Pursah's Idea of the Kernel of Thomas

Pursah is one of the Ascended Masters, who are the teachers to Gary Renard, with whom he has a dialogue in his books, first The Disappearance of the Universe, and Your Immortal Reality, soon to be joined by a third, Love Has Forgoten No One. In these conversations, she reveals herself as a reincarnation of the apostle Thomas, with vivid--first hand--recollection of the eponymous Gospel.

In the first book a few of the more prominent sayings in the Thomas Gospel are discussed, because they are more or less easy on the modern eye and ear. Then, in the second book, Pursah provides what amounts to a kernel of the Thomas Gospel. She essentially eliminates 44 sayings from the collection of 114 sayings that was found at Nag Hammadi, and leaves 70 as her "kernel" of the Gospel, that she considers authentic. The rest she dismisses as either hopelessly corrupted or simply added later. The ones that survive her scrutiny stay pretty much in tact, aside from some minor editorial tweaks. One of the most fascinating steps in Pursah's editorial process is the contraction of sayings 6&14, which, if you let it sink in for a while is so obvious at an intuitive level, that you'd almost have to conclude that it makes sense regardless. By implication, that editorial decision alone is testimony to Pursah's authority with the material, which is only natural if she were the author of it originally.

You could say that the seventy sayings of Pursah's Gospel of Thomas, are her account of the orginial kernel of that book as it must have existed ca 50 AD, and which made it the first of the Gospel accounts, given that Mark dated from 65 AD, Luke and Matthew from ca 75 AD, and John from 90-110 AD. There is also the internal evidence that Mark, Matthew and Luke all quote from Thomas, just as much as Matthew and Luke also quote Mark. Ergo, Thomas must have been first, even if for a long time we did not have a physical manuscript.

The inadvertent risk of anachronisms

One thing to be clear about, is that what was found in Nag Hammadi in 1945 was not a paperback saying "The Thomas Gospel." That is the same mistake as thinking that the King James Version is actually the Bible, or... that there even is such a thing as "The Bible," because the more you study it and understand where it came from, and how it was different books by different authors that were collected into this sort of orthodox anthology, well, then the monolithic notion of 'Bible' may be less useful. 

We suspected there might have been a Thomas Gospel before that manuscript was discovered in Nag Hammadi in 1945. Ancient writers had referred to one. What was found was just one handwritten manuscript, that thankfully was preserved, but ever since the 1890s we suspected there may be a Thomas Gospel, because of the Greek fragments that had been found in the manuscript at Oxyrrhynchus. Those fragments included Logia 1-7, 24, 26-33, 36-39 and some sentences from 77, besides a lot of other materials. The generally accepted date range of that material is from 130-250 AD. But since we had only bits and pieces, there might have been a few who surmised this might be another Gospel, but we did not know for sure until the discovery at Nag Hammadi. So then we had a Coptic translation, of what originally must have been a Greek manuscript that may have been more or less together ca 150 AD. 

Jesus would have spoken Aramaic. But the common written language of the day was Greek, so the Thomas Gospel in an early form may have been together ca 50 AD. That is certainly the version of events Pursah subscribes to.

A few scholars had attempted to reconstruct a notional Kernel of the Thomas Gospel, so the idea was around in scholarly circles before Gary Renard had the experiences he relates in his books. Pursah's version of 70 'core' sayings that she is willing to vouch for is essentially her representation of that kernel, based on past life recall, etc. The reason it is convincing to a careful student, is because of its inner consistency, which harmonizes well also with the teachings of A Course in Miracles, and that is the connection that Gary's books explore. It also harmonizes with Pursah's authority as being a reincarnation of the author (Thomas), with apparently perfect past-life recall. Again, if you look at her editing skills in combining Logia 6 and 14 as a matter of course, it gives me shivers up and down my spine, for it seems so natural, and the fit so perfect, yet how would you have thought of it, unless you knew something?

