Logion 22 - the Intros and the Outros

As students of the Pursah version of the Thomas Gospel we noticed that she is skeptical of the authenticity of what I'm calling loosely the intros and the outros, the latter of which is really an insertion of some material in the actual logion itself.

In my earlier comment on this Logion, I therefore focused on the kernel of it, as Pursah presents it in Gary Renard's Your Immortal Reality. I want to add some comments here on the sections she leaves out. In terms of the introductory section which Stevan Davies calls 22a in his article on Mark's use of the Gospel of Thomas, Part I it is extraordinarily interesting to observe how the older version (even if Pursah does not consider it authentic in the first place) of it speaks of being like a baby, but by the time we get to Mark it speaks of actual babies. The transition is thus from a purely abstract point that is being illustrated with a parable, towards the point where the story line seems to be in the specific, not the abstract point being made. In terms of the mode of expression in A Course in Miracles, this evolution is thus from Level 1 to Level 2, where we start mistaking the specifics for the point of the story, and begin to forget that abstract point that was being made. This is very plain in the Markan version, which sounds sweet enough, but risks losing the point, and represents the sort of evolution which is completely par for the course of the deterioration in the tradition:

People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them. (Mark 10:13-16 NIV)

The other add on, at the end of the kernel statement itself is the insertion of "when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image" at the end of the clause, which kind of does not fit with the statement about the healing of duality, which talks in terms of making male and female one.

When you read the whole of Logion 22 a few times, and you consider Pursah's edits, it will be blatantly obvious that her edits make complete intuitive sense, for the sections she takes out are evidently out of place, and have no relationship to the central point being made. This is one of the many reasons why my comfort with Pursah's version grew as I worked with the material. It really became a case of the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The other part which seemed really convincing to me, is that again it is always the ego's strategy to substitute specifics for the truth, which is always abstract, and which is our natural mode of being and thinking. The Course discusses this as follows:

Complete abstraction is the natural condition of the mind. But part of it is now unnatural. It does not look on everything as one. It sees instead but fragments of the whole, for only thus could it invent the partial world you see. The purpose of all seeing is to show you what you wish to see. All hearing but brings to your mind the sounds it wants to hear.
Thus were specifics made. (ACIM:W-161.2-3:1)

The point being made here is that the purpose of perception with our senses is exactly the substitution of the abstract with specific. The ego wants us to see the trees, not the forest, for once we see the forest, the ego is out of business. Again, this demonstrates precisely why we resist Jesus' teaching, and therefore why these texts became so corrupted so quickly.

PS: Title chosen in the fond memory of Frank Zappa.