advice of a teacher, one who can help, one who will take care of your seeds and turn them into fruit - even without him making that promise, you trust him to do so. You might even get lucky and run into a proper Guru! At some point you might ask him "Are we there yet?" and he will put you down like a dog, humiliate you for even daring to ask such a question, for questioning his expertise - and that is the very moment that you will make that silent comment to yourself: "Perhaps I didn't know him (well enough)". It will take a good while before you again dare to ask "Are we there yet?" and this time the punishment will be slightly less severe. And still, there is neither a sign of your fruit nor of your seeds. Desperately, you decide to show him that you are worthy, of his respect as well, that you deserve acknowledgment, some credit, even praise perhaps; you decide to give him your biggest prize, you share with him all that you have learned, all the knowledge you have acquired on your quest: you give him what you have conceived, your conception: your son. And it will be murdered on the spot. The parable of the pearl (logion 76) Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 38 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 1. a merchant, 2. who had a consignment of merchandise, 3. discovered a pearl, 4. sold the merchandise, 5. and bought the pearl alone for himself: A merchant, who had a consignment of merchandise, sold the merchandise, and bought the pearl alone for himself, (when he) discovered a pearl Once more it's all perfectly in sync: having a consignment (Σ) transitions to selling a consignment, a transition that is (surprisingly) brought about by the catalyst of discovering a pearl (α): that discovery motivates the sale, the decision to (ab)use the consignment for quite another purpose than it was meant for. The outcome and the catalyst are perfectly in sync with the discovery of the pearl leading to the buying of the pearl for himself (Ω). The merchant isn't supposed to claim the money that comes from selling goods in the consignment, those are consigned to him, entrusted, and he is supposed to fulfil his role as merchant, selling the goods at a good price and thus making a profit for their owner. It actually is a bit of thievery what he's doing, and from the view of the owner of the consigned goods, it certainly must be considered dishonest. Lambdin makes another grave interpretation error here but fortunately, again, Grondin provides the correct translation for the opposite states: 'he-gave-the-consignment away' (T). Just as in logion 21 where the children happily trample on their costumes and give back the field, the consignment is rejected, it is given away. Where does the trader get the money to buy the pearl? Not from selling the consignment, as he just gives that away - and that is a detail of the utmost importance. What about the meaning of this logion, its interpretation? After the three series of three logia that we have seen thus far, this logion stands on its own; the next series of three starts right after. This logion is a recap of the three series of three and teaches us the most important lesson, stresses the most disturbing aspect. The consignment represents the life that we have created for ourselves because we have grown into it by acting out our pre-scripted role; it is the field that Thomas refers to: we must denounce it, reject it, give it away - in exchange for our quest. The pearl that we have discovered, namely the notion that we must find that there is nothing to seek, must be all that we embrace, the only thing that we embrace, and we must be the only one to embrace it. The previous series instructed us not to leave it unattended, nor share it, nor to seek advice on it, and this logion tells us that it must be the sole purpose in our new-found life. The life we led (and at this point still are leading) is an assumed Role on this grand Stage, the field that Thomas talks about. Everything we say is mere reading from Script, and we dress to Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 39 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 each and every occasion in Costumes that were made for us even before we were born, and that we have grown into, patched here and there so we can call it our own. We think that we are individuals living our own life, but we're merely a collection of mental models, opinions and programming of others and ourselves: we are a dead, compiled computer program, that thinks that the output we return, triggered by and in response to input from outside, is a product of our own input. We think we are self-thinking, but our little brain just can't handle the complexity of our programming, all the associations and connections made - we are simply con-fused. The first series of three were about seeking, the second series of three predicted how our environment could or would react, and the third series of three predicted how we could or would react: those two last series are interlinked because everyone reacts in accordance with the life they lead, and the catastrophic event of logion 65 is caused by habit, custom, routine. It is that dangerous to continue living it, to continue leading the life you once did. It is time now, and this solitary logion is here to say so: say goodbye to your life as you knew it, completely, all of it. Give it all away - don't trade it! for anything else - and fully embrace this queer quest of seeking to find that there is nothing to seek; likewise, fully embrace the fact that it is an extremely solitary quest. The parable of the leaven (logion 96) 1. a certain woman, 2. took a little leaven, 3. concealed it in some dough, 4. made it into large (loaves) 5. of bread: A certain woman, took a little leaven, made it into large (loaves), of bread, (when she) concealed it in some dough Again, the literal translation sheds light on the exact syntax: 'she-took a-little-bit of-leaven; shehid-it/him in-(a)dough; she-made-it/him (into)some-great(loaves) of-bread.'. The contrast in states is clear, with little bit (Σ) of leaven being the opposite of great (T). The catalyst of hiding it (α) leads to the outcome of bread (Ω); and I am not perfectly happy with this breakdown. The states are both actions as well, and that is distracting: taking a little, then hiding that in dough, becomes "making something large" - and then the outcome is bread? The outcome is too obvious, we can see that coming from the very beginning, with the starting state. The little Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 40 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 leaven as starting state, the large bread as transition state, the hiding of the leaven in dough as catalyst - that is a solidly self-evident and perfect combination of catalyst and states. Then where is the outcome? Perhaps we have the wrong catalyst, as hiding leaven doesn't do much, you must knead it all through dough and then let it rise - yet that leaves even less room for an outcome, as there is less remainder of a sentence after those words. Could it be that this is just a fairly straightforward metamorphosis, where the focus isn't on a surprising outcome, but on the catalyst? The working of the leaven in the dough, the hiding of it, the time-consuming process of kneading the leaven into the dough, in expectation of the bread that will develop in the end? What about the meaning of this logion, its interpretation? Perhaps that is what this logion is all about, an admonition that the outcome is predictable, fixed - in "form" but not in time. The process of seeking will take time, and hard work - and stealth. Hide the leaven in the dough, the pearl you bought for yourself and your self alone: keep it your secret alone, and work (hard) on it in secret. The parable of the jar (logion 97) 1. a certain woman, 2. who was carrying a jar full of meal, 3. noticed no accident, 4. set the jar down, 5. and found it empty: A certain woman, who was carrying a jar full of meal, set the jar down, and found it empty, (when she) noticed no accident Carrying a jar full of meal (Σ) versus setting it down (T), finding it empty (Ω) because she noticed no accident (α): again (and again, and again) it is all perfectly in balance. There is a stronger focus on the catalyst as it repeats itself: 'she-knew not (it) tobe; did-not-she-realize atrouble(?)' is Grondin's version: ϩⲓⲥⲉ18 is odd here, hence his question mark, but the woman not knowing something as well as not realising "something bad" is double: we must pay attention to that. Yet, identical to the parable of the leaven, this metamorphosis doesn't seem to give us a surprising outcome and we see the empty jar coming from a mile away. Or is it? Is the jar perhaps carrying its own sub-story here? 18 TLA lemma no. C6853 (ϩⲓⲥⲉ), in: Coptic Dictionary Online, ed. by the Koptische/Coptic Electronic Language and Literature International Alliance (KELLIA), https://copticdictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C6853 (accessed 2019-08-24). Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 41 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 1. a jar, 2. full of meal, 3. (of which) the ear of the jar broke, 4. emptied out, 5. behind her on the road: A jar, full of meal, emptied out, behind her on the road, (when) the ear of the jar broke That is very well possible, and naturally Thomas can't resist and has to use the literal "ear" for the handle of the jar, the same word he uses in his countless "hear hear" exhortations: 'Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear'. With full (Σ) versus emptied out (T) we have something close to opposite contrasts although emptying out is somewhat of a process and not a state, but perhaps that's me being finical. The catalyst is crystal clear with the malfunctioning ear (α) leading to an emptied-out jar, which the interesting result of 'behind her on the road' (Ω). What about the meaning of this logion, its interpretation? We must start with the jar: the malfunctioning ear is a dead give-away to pay attention, indeed in line with Thomas' repetitive "Listen!". Who doesn't have ears? Pay attention - if you don't, your jar will empty out, behind you on the road: past you in time as well as in place. Pay attention to everything that occurs in your life, lest you (continue to) be a dead and empty vessel. Your jar is full of meal, the kingdom is all around you, use your ears and pay attention! If you don't - and here we have arrived at the main story - you will set down your jar at the end of your journey, when you have entered "your house": when you go inside, look inside, reflect on yourself ; when you look back upon your life - you will notice that there's nothing left in your jar. At the end of your life, you will realise that you have lived your life in blissful ignorance, chasing everyday ghosts. Any interpretation goes next here, alas: the metamorphosis model has decomposed the parable and (only) revealed the meaning of the sub-metamorphosis of the ear. But do pay attention, always, to every (even little) thing: hear hear! The parable of the powerful man (logion 98) 1. a certain man, 3. (!) who wanted to kill a powerful man, 2. In his own house he drew his sword, 4. and stuck it into the wall, 5. then he slew the powerful man: A certain man, (In his own house) drew his sword, and stuck it into the wall, then he slew the powerful man, (when he) wanted to kill a powerful man Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 42 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 Not quite straightforward, this is the second metamorphosis logion where the order of elements seems to be slightly different. I am inclined to link the drawing of the sword to sticking it into the wall, given their opposites. Slaying the powerful man (Ω) unquestionably is the outcome of this parable, and the last action is sticking the sword into the wall (T) - so there we have the transition state. With that being the transition state, the initial state must be drawing the sword (Σ), and then the only option for the catalyst is either "wanting to kill a powerful man" or "wanting to find out whether his hand could carry through". Lambdin once more opts for a literary-poetic translation here, and once more I gratefully embrace Grondin's: 'Said-JS (this) the-kingdom of-the-father, she-compares to-a-man ()wanting to-kill-a-man powerful. He-drew the-sword in-his-house; he-stuck-her into-the-wall, so-that hemight-realize that his-hand (would)-be-strong inwardly(?), then he-slew the-powerful-one.' - and that is the catalyst; wanting to make sure that you have a steady arm (α), to establish whether you are fit for such a fight. 'Inwardly' is a translation of ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ19 and I prefer "inside" myself, as simply "in" would be awkward. The hand is very important to Thomas and he uses it in many contexts: thirteen times, and this is the 13th occurrence. A few of those might seem of archaic or proverbial use, but I think that each use is meaningful. So, the real breakdown is as follows: 1. a certain man (who wanted to kill a powerful man), 2. drew the sword in his house, 3. (and) to know his hand to be strong inside, 4. stuck it into the wall, 5. then he slew the powerful one: A certain man (who wanted to kill a powerful man), drew the sword in his house, stuck it into the wall, then he slew the powerful one, (when he wanted) to know his hand to be strong inside Wanting to kill a powerful man now is part of the subject, and the catalyst of getting to know his hand to be strong inside (α) leads to slaying the powerful man (Ω), and brings about the change of states of the sword: from drawn (Σ) to stuck into the wall (T). The drawing of the sword is still in fine contrast with it being stuck in the wall, and the catalyst of testing his hand now is a fine result of the starting state and an equally fine trigger for the transition state. It is a riddle nonetheless, although it is clear that the result of sticking the sword into the wall causes a typical Aha-Erlebnis, an insight, that teaches the man something which helps him 19 TLA lemma no. C6679 (ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ), in: Coptic Dictionary Online, ed. by the Koptische/Coptic Electronic Language and Literature International Alliance (KELLIA), https://copticdictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C6679 (accessed 2019-08-24). Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 43 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 greatly with killing the powerful man - it is the wall that he sticks his sword into, not the powerful man himself. Thomas also explicitly talks of a powerful man in the first instance, and the second instance just has 'powerful (one)'. Furthermore, it is one single action of one single type, not a repeated set of series of various different kinds - this (naturally) is no combat training of any kind. What about the meaning of this logion, its interpretation? It would be surprising if, after almost a dozen logia that are to be interpreted figuratively, we are suddenly presented with a lesson in combat; and even if that were to be the case, this is an extremely poor one that teaches us nothing on the subject, making us none the wiser. Nothing points to the powerful man, his weak spot suddenly discovered, or anything else. The pointers to the man himself are abundant and evident: it is his (own) house that he performs in, and he wants to reassure that his hand is strong 'in(side)': he looks inside, confronts himself with himself. Is the sticking of the sword into the wall intentional or not? It is not hard to imagine that the man decides to indeed practice with a sword in his own house, indeed striking an imaginary enemy, chopping away at him, dodging (even more) imaginary attacks, and then delivering the essential blow, a fierce and powerful strike through the belly or the heart - and then clumsily lands his weapon in the wall of the undoubtedly confined space. The vast majority of common (peasant) houses was made of mud-brick: an air-dried brick, made of a mixture of loam, mud, sand and water mixed with a binding material such as rice husks or straw20. The weapon is a sword or a knife21, so it is not unlikely that it is stuck through the wall and not just in it; we can at least envisage that after sticking the sword into the wall the man tries to pull it back out, likely with quite some trouble, pulling (large parts of) a brick along with it, upon which light from the outside falls onto the floor: he has created a small window of a kind. Remember that the outcome is a result of the finished metamorphosis state, and that the outcome shows how to kill 'the powerful one' - there must be a result of the action of sticking the sword or knife into the wall, something happens afterwards; completely in line with the metamorphosis model, the sticking of the sword into the wall is just a means to an end, and it is that end that sheds light on "how to kill a powerful one". All of your inner actions reflect on the outside, everything you think, contemplate, ponder on and decide in splendid isolation affects your state of mind, changes it, and that affects your 20 Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor, Halvor Moxnes, 2002 TLA lemma no. C3939 (ⲥⲏϥⲉ), in: Coptic Dictionary Online, ed. by the Koptische/Coptic Electronic Language and Literature International Alliance (KELLIA), https://copticdictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C3939 (accessed 2019-08-25). 21 Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 44 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 future actions. You may e.g. fiercely love yourself or hate yourself, you may battle with yourself and make all kinds of great decisions in your mind - yet all of that influences how you interact with everyone around you, because you view the entire world through your own lens and nobody else's. In the outside world, you don't exist - but the outside world exists in you. I dare to go even further and claim that the powerful man not only is just an image of the man, but that the man now suddenly realises exactly that it is his own image, an image that he created. Just as the outside shines through to the inside of his house when he pulls back the weapon, likely casting a form of light on the floor, the man realises that the outside world projects images on him, and that he then interacts with those inside images inside. A comparison with Plato's cave presents itself: "Socrates describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from objects passing in front of a fire behind them; the shadows are the prisoners' reality. The inmates of this place do not even desire to leave their prison, for they know no other life. The prisoners manage to break their bonds one day, and discover that their reality was not what they thought it was. Like the fire that cast light on the walls of the cave, the human condition is forever bound to the impressions that are received through the senses."22 The powerful man is the image of the man himself, his image of himself. It is his image of his own self as that "lives" in the outside world - and he realises that in the moment in which he pulls his weapon out of the wall and tears down a piece of that wall. Not only that, he also realises that everything outside has an image inside, "in his house" - and that he continuously interacts with those images. Hating someone perhaps is the most beautifully ugly example of the intensity and level of interaction, and utter futility of it all: you may imagine that I hate you, right now. I hate you. I am spending all my energy into vehemently fiercely hating you, right now - and yet you won't notice a thing. All that energy, all that hate, it all reflects back on me, it only occurs in my life, my mind - the only recipient of that hate is the image of you that resides only in my mind, the image that I created, the image that I sustain, that feeds itself off of the energy that I put into it: I am the sole creator and also the sole recipient of all that hate. Sure, I may or may not do something more or less terrible to you or those around you as a 22 Allegory of the Cave Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 45 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 result, but 99% of the entire hating process materialises - isn't that a perfectly (in)apt word inside my mind, and my mind alone. There is no powerful man, there is no one. All that is, are images in your mind - which you created, and now feed, sustain, keep alive. Do you want to kill the powerful man? Address