In short, the Thomas Gospel must have existed in some form, certainly oral, but most likely written, ca 40-50AD, and because of the Greek manuscripts we knew fairly well it existed ca. 140-150 AD in a form that was later validated by the find in Nag Hammadi. We then have a complete document from Nag Hammadi, which may go back to the Greek, or perhaps via an interim Syriac tradition. What we don't really know is when exactly and how the corruptions and additions to the 'kernel' took place, except somewhere in that time span between 40-50AD and 140-150AD, and possibly after that as well, particularly if it was translated first from Greek to Syriac and then to Coptic. But there's much we don't know in details. The only thing we can say for sure by experience, is after we live with Pursah's collection for awhile, is that the coherence of them is quite convincing, compared to the inner contradictions that are so bothersome in the collection of 114 from Nag Hammadi. And this inner experience eventually becomes our surest guide, if we practice the Course:

The ego will demand many answers that this course does not give. It does not recognize as questions the mere form of a question to which an answer is impossible. The ego may ask, "How did the impossible occur?", "To what did the impossible happen?", and may ask this in many forms. Yet there is no answer; only an experience. Seek only this, and do not let theology delay you. (ACIM:C-in.4) 

In and Out of the Hologram, Vivace

As promised, Gary Renard introduced us to his "Arten," aka Cindy on the "Happy Dream" Cruise, and this continues the important story line of his living experience as a demonstration project of the holographic nature of our experiential world which A Course in Miracles proposes. At the end of his first book as Arten and Pursah made it clear who they were in relation to Gary -- having been the apostles Thomas and Thaddeus in the past, while Gary himself had also been Thomas -- they also made it clear that not only would he be Pursah (a woman) in the next life, but he would end up marrying Arten, however Arten in his current lifetime would thus be a woman, who at that time he had not met yet. At some later time Gary reported having met the current-life persona of Arten, and that her identity would be disclosed in the third book, Love Has Forgotten No One, and also that she would participate in this year's Caribbean cruise. And so, having participated in the cruise, I've also met Cindy. Apparently Gary knew she was Arten before she did herself, but she was comfortable with it coming out in this fashion, and she seems to play the part really well. Meanwhile the really nice thing is that they do not make a big deal out of this, for they realize fully that this is all merely part of the dream reality. Needless to say undue hoopla about past life memories can become a major distraction, if it is exploited by the ego to make us somehow special, as is discussed in the Course in the Manual for Teachers, in the chapter 'ARE "PSYCHIC" POWERS DESIRABLE?' here:

The answer to this question is much like the preceding one. There are, of course, no "unnatural" powers, and it is obviously merely an appeal to magic to make up a power that does not exist. It is equally obvious, however, that each individual has many abilities of which he is unaware. As his awareness increases, he may well develop abilities that seem quite startling to him. Yet nothing he can do can compare even in the slightest with the glorious surprise of remembering Who he is. Let all his learning and all his efforts be directed toward this one great final surprise, and he will not be content to be delayed by the little ones that may come to him on the way. (ACIM:M-25.1)

The bottom line here clearly is that since with more and more forgiveness our fear level goes down, and we may well remember some of these abilities including past-life memories, which heretofore in our current living experience had been repressed, but if our ego gets ahold of them and starts exploiting them, we take our eyes off the ball, and forget the one responsibility we have as students of the Course, i.e. accepting the atonement for ourselves. And so, as always, the point is to leave the rest of it to the Holy Spirit, including the use of any such new found talents. Gary gave us a funny description of his own association with the group of Return of the Revolutionaries, which seems to be very prone to inspiring people to take this much too seriously--and again we are reminded of the joke that seriousness causes reincarnation. If nothing else, one thing that should give us pause is the fact that very few people volunteer for past life memories as Hitler, Attila the Hun, or Judas Iscariot, whereas the more popular roles seem to be in high demand. From the point of view of the Course it should be evident that the lifetimes in which we were villains of various sorts are very important lessons indeed, to make us aware of why the ego thought system is really a thought system of murder, which perhaps we would rather give up. For similar reasons, we strongly repress all memories of lifetimes in which we were something that we hate in this lifetime, e.g. men/women, black/white, Jew/Arab, etc. while the very fact that we hate it so much only means one thing, namely exactly that we were it, and do not want to know, so we project it out there in the world as an object of our scorn.

In the discussions in the workshop some interesting points about all this came out, and I would like to summarize them here in my own words. With a look ahead to the new book, Gary pointed out that Arten and Pursah had given him a demonstration of the "in-between" life, the upshot of which clearly was that, just like our own dreaming experience happens in seconds, but within the dream seems to cover vast stretches of time, the in-between life is typically really short, and moreover our "next" lifetime is not necessarily "in the future" in the time scale we tend to conceive of if we focus on our life as bodies in the world. In other words, you could be having a few hours in-between and then continue in a lifetime that is 100 years from now, or 2,000 years ago, the selection of which is predicated on what is the most helpful as classrooms for your progress on the road to salvation. Likewise, within the script we are currently in, we cannot so much change the script as shift to another dimension, based on the forgiveness lessons we have learned. In the end it is really not much different from going to Blockbusters and deciding between a horror movie or a comedy. In that sense the "hologram" is not much more than a large multiplex cinema, where I can see lots of different movies without ever leaving the building, and we only leave the building when our forgiveness lessons are done. And from one lifetime to the next we can change sex, religion, race, etc. so we shift from man to woman, from Muslim to Christian, from Jew to Arab, from black to white an vice versa. All of this makes lots of sense, since the atonement process is really about forgiving our apparent differences in the world and coming to realize experientially that we are the One sonship, that appears as many only because we have embraced the separation thought, the ego, and conceive of our living reality/experience accordingly.

Lastly, there is the important implication of the Course that all of the perceptions within this holographic time/space framework are in the mind, including our own body, therefore it becomes blatantly clear how and why it is possible to experience these shifts, that otherwise seem inconceivable to our conscious awareness which has projected the neat linear appearance of ourselves in time, with a past and a future, and which we call our life. And the shifts within this life to different dimensions with different outcomes are again no different than a DVD with multiple endings to the movie. Thus we do not perse change the script with our actions, as it is already made, and all of our actions are in the pre-recorded script, but by forgiving we can shift to a different experience. Or, as the Course puts it:  "Therefore, seek not to change the world, but choose to change your mind about the world." (ACIM:T-21.in.1:7)

Ascended Whatteh Whatteh?

In The Disappearance of the Universe, Gary Renard describes how his teachers, Arten and Pursah appeared in his life, when one day, when he woke up from deep meditation in his living room in Maine, they were just sitting there on his couch and started a conversation.

They describe themselves as Ascended Masters, who just materialized on his couch at that point, purely to be helpful to him. They also explained that in prior lives they had been the apostles Thaddeus and Thomas respectively, but that they appeared with altered names but in the form they would have in Gary's next life. But wait a minute, it gets worse than that, for by the end of the book, they also explain that Gary will know Arten in this life, though in this life she will be a woman, but he does not know her yet at the time when they tell him this. Furthermore Pursah explains that Gary will be her in his next life, at the end of which she will marry Arten, who again is a man in that life, which is supposed to be Gary's last. Along the same lines they also explain that Gary himself thus was the apostle Thomas earlier.

There is a point to all this. This whole Gordian knot of intertwined lives and personalities, who are having their meetings in Gary's living room, taken together demonstrate the holographic nature of our time-space experience, which boils down to this: we do not incarnate in bodies, but rather "bodies"/"lives" are just like movies, projections in the mind, and the universe of time and space is just a virtual multiplex cinema, where you can potentially wander in and out of lives at will. It takes a while to digest all this, but once you do, it is a whole lot more sensible as an explanation for a wide range of phenomena, out-of-body experiences, re-incarnation included. So it is as Einstein surmised, all of time is simultaneous, and past and present are but a figment of our imagination.