the image inside your head and you will perceive that it is (a) powerful (one) indeed. And perhaps, on the most rudimentary level, that is the story Thomas wants to tell when the man sticks his sword in his own wall: he is really practising with the sword, he is really battling with his thoughts completely preoccupied, thinking of the powerful man and the powerful man alone. And when he thrusts his sword for the final and fatal blow, possibly screaming a battle cry at the same time, focusing all his energy and strength into that one movement - he meets resistance. Maybe even hurts his hand or wrist. And realises that he just damaged his own property, inflicted a wound upon his own house - while engaging with the outside enemy. And that is the very moment upon which the revelation kicks in that all battles take place inside, in the mind: the powerful 'man' suddenly and so mesmerizingly beautifully suddenly has become the powerful 'one'. On a side note, this is the second consecutive trio of metamorphosis parables. Should we treat it with suspicion, digging for something hidden? Logia 63, 64 and 65 all start with "Jesus / he said this: a man" and these three all start with "Jesus said (this): the kingdom of the father compares to a (wo)man". If I summarise the first trio, then the message I retrieve from them is: don't pause your quest for even a proverbial minute; realise that it is your own quest that has already alienated you from friends and family; don't seek any "professional" help and most certainly don't "outsource" it. This trio tells me: the quest will take consistent and diligent work, but also time, for new ideas and insights to settle; pay the utmost attention to everything and regularly look back on your path; realise that your entire "life" and "world" solely consists of images in your mind, within your mind alone. I can make a fine match between the first and the last pairs where logion 96 motivates or explains 63 (don't pause for a second, because it does take contiguous, consistent work and time) and logion 98 explains 65 (don't seek outside help, because your entire life and world resides only inside your own head alone), but aligning "(even) those close to you will neither understand nor accompany you" with "if you don't pay attention and regularly look back, your essence, your life blood, will slowly drain" is impossible. Yes, the man with the dinner prepared is disillusioned, and making a very lonely impression - he is unpleasantly surprised, feeling abandoned because he thought he invited his friends over for dinner, but they turned out to be Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 46 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 strangers; hence his frustrated move to invite "real strangers" instead. The woman with the jar also must be unpleasantly surprised, finding her life to have been meaningless, her entire journey fruitless, when she finally self-reflects on it. Yet where the man can still make the childish move of inviting others, which naturally will lead to even less, the woman has nowhere to go - she really is at the end of the road, all alone, and has completely run out of options. In theory she could reiterate the itinerary but that would mean she would have to travel the distance again, and twice over; yet we all know what happens to edibles that fall on the road - read logion 9 again in case you forgot. But logion 98 doesn't justify logion 64 like the other two justify these other two, it is more the other way around: you think your friends aren't strangers exactly because you have turned a deaf ear, because you haven't been paying very close attention. There are three more parables left, and these also are a coherent set. The parable of the brigands (logion 103) 1. (Fortunate is) the man, 2. who knows where the brigands will enter, 3. so that he may get up, 4. gather his kingdom, 5. and arm himself before they invade: The man, who knows where the brigands will enter, (will) gather his kingdom, and arm himself before they invade, (when) he may get up Fairly identical to logion 21, yet a difficult one this is, and a fine example to illustrate the process of applying the metamorphosis model once more - I have inserted Grondin's 'gather his-kingdom' instead of Lambdin's 'muster his domain'. What is the outcome, what is the result of this parable? The spin-off, the pay-off, can only be 'arm himself before they invade' (Ω) as that is the last phrase. If so, that can only be the result of 'gather his kingdom' (T) which then must be the transition state - that would fit as a disputable connection between the two. What is contrasting with that? Knowing where the brigands will enter, or getting up? Either one of those two is the initial state and the other one the catalyst. You can best gather your kingdom when you know where brigands will enter; you'll know where to look - but you can't gather your kingdom without getting up. Is this a call to action by Thomas, instructing us to 'get up' so we can arm ourselves? Or is this instructing us to be alert to the place where the attack(s) will come from? It is a difficult one as knowing where the brigands will enter is a prerequirement and Thomas seems to hint at with calling him 'Fortunate' who fulfils that prerequirement. Still, I'm not quite decided about this one. Grondin includes 'from the beginning' Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 47 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 at the end of the arming but the first word is missing in the text: 'from' could be anything: by, towards, with. Still, the most likely breakdown is the one I have suggested here, with the starting state of knowing 'where the brigands will enter' (Σ) triggering the catalyst of 'get(ting) up' (α) which leads to the (puzzling) transition state of gathering his kingdom, that alas isn't much of a contrast for knowing where the brigands will enter. What about the meaning of this logion, its interpretation? This is a more detailed version of that of the house owner, it is a version that shows a certain progression in knowledge: where the house owner starts "making his rounds" in the hopes of detecting the thieves in time so that he can prevent them from breaking through, this man knows exactly where to look out for thieves entering. This man knows without a doubt that the thieves are coming, something which can't be said of the house owner. Whereas the house owner must stop the thieves in order to prevent his goods from being carried away, this man simply knows exactly which goods to collect before the thieves do. Not only that, the goods which the man collects will aid him in arming himself against the thieves. This logion is a direct pointer to the very first logion of the second set of three parables, and shows an advanced state of similar circumstances. The parable of the shepherd and the sheep leaving the 99 (logion 107) This parable is a duo-parable, the main character is the shepherd and the secondary is the sheep: (A) 1. a shepherd, 2. who had a hundred sheep, 3. left the ninety-nine, 4. looked for that one until he found it, 5. cared for the sheep more than the ninety-nine (B) 1. one of them, 2. the largest, 3. went astray, 4. (was) found, 5. more cared for than the ninety-nine: A shepherd, who had a hundred sheep, looked for that one until he found it, (and) cared for the sheep more than the ninety-nine, (when he) left the ninety-nine One of them, the largest, (was) found, more cared for than the ninety-nine, (when) he went astray I renamed this parable on purpose, as there is nothing lost about the sheep. I am convinced that Thomas points to Isaiah 53:6 here: 'All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned-every Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 48 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 one-to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.' and knowing Thomas he turns this verse upside down. The contrast between the 100 sheep (Σ) of the shepherd and the one sought after (T) is clear, and leaving the ninety-nine (α) is as mathematically as dramatically evident a catalyst to both states. Thomas presents us once more with a surprising outcome with the shepherd announcing 'I care for you more than the ninety-nine.' (Ω) but the link between that and the catalyst is mesmerising, via the number ninety-nine. In the sub-metamorphosis of the sheep, we should expect to see something similar when looking at 'largest' (Σ) versus being found (T) - and a feeling of disappointment sets in. The catalyst of going astray (α) being triggered by the starting state isn't the problem, nor is being found a surprising transition state for said catalyst, nor does the outcome of being cared for more than the ninety-nine (Ω) pose much of a surprise given said catalyst - but the transition state of found is hardly contrasting with the starting state of being largest. What am I doing wrong? The answer is evident: for the first time I am reusing major metamorphosis elements: my outcome applies to both the shepherd and the sheep, as does the transition state. The fact that the outcome is reused is fine in my opinion: the shepherd speaks the very sentence and the sheep hears it. But can we reuse the shepherd's transition state for the sheep? No - the sheep must have its own, namely 'When he had gone to such trouble'. Again, Lambdin creates a problem here by interpretation; the literal translation is 'havingbeen-troubled' and once more, and again and again, over and over, we are confronted with the extreme importance of literal translation and interpretation: that phrase has no explicit subject. (B) 1. one of them, 2. the largest, 3. went astray, 4. (was) troubled, 5. more cared for than the ninety-nine: One of them, the largest, (was) troubled, more cared for than the ninety-nine, (when) he went astray The largest (Σ) sheep goes astray (α), becomes troubled (T), and more cared for than the ninety-nine (Ω) - that, and only that, is the correct interpretation, and narration, of this parable. The link with logion 2 is brutally evident even if the Coptic word there is entirely Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 49 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 different: ϣⲧ(ⲟ)ⲣⲧⲣ23 instead of ϩⲓⲥⲉ24 in this logion. And once more we find a very important