In that context the concept of Ascended Masters also starts to make sense. In his book Gary adduces material from A Course in Miracles, which explains the concept, though the terminology is slightly different--here Ascended Masters are referred to as Teachers of Teachers, but the idea is clear: 

There are those who have reached God directly, retaining no trace of worldly limits and remembering their own Identity perfectly. These might be called the Teachers of teachers because, although they are no longer visible, their image can yet be called upon. And they will appear when and where it is helpful for them to do so. To those to whom such appearances would be frightening, they give their ideas. No one can call on them in vain. Nor is there anyone of whom they are unaware. All needs are known to them, and all mistakes are recognized and overlooked by them. The time will come when this is understood. And meanwhile, they give all their gifts to the teachers of God who look to them for help, asking all things in their name and in no other. (ACIM:M-26.2)

These notions have turned up in many traditions, a.o. the Hindu/Buddhist/Theosophical notions of the Mahatmas, or the Rosicruscian notions of the Order of the Holy Cross, (Fama Fraternitatis), the Theosophical notions of the White Brotherhood, and the Chassidic notions of the unknown 36 Zaddikim who "hold up the world," and so on. Typically Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Quan Yin, etc. are thought included in this group. The notion is actually very simple and straigthforward, if this time space experience is a dream, or in modern psychological terms, a projection, then it is possible to wake up from the dream, courtesy of the process that is traditionally referred to as Enlightenment. It is as simple as realizing that the emperor has no clothes on, and not only is there not there there, but there is no here here either. There is only here and now. Or, as A Course in Miracles puts it, "It is a journey without distance to a goal that has never changed." (ACIM:T-8.VI.9:7) Fundamentally then, the logic is that we only experience this world because we believe in it, and as long as we believe in it, and that with the process of awakening, there comes a time when it serves no more purpose to be here. At that time however it becomes possible to be present in this dream merely to help others, and that presence can take many forms, it can be totally ethereal or it can take physical form as in the appearances of Arten and Pursah for Gary. In the Christian tradition of course the appearances of the resurrected Jesus to the apostles reflects the same notion.

If you recall the story of the doubting Thomas, who wanted to touch the risen Jesus, in order to believe in him, it is kind of funny that Gary (who, as Pursah explained to him was himself Thomas in a prior life), in his book describes how he wanted to touch Pursah, to make sure she was "real." In the literature this mistake is repeated by the famous encounter of Dr. Samuel Johnson, with Bishop Berkeley, in which Johnson wants to refute the Bishop's point of view that the material is appearance not reality. Johnson kicks a stone and his toe hurts, and he famously exclaims "Thus I refute thee." It is however an example of circular reasoning, for the body is part of that same physical reality, and it is designed to operate in that reality, and the example is merely a case of the physical vouching for the would-be reality of the physical, and therefore it is circular and tautological, and proves nothing. The secret lies in the mind that devises the experiment: what is it looking to prove? If it wants to prove that it's projected reality is in fact "real" then Dr. Samuel Johnson was the perfect manservant to provide that demonstration, but the mind that orchestrates the experiment is not itself part of that reality, it is merely something it perceives, by reason of its vested interest in the reality of that reality, since the mind itself projected it.

In the end, this is why the Course asks: "Do you prefer that you be right or happy?" (ACIM:T-29.VII.1:9) So, if the ego is right then its puppet, Dr. Samuel Johnson has a point, but if Jesus is right, that his Kingdom is NOT of this world, or as he teaches in Logion 42 "Be passersby" then this is all a joke, and it hurts more if you take it seriously. Comedy is really the best relief.

Who is Gary Renard Anyway?

Without a doubt, my book Closing the Circle, would not have been written without Gary Renard, and while I've done reviews of his books here, both The Disappearance of the Universe, and Your Immortal Reality, it may just be time for me to talk about the phenomenon Gary Renard. While we're at it, I might as well mention the fact that Gary does have a website, www.garyrenard.com and he is very proud of it; he thought of the name himself, as he will tell you at the drop of a hat.