clue with regards to translation: ϩⲓⲥⲉ means labour(ed), toil(ed), not troubled. When we look at the four occurrences of it, we find it here and in three preceding logia: it is in the 'without difficulty' of the parable of the net, it is in the "who has suffered / who is troubled" of logion 58, and, most importantly, it is in the 'did-not-she-realize a-trouble(?)' and we are confirmed in Grondin's uncertainty about that translation, and I once more highly commend his perfect striving for perfection and little less. Toiling, labouring: making a great effort; towards introspection, as well as observing everything around you, that is the general catalyst for your quest. We must translate ϩⲓⲥⲉ with 'toil' or 'labour', both of which are nouns as well as verbs: it is regrettable that 'effort' isn't common as a verb anymore as in my opinion that would best express both the noun and the verb. The fisherman chose the fish 'without effort', blessed is the man 'who has made every effort', the woman with the jar 'did not know25 (how) to make an effort', and the sheep gone astray surely also has put in great effort. I will not travel backwards and fix the translations; I have been going back and forth for countless times (and time) already. What about the meaning of this logion, its interpretation? Both metamorphoses stress the importance of leaving the group, becoming solitary, casting yourself away from the majority: go astray, be original, be contrary to popular "opinion in general" - be disobedient. The shepherd meets his equal, his like-minded, in the sheep gone astray, and cares for him more than the ninety-nine. Again, Grondin provides the perfect translation: 'Did-one of-them stray - the-greatest was-he; he-left (the)ninety-nine; he-sought after-that-one until-he-fell upon-him; having-been-troubled, said-he to-the-sheep this: "I-love/want-you(sg) more-than(the)99."' Who is the 'he' leaving the 99? It might be both the sheep and the shepherd. Is it conclusive whether the shepherd loves the sheep more than the shepherd loves the 99, or whether the 23 TLA lemma no. C6120 (ϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲣ), in: Coptic Dictionary Online, ed. by the Koptische/Coptic Electronic Language and Literature International Alliance (KELLIA), https://copticdictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C6120 (accessed 2019-09-09). 24 TLA lemma no. C6852 (ϩⲓⲥⲉ), in: Coptic Dictionary Online, ed. by the Koptische/Coptic Electronic Language and Literature International Alliance (KELLIA), https://copticdictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C6852 (accessed 2019-09-09). 25 TLA lemma no. C897 (ⲉⲓⲙⲉ), in: Coptic Dictionary Online, ed. by the Koptische/Coptic Electronic Language and Literature International Alliance (KELLIA), https://copticdictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C897 (accessed 2019-09-09). Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 50 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 shepherd loves the sheep more than the 99 love the sheep? No. Is this also a pointer to being blessed when you are hated and persecuted, either by others or by yourself? I think it is. Again, Thomas tells us to "look for that one", but he also instructs us to "leave the ninety-nine" in order to do so. Thomas seems to also promise us that we will find, and that we will care more than anything else for that which we find. And Thomas guarantees us that we will have to toil while doing so. And with that, it appears that this logion is a perfect summary of the third set of three logia: the "having toiled" is an exhortation to the rich man who pauses from doing so, with dramatic results. The going astray and the leaving the ninety-nine is an exhortation to the man preparing the dinner, who is desperately trying to cling on to his old life and "friends". And the 'looking for that one until he found it' (all by yourself) is an exhortation to the good man with the vineyard who decided to outsource his quest to just an agency, and who surely must have bitterly regretted the outcome of that process. The parable of the hidden treasure (logion 109) 1. a man, 2. who had a hidden treasure, 3. (one who bought it) went ploughing, 4. found the treasure, 5. began to lend money at interest to whomever he whished: A man, who had a hidden treasure, found the treasure, (and) began to lend money at interest to whomever he whished, when he (who bought it) went ploughing Again, we have perfectly contrasting opposites here, with the hidden (Σ) treasure being found (T), enabled by the - by now almost obvious - catalyst of ploughing (α). The possession of the field is irrelevant according to Thomas, the catalyst action is what makes the difference: go ploughing! in your field, and you will '...begin to-give-money (at-interest) to-those-he-loves()' (Ω). There is still some work needed to be done here; the 'interest' is odd because Thomas frowns upon doing so in logion 95 - but the metamorphosis is clear. This could be another core parable, a triplet, but only if we take the Coptic translation literally (and why shouldn't we, after all that we've seen and done): (109) 'Said-JS this: the-kingdom, she-compares to-a-man who-had-he there in-his-field a-treasure ()hiding, he-being not-knowing about-him; and after-his-death, he-left-him to-his-son. The-son knew not. He-took-the-field which-was-there; he-gave-her away, and whoever-bought-her, he- Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 51 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 came ()plowing; he-fell on-the-treasure. Did-he-begin to-give-money (at-interest) to-those-heloves().' (A1) 1. a-man, 2. who-had-he there in-his-field a-treasure ()hiding, 3. he-being not-knowing about-him, 4. and after-his-death, 5. he-left-him to-his-son: A-man, who-had in-his-field a-treasure hiding, after-his-death, left-him to-his-son, (when he was) not-knowing about [it] (A2) 1. The-son, 3.(!) knew not, 2.(!) He-took-the-field which-was-there, 4.(!) he-gave-her away: The-son, took-the-field which-was-there, (and) he-gave-her away, (...), (when he) knew not (A3) 1. and whoever, 2. bought-her, 3. he-came ()plowing; 4. he-fell on-the-treasure, 5. Did-hebegin to-give-money (at-interest) to-those-he-loves(): And whoever, bought-her, he-fell on-the-treasure, (and) Did-he-begin to-give-money (at-interest) to-those-he-loves(), (when he) he-came ()plowing A quadruple metamorphosis. The last of them all, finishing off a series of (sic) series of metamorphoses that started with a triple metamorphosis in logion 8. But this one has quite a few exceptions in the middle one of the three sub-metamorphoses. Because the man doesn't know (α) about the treasure hiding in his field (Σ) he leaves the field to his son (Ω) after his death (T); the not knowing of the catalyst perfectly links to and explains why that is the case. The starting state of the hidden treasure doesn't seem much of a contrast for 'after his death' but the text is badly damaged for about a third of the entire logion, and there are six of the thirteen letters missing right here; yet if we really look at the construct of this metamorphosis, the being hidden of the treasure means that the man has lead a life of (spiritual) death, which transitions into real physical death because he neither knows about the treasure nor has gone ploughing. The son doesn't know (α) either, and takes the field (Σ). Not knowing is a fine reason for the perfectly contrasting transition state of giving her away (T), and this metamorphosis doesn't have an outcome - and what outcome could there possibly be anyway, at this point? What other outcome could 'not knowing' effect besides effectively nothing? The father doesn't leave the treasure to his son, he just leaves the field - after his death. Is Thomas trying to tell us that there actually is an outcome for the son, that he is just as dead as his father, yet during his life? Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 52 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 The verb ⲕⲱ26 has 10 different types of meaning, yet none of those is about selling or anything like it (which doesn't stop Lambdin from using exactly that verb): place, esteem, have, preserve, permit, admit, bequeath, quit, leave, go to. So the son does give the field away, but then how can it be bought? Because that, surprisingly, is the correct translation for ⲧⲟⲟⲩ27 whether I like it or not. It is very unfortunate that this logion is so badly damaged, especially given the fact that this time, the order of metamorphosis elements does seem to be really off, but I have no other choice than to leave it be: the verbs are perfectly visible but what's in between them, is gone. Whoever buys the field (Σ) - needless to say it's typically Thomasine to not literally mention who exactly the field is bought from - goes ploughing (α) and finds the treasure (T). And gets rich and starts lending money at interest (Ω), which a dozen logia before is advised against in logion 95. What about the meaning of this logion, its interpretation? The son and the father don't know about the treasure and just ignore the field. It is unclear whether the buyer does, but it is clear that the ploughing leads to the discovery, just as the discovery has the odd pay-off of giving money at interest to those loved. Is the buying a nice starting state compared to the transition state of finding the treasure? Not quite. It is clear, by now, what the treasure is supposed to be interpreted as, as is the field, and as is ploughing. The absence of an outcome in the second sub-metamorphosis is telling, and highly likely Thomas is indeed telling us that at that point the son is just as dead as his father is, and has been all his life: if you don't know about that hidden treasure in your field then you're guaranteed to stay dead your entire life. What about the buying of the field? That is extremely odd. What has the son done to the field? ⲁϥ ϥⲓ ⲧ ⲥⲱϣⲉ ⲉⲧ ⲙ ⲙⲁⲩ - 'he carried the field to that place there' is a possible translation. Does the son do something special to the field, apart from giving it away? Logion 21 has the exact same words for giving and field, and there is a possibility, however slightly, that this second sub-metamorphosis does tell about the son simply abstaining from the field - but then he would have had to know, wouldn't he? 26 TLA lemma no. C1058 (ⲕⲱ), in: Coptic Dictionary Online, ed. by the Koptische/Coptic Electronic Language and Literature International Alliance (KELLIA), https://copticdictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C1058 (accessed 2019-09-09). 