Well, by now Gary is a bestselling author, whatever that means, and his books have been translated by now into some eighteen languages, which is impressive also. I myself am translating his work into Dutch, which is my native language. Gary was a low energy kid with scoliosis, which was recognized much too late, who liked to study the guitar. At one point in the seventies he took enough time off from drinking beer, to take Werner Erhart's EST training, which for him proved instrumental in getting his music career on track. He did achieve a modicum of success in the Boston area, being that he is from Massachussetts originally. After retiring from his musical career he moved with his then wife, Karen, to Maine, and attempted to survive by speculating on the stock market with too little capital, something which wasn't always as successful as he might have wished apparently. He had also practiced meditation for a long time, and felt that it was helpful to him.

One day in the early nineties he experienced a powerful spiritual awakening, which started when he came out of his morning meditation, and found two people sitting on his living room couch, who seemed to have materialized out of nowhere. A conversation ensued, in which they revealed themselves as ascended masters, named Arten and Pursah in the story. Gary's books really are his account of his meetings with Arten and Pursah. Disappearance (usually abbreviated as DU) covers about a decade, and Your Immortal Reality (YIR) covers September 2003 through December 2005, and a third book, covering his further meetings with his teachers since then, is now due to appear later this year. By the end of the first book, Arten and Pursah reveal to Gary that they have in previous lives been the apostles Thaddeus and Thomas respectively, and further that in fact Gary himself once was incarnated as Thomas, and that in effect Pursah as she appears to him is who he himself will be in his next life, while Arten is who he will marry in his next life, but will also know in this life, where Arten is a woman, who he hasn't met yet at the time of this conversation in DU. Before we get to this point however, Arten and Pursah introduce Gary in their second meeting to A Course in Miracles, a book which Gary had heard of, but did not know, and which they assure him is the teachings of Jesus in modern form, except they refer to him as J, because too many people have negative associations with the name Jesus.

In a way then, the rest of the meetings really revolve around Gary's own learning of A Course in Miracles, but Arten and Pursah also teach him that the meaning of the Course only comes from experiencing for ourselves how our lives change when we practice what it says, as Gary indeed does, on top of which they impart certain experiences to him which further demonstrate the principles of the Course. One important aspect of all this is in fact the holographic nature of our experiential reality of the universe of time and space, without which the very meetings with Arten and Pursah make no sense in the first place. In other words the books themselves, or rather the stories in them, are the demonstration of the very thing they describe, and thus also are they a demonstration of the metaphysics of A Course in Miracles. A central aspect thereof is the notion that "incarnation" is an upside down perception of the actual nature of the experience, which is that the characters in the dream reality which we think is our life, are actually projections of our mind through which we seem to experience our reality, and we all have the capability of remembering various other roles which we played, and in the book Arten and Pursah help Gary to an experience in which he briefly sees thousands of former and future lives of himself. This also demonstrates a second point, namely that within the holographic model of our experiential world, past and future are the same, and equally illusory, no different from choosing right or left when you walk out the front door, or, you choose one movie or another in a multiplex cinema. In short, again, the story of Gary's experiences is itself the demonstration of a very abstract teaching, which thus comes to life, and through empathy as readers with the main character, who is just a bumbling fool like most of us, who has no idea what to do with his life, we come to a whole new level of understanding of ourselves.

Meanwhile, in all simplicity, most people get attracted to reading The Disappearance of the Universe--the title is fascinating in and of itself-- because of the subtitle, which is: Straight talk about Illusions, Past Lives, Religion, Sex, Politics, and the Miracles of Forgiveness. I mean, what more do you want? Meanwhile the connection is made between the original teachings of Jesus in the Thomas Gospel and A Course in Miracles. In the first book 22 Logia of the Thomas gospel are discussed, the ones Pursah suggests are most easily accessible to a modern reader, and in the second book Pursah presents a "kernel" of 70 sayings which she feels are authentic and original teachings of Jesus, and the point is made throughout that there is a consistency of meaning between those teachings and A Course in Miracles. This last idea is the central notion that led me to choose the title for my own book, for through that bridge between the Jesus of the Thomas gospel and the Course, the circle is closed between 2000 years ago and today.

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.

Navigating by Past Life Recall

As I have argued in the prior post, "reincarnation" may be a useful way of looking at certain aspects of our experience, even if in the abstract it may not be any more "true" than the more common Western linear view of time, which really implies Newtonian physics, and is long since obsolete for that reason alone. The notion of the holographic universe is certainly not easy to grasp. Meanwhile however, the kneejerk rejection of past life recall and reincarnation that is so common in certain quarters is also obviously meaningless. I've gotten some of that in commentaries to prior posts about Pursah's Gospel of Thomas, because it is based on her memory of her lifetime as Thomas.

To take an extreme example, General George S. Patton chose his strategy in France, guided rather strongly by past life recall of a lifetime in which he was a Roman soldier and marched with Caesar, and his intuition was to avoid all man made bridges which were built after that time, guessing correctly that the Germans would or at least were likely to, destroy them. So he planned his route based on the natural terrain, and where it would be easy to cross rivers and other obstacles. In his case, his past life recall was so vivid that in his own words, he could still smell the piss and sweat of the Roman soldiers he had been with in that terrain, and frequently he could recall features of the terrain. He experienced the same with the battle field of Gettysburg in the US, and many other historical battlefields. Nobody doubts his success. For anybody interested the full details I recommend Carlo d'Este's biography. I have also previously blogged about Patton elsewhere, particularly on his experience on the battlefield of St. Mihiel in World War I.

In short, as Shakespeare reminded us, there is more in this world than is dreamt of in our philosophy, and we are well advised to keep an open mind, and be duly sceptical about the would be obviousness of what our senses would seem to tell us. It is with this in mind that in my book I have addressed the provenance of Pursah's Gospel of Thomas as a putative kernel of the Thomas Gospel, which she feels is authentic based on her recall, but aside from that I have also validated het selection based purely on my own common sense. The combined result is what gave me the confidence to go forward. Here really lies the essence of the difference--quite in the spirit of William James' Varieties of Religious Experience-- beween formal religion and personal religion, or today we would probably simply say between religion and spirituality. Learning to have a healthy relationship with that inner guide, which we all do have, but which we have buried under rationalizations, is definitely part of waking up to who we truly are. It can also become a distraction, if we become too enamored of it, and give it more importance than it really has. The fact remains however that we all have this ability, and can generally learn to live with more ease as we learn to trust it more. This is quite independent of whatever conscious awareness we may or may not have regarding past life memories or déja vu.

In the Vernacular

The hallmark of Gary Renard's books is their informal nature, and the hallmark of the Thomas gospel is also its informal nature. The only thing is that in a way, because we are 2,000 years removed from the Palestine where the historical events took place, sometimes the imagery seems a bit alien, and it frankly takes some getting used to. This is one reason why Pursah focuses in The Disappearance of the Universe on the 22 sayings which she feels are the most readily accessible for a modern Western reader. Next, by publishing the collection of 70/71 in Your Immortal Reality, we have a highly readable version of the collection, that we can pretty much read without hiccups, and if we take in its overall effect we can distill an image of Jesus in normal day to day interaction with people, using anything and everything as an example of what it is he's trying to tell them.

The longer I spend time with the Thomas material, the more Pursah's gospel of Thomas, as a "kernel" makes sense, because it allows a streamlined reading experience, it comes across as casual and informal, once you're used to it, and it certainly shakes you up, for Jesus keeps coming out with things that make you think twice, and that's exactly the purpose of course. Very much as Pursah says, this is not a complete presentation of the thought system of the Holy Spirit, but once you have your bearings about that even a little bit, it hangs together very well, and is certainly part of a consistent fabric.