27 TLA lemma no. C4667 (ⲧⲟⲟⲩ), in: Coptic Dictionary Online, ed. by the Koptische/Coptic Electronic Language and Literature International Alliance (KELLIA), https://copticdictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C4667 (accessed 2019-09-09). Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 53 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 It is in vain to take this any further, I think it is ambitious enough as it is to appear to be able to break down this very last parable into three sub-metamorphoses, even though the order of the second poses questions. Unlike the parable of the net, I will not be able to solve this riddle by breaking it all down and ending up with an interpretation-free message that way. Instead I will have to guess that this last parable tells us that anyone can find the treasure in their field as long as they plough, no matter the way in which they acquired the field: simple possession, inheritance, purchase - and in that way it could refer to one's upbringing and social status, saying as much as "whether you're born noble or poor, or anything in between, just take the quest upon you and you will find revelation". I had high hopes for something really exciting, and it's a shame that I can't make more out of this parable at this point. Summary I couldn't possibly use the word conclusion; this seems a mere start of something enormous. Six sets of parables: three sets of three, then one, and then another two sets of three, all splendidly belonging together, handling different themes, in (chrono)logical order as well. But what about the content? Is this a disappointing story for those who hoped to find a real Jesus of Christianity in Thomas? I suppose it is, yet if you could have found such a person then you would have managed to do so decades ago, and we wouldn't be here, over 60 years after the first publication of the full text of Thomas, with nothing even fairly satisfactory when it comes to placating that desire. Is this a disappointing story for those who sought a different Jesus, a Jesus free from eschatology, free from apostolical advertising, canonical contraptions and political propaganda? Perhaps it is, when you desire just a benign Jesus - but you shouldn't have been looking for such a Jesus in the first place, because that is essentially the same Jesus as the Jesus above; there have been tons of people and writings in the past two millennia bringing across the message of "love, peace and happiness" and almost all of them more elaborate, better even - there is virtually nothing that makes Jesus special in that regard. Strip Jesus of his eschatology and he becomes rather uneventful. Did you seek a Jesus who relieves, who soothes, who tells you to hang in there, who says that everything will be alright - in the end? That most certainly isn't this Jesus - in fact this Jesus is the very opposite of that. Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 54 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 This Jesus liberates, eradicates, obliterates - and sets you free. But only if you work at it, diligently, persistently, relentlessly. And the funny thing is, if you look at the latter sentence and consider only that very core, then this Jesus is exactly the same as that canonical one. The canonical Jesus, however, has been turned into an instrument of the elite - a tool for controlling people. While convicting the bad and struggling for the good, that Jesus sacrificed his life for you so now you have to return the favour and pay back the debt - as repentance for your original sin; for which in turn you are promised an afterlife. One would most certainly expect Thomas, this Thomas, my Thomas, the Thomas I have portrayed here, to attack all that, and at least once utter the statement that those are all lies, that that very carrot and that very stick are preposterous fabrications - yet he doesn't. It is absolutely confounding how Thomas would further his cause by hijacking the canonical Jesus and turning him into his protagonist without any further ado. Surfing the waves of a popular movement is fine, but selling a Jesus that is interested in nothing else but self-seeking, relentlessly, unconditionally, mercilessly? No one who had heard of the canonical Jesus would buy that. This Jesus is the centre of his universe, if in fact he cares to believe that there is such a thing. A rebel? Rebels fight for the cause of others, give their blood for others - this Jesus is not a rebel, not even a rebel leader; this Jesus is a one-man army that will doubt, question and oppose anyone and anything, and stop at nothing. This Jesus doesn't show disobedience, he doesn't tell us how to bend the rules and break one or two when that would be convenient - this Jesus tells us that everything is a lie, that everything is a fata morgana, including the image you hold of you yourself. This Jesus isn't dangerous, lethal, or dynamite - this Jesus is nuclear material that could wipe out an entire planet. He doesn't call to revolution, he calls for outward, external laissez-faire and silent, solitary, internal evolution. Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 55 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 Thomas explained "Separation is the root of all seeking. As tiny children there is simply being. There is no one. Life happens. Regardless of whether a child cries or seems hungry, there is just pure being. And then a moment comes when that tiny being identifies itself and becomes a separate person. At that moment of separation, there is a contraction back into the sense of being limited in the body. “My boundary is this skin, and everything else is separate”. From that moment on there is seeking, and a sense of something lost. ‘Being everything’ is lost in that moment. And being a separate person, an entity looking for everything, begins. From that moment on there is only seeking - until there isn’t. And that seeking is endless. People we see in the world - wanting to be rich, to have lots of lovers, to have power or whatever they want - all desire is the longing to come home. And home is wholeness, home is being everything, which is our origin. So oneness arises as wholeness and then plays the game of becoming separate. So the whole key to liberation has nothing to do with the apparent separate person. We grow up and we feel separate, and we learn from our parents and teachers and priests and bosses and spouses that we are definitely separate, live in a separate world, and there is absolutely no doubt that we have a choice, we are a separate individual that has free will and can choose to make our lives work, or not. So what you see in the world is a desire to make people’s lives work, when what people are really doing is trying to fill this sense of loss. Most people spend their whole lives living like that, trying to fill that sense of loss. For some making money, being powerful etc. isn’t enough - there’s still a sense that there’s something missing. So they look for what’s missing - in religion, in therapy, and in the search for ‘enlightenment’, but all this time there’s an absolute conviction that they’re a separate individual with the choice to fulfil this sense of loss. And when you go to an enlightened ‘master’, you’re naturally attracted to the ‘master’ who still presumes the fundamental idea that you are separate, and that you ‘need’ to meditate or selfinquire or ‘give up the ego’ in order to find what you’re looking for. Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 56 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 And all of that is the ignorance. That’s how the game continues. Religion is the seeking, through ‘individual choice’, for something that already is. What we’re looking for already is this. But all the time there is someone seeking, this can’t be seen. The fulness we seek is timeless and the seeking is in time - “It’s going to happen when I’ve meditated”, or “The answer’s going to be on the next page of this book.” “I’m going to find it one day.” There’s that constant agitation of looking for this. Sometimes it’s gratified for a short while and it seems everything is complete. But that gratification is short-lived and is soon replaced by the longing for and seeking of this. That gratification and wholeness can never be found until there’s no one looking. It can’t be found by the individual, because the individual function is to look for that. When there’s no longer a seeking, that which is sought, is seen. But it is seen by no one."28 A video transcript of a video of Tony Parsons, writer of "The Open Secret". I don't agree with everything Tony says but this quote sums it all up, this is what Thomas would wholeheartedly have agreed with: we are, therefore we seek. Next is a piece by Don Miguel Ruiz from his book The Four Agreements, and this is from the chapter Domestication and the dream of the planet. I have desperately tried to make it concise, condense it, leave out parts, and only managed to strip the last half page that leads into the Four Agreements themselves. It is an unusually lengthy piece, but it fits more than perfectly onto what Thomas and Tony have to say. Where Tony pinpoints the 'one' becoming 'two' and explains the seeking process that results from that, Don Miguel Ruiz magnificently beautifully and blindingly clearly describes how exactly and precisely all of that unfolds (all emphasis is mine): What you are seeing and hearing right now is nothing but a dream. You are dreaming right now in this moment. You are dreaming with the brain awake. Dreaming is the main function of the mind, and the mind dreams twenty-four hours a day. It dreams when the brain is awake, and it also dreams when the brain is asleep. The difference is that when the brain is 28 Tony Parsons - bottomless bowl of separation (Youtube) Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 57 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 awake, there is a material frame that makes us perceive things in a linear way. When we go to sleep, we do not have the frame, and the dream has the tendency to change constantly. Humans are dreaming all the time. Before we were born the humans before us created a big outside dream that we will call society's dream or the dream of the planet. The dream of the planet is the collective dream of billions of smaller, personal dreams, which together create a dream of a family, a dream of a community, a dream of a city, a dream of a country, and finally a dream of the whole humanity. The dream of the planet includes all of society's rules, its beliefs, its laws, its religions, its different cultures and ways to be, its governments, schools, social events, and holidays. We are born with the capacity to learn how to dream, and the humans who live before us teach us how to dream the way society dreams. The outside dream has so many rules that when a new human is born, we hook the child's attention and introduce these rules into his or her mind. The outside dream uses Mom and Dad, the schools, and religion to teach us how to dream. Attention is the ability we have to discriminate and to focus only on that which we want to perceive. We can perceive millions of things simultaneously, but using our attention, we can hold whatever we want to perceive in the foreground of our mind. The adults around us hooked our attention and put information into our minds through repetition. That is the way we learned everything we know. By using our attention, we learned a whole reality, a whole dream. We learned how to behave in society: what to believe and what not to believe; what is acceptable and what is not acceptable; what is good and what is bad; what is beautiful and what is ugly; what is right and what is wrong. It was all there already - all that knowledge, all those rules and concepts about how to behave in the world. When you were in school, you sat in a little chair and put your attention on what the teacher was teaching you. When you went to church, you put your attention on what the priest or minister was telling you. It is the same dynamic with Mom and Dad, brothers and sisters: They were all trying to hook your attention. We also learn to hook the attention of other humans, and we develop a need for attention which can become very competitive. Children compete for the attention of their parents, their teachers, their friends. "Look at me! Look at what I'm doing! Hey, I'm here." The need for attention becomes very strong and continues into adulthood. The outside dream hooks our attention and teaches us what to believe, beginning with the language that we speak. Language is the code for understanding and communication between humans. Every letter, every word in each language is an agreement. We call this a page in a book; the word page is an Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 58 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 agreement that we understand. Once we understand the code, our attention is hooked and the energy is transferred from one person to another. It was not your choice to speak English. You didn't choose your religion or your moral values - they were already there before you were born. We never had the opportunity to choose what to believe or what not to believe. We never chose even the smallest of these agreements. We didn't even choose our own name. As children, we didn't have the opportunity to choose our beliefs, but we agreed with the information that was passed to us from the dream of the planet via other humans. The only way to store information is by agreement. The outside dream may hook our attention, but if we don't agree, we don't store that information. As soon as we agree, we believe it, and this is called faith. To have faith is to believe unconditionally. That's how we learn as children. Children believe everything adults say. We agree with them, and our faith is so strong that the belief system controls our whole dream of life. We didn't choose these beliefs, and we may have rebelled against them, but we were not strong enough to win the rebellion. The result is surrender to the beliefs with our agreement. I call this process the domestication of humans. And through this domestication we learn how to live and how to dream. In human domestication, the information from the outside dream is conveyed to the inside dream, creating our whole belief system. First the child is taught the names of things: Mom, Dad, milk, bottle. Day by day, at home, at school, at church, and from television, we are told how to live, what kind of behaviour is acceptable. The outside dream teaches us how to be a human. We have a whole concept of what a "woman" is and what a "man" is. And we also learn to judge: We judge ourselves, judge other people, judge the neighbours. Children are domesticated the same way that we domesticate a dog, a cat, or any other animal. In order to teach a dog, we punish the dog and we give it rewards. We train our children whom we love so much the same way that we train any domesticated animal: with a system of punishment and reward. We are told, "You're a good boy," or "You're a good girl," when we do what Mom and Dad want us to do. When we don't, we are "a bad girl" or "a bad boy." When we went against the rules we were punished; when we went along with the rules, we got a reward. We were punished many times a day, and we were also rewarded many times a day. Soon we became afraid of being punished and also afraid of not receiving the reward. The reward is the attention that we got from our parents or from other people like siblings, teachers, and friends. Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 59 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 We soon develop a need to hook other people's attention in order to get the reward. The reward feels good, and we keep doing what others want us to do in order to get the reward. With that fear of being punished and that fear of not getting the reward, we start pretending to be what we are not, just to please others, just to be good enough for someone else. We try to please Mom and Dad, we try to please the teachers at school, we try to please the church, and so we start acting. We pretend to be what we are not because we are afraid of being rejected. The fear of being rejected becomes the fear of not being good enough. Eventually we become someone that we are not. We become a copy of Mamma's beliefs, Daddy's beliefs, society's beliefs, and religion's beliefs. All our normal tendencies are lost in the process of domestication. And when we are old enough for our mind to understand, we learn the word no. The adults say, "Don't do this and don't do that." We rebel and say, "No!" We rebel because we are defending our freedom. We want to be ourselves, but we are very little, and the adults are big and strong. After a certain time, we are afraid because we know that every time we do something wrong we are going to be punished. The domestication is so strong that at a certain point in our life we no longer need anyone to domesticate us. We don't need Mom or Dad, the school or the church to domesticate us. We are so well trained that we are our own domesticator. We are an autodomesticated animal. We can now domesticate ourselves according to the same belief system we were given, and using the same system of punishment and reward. We punish ourselves when we don't follow the rules according to our belief system; we reward ourselves when we are the "good boy" or "good girl." The belief system is like a Book of Law that rules our mind. Without question, whatever is in that Book of Law, is our truth. We base all of our judgments according to the Book of Law, even if these judgments go against our own inner nature. Even moral laws like the Ten Commandments are programmed into our mind in the process of domestication. One by one, all these agreements go into the Book of Law, and these agreements rule our dream. There is something in our minds that judges everybody and everything, including the weather, the dog, the cat - everything. The inner Judge uses what is in our Book of Law to judge everything we do and don't do, everything we think and don't think, and everything we feel and don't feel. Everything lives under the tyranny of this Judge. Every time we do something that goes against the Book of Law, the Judge says we are guilty, we need to be punished, we should be ashamed. This happens many times a day, day after day, for all the years of our lives. There is another part of us that receives the judgments, and this part is called the Victim. The Victim carries the blame, the guilt, and the shame. It is the part of us that Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 60 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 says, "Poor me, I'm not good enough, I'm not intelligent enough, I'm not attractive enough, I'm not worthy of love, poor me." The big Judge agrees and says, "Yes, you are not good enough." And this is all based on a belief system that we never chose to believe. These beliefs are so strong, that even years later when we are exposed to new concepts and try to make our own decisions, we find that these beliefs still control our lives. Whatever goes against the Book of Law will make you feel a funny sensation in your solar plexus, and it's called fear. Breaking the rules in the Book of Law opens your emotional wounds, and your reaction is to create emotional poison. Because everything that is in the Book of Law has to be true, anything that challenges what you believe is going to make you feel unsafe. Even if the Book of Law is wrong, it makes you feel safe. That is why we need a great deal of courage to challenge our own beliefs. Because even if we know we didn't choose all these beliefs, it is also true that we agreed to all of them. The agreement is so strong that even if we understand the concept of it not being true, we feel the blame, the guilt, and the shame that occur if we go against these rules. Just as the government has a book of laws that rule the society's dream, our belief system is the Book of Laws that rules our personal dream. All these laws exist in our mind, we believe them, and the Judge inside us bases everything on these rules. The Judge decrees, and the Victim suffers the guilt and punishment. But who says there is justice in this dream? True justice is paying only once for each mistake. True injustice is paying more than once for each mistake. How many times do we pay for one mistake? The answer is thousands of times. The human is the only animal on earth that pays a thousand times for the same mistake. The rest of the animals pay once for every mistake they make. But not us. We have a powerful memory. We make a mistake, we judge ourselves, we find ourselves guilty, and we punish ourselves. If justice exists, then that was enough; we don't need to do it again. But every time we remember, we judge ourselves again, we are guilty again, and we punish ourselves again, and again, and again. If we have a wife or husband, he or she also reminds us of the mistake, so we can judge ourselves again, punish ourselves again, and find ourselves guilty again. Is this fair? How many times do we make our spouse, our children, or our parents pay for the same mistake? Every time we remember the mistake, we blame them again and send them all the emotional poison we feel at the injustice, and then we make them pay again for the same mistake. Is that justice? The Judge in the mind is wrong because the belief system, the Book of Law, is wrong. The whole dream is based on false law. Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 61 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 Ninety-five percent of the beliefs we have stored in our minds are nothing but lies, and we suffer because we believe all these lies. In the dream of the planet it is normal for humans to suffer, to live in fear, and to create emotional dramas. The outside dream is not a pleasant dream; it is a dream of violence, a dream of fear, a dream of war, a dream of injustice. The personal dream of humans will vary, but globally it is mostly a nightmare. If we look at human society, we see a place so difficult to live in because it is ruled by fear. Throughout the world we see human suffering, anger, revenge, addictions, violence in the street, and tremendous injustice. It may exist at different levels in different countries around the world, but fear is controlling the outside dream. If we compare the dream of human society with the description of hell that religions all around the world have promulgated, we find they are exactly the same. Religions say that hell is a place of punishment, a place of fear, pain, and suffering, a place where the fire burns you. Fire is generated by emotions that come from fear. Whenever we feel the emotions of anger, jealousy, envy, or hate, we experience a fire burning within us. We are living in a dream of hell. If you consider hell as a state of mind, then hell is all around us. Others may warn us that if we don't do what they say we should do, we will go to hell. Bad news! We are already in hell, including the people who tell us that. No human can condemn another to hell because we are already there. Others can put us into a deeper hell, true. But only if we allow this to happen. Every human has his or her own personal dream, and just like the society dream, it is often ruled by fear. We learn to dream hell in our own life, in our personal dream. The same fears manifest in different ways for each person, of course, but we experience anger, jealousy, hate, envy, and other negative emotions. Our personal dream can also become an ongoing nightmare where we suffer and live in a state of fear. But we don't need to dream a nightmare. It is possible to enjoy a pleasant dream. All of humanity is searching for truth, justice, and beauty. We are on an eternal search for the truth because we only believe in the lies we have stored in our mind. We are searching for justice because in the belief system we have, there is no justice. We search for beauty because it doesn't matter how beautiful a person is, we don't believe that person has beauty. We keep searching and searching, when everything is already within us. There is no truth to find. Wherever we turn our heads, all we see is the truth, but with the agreements and beliefs we have stored in our mind, we have no eyes for this truth. We don't see the truth because we are blind. What blinds us are all those false beliefs we have in our mind. We have the need to be right and to make others wrong. We trust what we believe, and our beliefs set us up for Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 62 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 suffering. It is as if we live in the middle of a fog that doesn't let us see any further than our own nose. We live in a fog that is not even real. This fog is a dream, your personal dream of life - what you believe, all the concepts you have about what you are, all the agreements you have made with others, with yourself, and even with God. Your whole mind is a fog which the Toltecs called a mitote. Your mind is a dream where a thousand people talk at the same time, and nobody understands each other. This is the condition of the human mind - a big mitote, and with that big mitote you cannot see what you really are. In India they call the mitote maya, which means illusion. It is the personality's notion of "I am." Everything you believe about yourself and the world, all the concepts and programming you have in your mind, are all the mitote. We cannot see who we truly are; we cannot see that we are not free. That is why humans resist life. To be alive is the biggest fear humans have. Death is not the biggest fear we have; our biggest fear is taking the risk to be alive - the risk to be alive and express what we really are. Just being ourselves is the biggest fear of humans. We have learned to live our life trying to satisfy other people's demands. We have learned to live by other people's points of view because of the fear of not being accepted and of not being good enough for someone else. During the process of domestication, we form an image of what perfection is in order to try to be good enough. We create an image of how we should be in order to be accepted by everybody. We especially try to please the ones who love us, like Mom and Dad, big brothers and sisters, the priests and the teacher. Trying to be good enough for them, we create an image of perfection, but we don't fit this image. We create this image, but this image is not real. We are never going to be perfect from this point of view. Never! Not being perfect, we reject ourselves. And the level of self-rejection depends upon how effective the adults were in breaking our integrity. After domestication it is no longer about being good enough for anybody else. We are not good enough for ourselves because we don't fit with our own image of perfection. We cannot forgive ourselves for not being what we wish to be, or rather what we believe we should be. We cannot forgive ourselves for not being perfect. We know we are not what we believe we are supposed to be and so we feel false, frustrated, and dishonest. We try to hide ourselves, and we pretend to be what we are not. The result is that we feel unauthentic and wear social masks to keep others from noticing this. We are so afraid that somebody else will notice that we are not what we pretend to be. We judge others according to our image of perfection as well, and naturally they fall short of our expectations. We dishonour ourselves just to please other people. We even do harm to our physical bodies just to be accepted by others. You see teenagers taking drugs just to avoid being rejected by other teenagers. They Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 63 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 are not aware that the problem is that they don't accept themselves. They reject themselves because they are not what they pretend to be. They wish to be a certain way, but they are not, and for this they carry shame and guilt. Humans punish themselves endlessly for not being what they believe they should be. They become very self-abusive, and they use other people to abuse themselves as well. But nobody abuses us more than we abuse ourselves, and it is the Judge, the Victim, and the belief system that make us do this. True, we find people who say their husband or wife, or mother or father, abused them, but you know that we abuse ourselves much more than that. The way we judge ourselves is the worst judge that ever existed. If we make a mistake in front of people, we try to deny the mistake and cover it up. But as soon as we are alone, the Judge becomes so strong, the guilt is so strong, and we feel so stupid, or so bad, or so unworthy. In your whole life nobody has ever abused you more than you have abused yourself. And the limit of your self-abuse is exactly the limit that you will tolerate from someone else. If someone abuses you a little more than you abuse yourself, you will probably walk away from that person. But if someone abuses you a little less than you abuse yourself, you will probably stay in the relationship and tolerate it endlessly. If you abuse yourself very badly, you can even tolerate someone who beats you up, humiliates you, and treats you like dirt. Why? Because in your belief system you say, "I deserve it. This person is doing me a favour by being with me. I'm not worthy of love and respect. I'm not good enough." We have the need to be accepted and to be loved by others, but we cannot accept and love ourselves. The more self-love we have, the less we will experience self-abuse. Self-abuse comes from self-rejection, and self-rejection comes from having an image of what it means to be perfect and never measuring up to that ideal. Our image of perfection is the reason we reject ourselves; it is why we don't accept ourselves the way we are, and why we don't accept others the way they are. That is the story, the whole story, and nothing but the story. Motivation You now know what to do with that image of perfection, the powerful man pointed you the way. I could quote every parable and logion and hold those against these two texts and the metamorphosis model; I could take them all and explain them in great detail, but that implies writing a book about it all and I likely will, but not here and now - it is an awful lot already, Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 64 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 explaining the idea behind 2,000 year old sayings by contemporary wisdoms; demonstrating the structure and logical order behind a text that has been perceived as chaotic ever since its discovery - and revealing the true meaning and purpose of Thomas. The gospel of Thomas ran into me (and hit me like a truck - I always like to put it that way) in 2009, and it immediately hooked my attention even without having a clue to its general meaning and direction. Thomas attracts, Thomas enchants, Thomas confuses, Thomas perplexes - Thomas has an unprecedented wow-factor unlike any other document of its size, although in that respect it also is in close competition with the Tao Te Ching. In 2010 I came in contact with The Four Agreements - it fit like a glove and it was impossible not to make the connection. Tony Parsons dates from a few months ago and I accidentally ran into his (sic) as well, and the beauty in his message is the conciseness, the radicality of nonduality (of which I don't like everything, and I most certainly disagree with his vague concept of there "being no free will"). In 2010 I found out my Dad had developed Alzheimer, and weekends suddenly became mostly booked. When he died in 2014, it was Mom's turn to receive most of my attention, sadly for the same reason. She is in an elderly home now awaiting her turn to die 'in the flesh', living somewhere in her childhood between the age of 10 and 20, at the moment - my mother is gone already, just like my Dad was in the end. And after I cleaned out and sold the house, and that was Winter 2018, I picked it all up where I left: it is odd how it all apparently had always been on my mind while I was never even thinking of Thomas. Ask me why I continued reading, and started writing about Thomas at that time, and I will answer: "I honestly just don't know". I have written and / or published a couple of pieces here and there since, writing down my thoughts helps me to process them and reach new insights; I have no idea why, it has always been that way, and as I find it a rather convenient feature I haven't felt the need to analyse it with a toothpick. I will publish more after this, I want to shed light on each saying of Thomas although the majority should now be clear, with the two becoming one, the solitary, coming into being before coming into being, the beginning being the end (of the quest of seeking), and the children entering the kingdom - it's all more of the same, it's all pointing to the processes described by Tony and Don Miguel. It is now clear who is alive, and who is dead and drunk and intoxicated, and why. What is hidden and why it will become manifest, and when. Why heavens will pass away and be rolled up, why your father is not born of a woman (because you and the father are indeed one, just Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 65 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 like John the gospel-writer says). Why it is so very essential that you must have something in your hand, and why you can't serve two masters - and who those two are. Why you are blessed when poor (not having knowledge of the wrong kind) and why you should become rich (having knowledge of the right kind). Why (and how!) you should hate your relatives, but also why you should love them (compassion). Logion 68 makes perfect sense now, as does 69, and 70, and 71, and so on. Logion 59 is about having found that moment of revelation, for which "enlightenment" still is the best word, and it warns you that it is only temporary: hours, days, weeks - it all depends. After having become one you will become two again, and you will have to work again to find your way back - if you want to do so. Is this it, then, is this all of Thomas? Yes, it is. What has happened in these past six decades is precisely that which must have happened two millennia ago; Thomas being the elephant in the room, everyone ran off with a limb in different directions: Gnostic, Christian, Platonic, pre-Kabbalistic, proto-Gnostic (I know the irony in naming the latter two, but you hopefully catch my drift) - you name it. That's the problem with cryptic texts: they are usually only partially understood, viewed through the (frequently narrow) lens of the reader. As great a revelation as Thomas must have been meant to be two millennia ago, and as great a surprise as it is to witness how deciphering it leads to for instance an interpretation-free rendering of riddling logia such as the parable of the net, it simply isn't accessible enough to go mainstream - it never was, and never could have been, and perhaps never was meant to be. It is no wonder that for over half a century, tens of thousands of minds have tried to interpret Thomas, a relatively short text of around 5,000 words, and that no result has been in the least satisfactory. Context is what has been the primary source of interpretation, instead of content: the text of Thomas has been placed in the context of Gnosticism, Christianity, and what not, and thence interpreted - with predictable results of bending over backwards to explain it all in said context. Thomas has been read figuratively and then interpreted literally, instead of vice versa. I am deeply touched by the resulting set of sets and the way their interpretation is steered this way, and utterly surprised that the coherence is so strong. I have known for almost a year now that there are five elements to each parable with a transformation from one state to the other, and a result - but until a little while ago I never dared to hope that there was any order to Thomas, and now I have this: Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 66 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas The parable of the net (logion 8) There's nothing to seek, everything's already here Throw any ideas around you, some will prove fruitful Work hard on the place where ideas prove fruitful Don't trust anyone or anything, thieves will come and rob you blind The parable of the sower (logion 9) The parable of the mustard seed (logion 20) The parable of the house owner (logion 21) The parable of the strong man (logion 35) The parable of the vineyard (logion 65) Don't outsource your quest to anyone, the only outcome will be catastrophe The parable of the pearl (logion 76) The parable of the leaven (logion 96) The parable of the jar (logion 97) Cut all ties and fully embrace the quest The parable of the powerful man (logion 98) The parable of the brigands (logion 103) Everything only happens inside your head The parable of the shepherd and the sheep leaving the 99 (logion 107) The parable of the hidden treasure (logion 109) Toil without pause, be solitary, look until you find that one Work diligently and patiently on the quest in secret Pay attention at all times to everything, and regularly "look back" Use your knowledge to arm yourself against the thieves Anyone and everyone can "find this treasure" that no one knows about Conclusion Seeking recaps Don't delay your quest for even a proverbial minute Your friends have become strangers already - no one will accompany you Details of Seeking The parable of the rich man (logion 63) The parable of the dinner (logion 64) Quest drawbacks The parable of the seed and the weeds (logion 57) Even subtler approaches will work for the thieves, they might just come as Greeks bearing gifts Don't panic even when you are the open and direct target of your enemies Cluster Outside threats Meaning Seeking Parable 2019 Implications No one can tell when an ancient text was written. Nor can anyone tell when such a text was brought into circulation. The only thing that one could tell with some certitude within a margin of years or decades, is when such a text caught on in a given area - and for that we can only rely on written documents. Thomas could have been written as soon as the 2nd half of the 2nd century BCE for all we know, lying dormant for a century or two because it lacked fertile Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 67 The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas 2019 ground. It could have come into circulation in e.g. 130 BCE, perhaps in Judea, possibly even Jerusalem, and then just did not catch on - anything is possible; as possible as irrelevant really, as only events that have an effect do impact. Oral tradition, layered tradition with a kernel? Fantastic stories as those are, this unravelling of the message of Thomas makes it abundantly clear that this is a single man's project, in writing of unprecedented detail - this text can't be trusted to just anyone remembering it and then writing it down, the average human is far too imperfect for that; even trained scribes wouldn't be adequate at that. Sadly, this is a text of which we have only one - almost entirely intact complete version, and only one other - very badly damaged - highly fragmented version accounting for about 5-10% of it, depending on whether one counts logia or words. Out of the 19 sayings that are referenced via the Oxyrhynchus papyri, 3 are slightly different with one of those having a part of another logion relocated to it. Which text is the (most?) original? We won't know until we find another set. Yet will we find in such a text that the sets of series of parables demonstrated here is significantly different? In theory anything is possible, but I find it hard to imagine. This Thomas has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity: Thomas doesn't reuse anything significant from the canonicals. Thomas is not theological, not religious, and he most certainly is nothing even remotely eschatological; Thomas is a purely philosophical-spiritual text about introspection and self-realisation, the so very nicely phrased 'self-seeking' that Paul warns about and advises against in Romans 2:8. If Thomas completely refrains from using the character of Jesus - as we now know it - then why does he use his name? If Thomas despises religion so much, why doesn't he put in a good word for Judas29? And why does he refer to Peter, Matthew, John the Immerser, Jacob the Righteous? And how does this shed light on the historical Jesus? The answer to all that is very, very simple - but only when you don't perceive this to be such a highly complicated question. And then the subject of implications will require far more than one mere page at the end of one mere paper 29 https://www.academia.edu/39976842/Judas_the_kiss_the_morsel_-_and_lifting_of_heels Martijn Linssen 09/09/2019 Page 68