In terms of being "in the vernacular," Pursah's recommendation to Gary makes sense, namely to avoid the name Jesus, because it has so many problematic connotations for so many people, so hence the "J" which Gary uses throughout his books. The idea is: My name is Yeshua, but you can call me "J." Doing so removes another barrier between us and him, and makes it easier to relate to him as he presents himself in the Course, as an older brother, who just happens to know the way home, which we have lost. Therefore it just makes sens to ask him for help, instead of trying to play Baron von Münchhausen, and try to pull ourselves out of the mud by our own hair. The following paragraph from the Course is always a good reminder, and it falls completely in line with the casual nature of the Thomas gospel, albeit that the Course's language is a bit more formal, but it does not leave a lot of wiggle room, for the Course is what the Thomas gospel isn't--a full exposition of the thought system:

Awe should be reserved for revelation, to which it is perfectly and correctly applicable. It is not appropriate for miracles because a state of awe is worshipful, implying that one of a lesser order stands before his Creator. You are a perfect creation, and should experience awe only in the Presence of the Creator of perfection. The miracle is therefore a sign of love among equals. Equals should not be in awe of one another because awe implies inequality. It is therefore an inappropriate reaction to me. An elder brother is entitled to respect for his greater experience, and obedience for his greater wisdom. He is also entitled to love because he is a brother, and to devotion if he is devoted. It is only my devotion that entitles me to yours. There is nothing about me that you cannot attain. I have nothing that does not come from God. The difference between us now is that I have nothing else. This leaves me in a state which is only potential in you. (ACIM:T-1.2.3)

The Words of the Master

In Gary's books there is reference to the other sayings tradition, which has been known since 1832, and which goes under the name of Q, for the German word for "source," which is Quelle. Gary's teachers refer to that collection of sayings as The Words of the Master, and they suggest that it was indeed in circulation right alongside the Thomas Gospel. In this way we get the completely sensible impression that the first manifestation of the Jesus tradition was in effect that these two collections of sayings were circulating, well ahead of the storybooks which became the canonical gospels, so that the sayings collections as a literary form are indeed more primitive and more original. For the Thomas gospel we have an incomplete collection of Greek fragments which dates from ca. 140 CE and we have the Nag Hammadi edition of 114 sayings which dates ca 200 years later, but clearly lines up well with the Greek manuscript which we have in fragmentary form. It is again by internal evidence, of who quoted whom, that scholars have come to think that the Thomas Gospel must have existed as a book before the canonical gospels of the New Testament. We do not have a manuscript for The Words of the Master (Q), but courtesy of the book I'm discussing here, we do have an insight in the proces of how the scholars have conducted their pearl-diving expedition in the existing texta, to recover a convincing outline of what the text of Q might have looked like. Having the Thomas text for comparison undoubtedly has helped this process, for again it now simply becomes clear who was quoting whom and how.

These days, we can find the text of the Thomas gospel in a wide variety of translations, some of which I've already reviewed here. Marvin Meyers edition remains a favorite, if only because of the support from Pursah, but Stevan Davies runs a close second in my book, in particular also because of his scholarly work on how the sayings were lifted from their source and molded into the then emerging Christian context of the first narrative gospels, some 40-80 years after Jesus's death. Of course Pursah's edition remains my real favorite, because it leaves out a lot of ambiguity.

As to the text of Q as well as other extra-canonical gospels, these days you can't beat the edition from the Jesus Seminar, edited by Robert J. Miller, The Complete Gospels, which I have reviewed here earlier. You really don't need anything else. Fundamentally, the impression you get from Q, similar to Thomas, is again that the Jesus who speaks here is not a Christian because the typical elements are absent, such as the absence of discussion of his death, and the presumed meaning of it, as well as really all other key theological notions that made Christianity what it is. This is why some scholars refer to it as pre-Christian. In form however, it seems to be a bit more extensive than Thomas, because there are complete dialogues here. Overall, the logical sequence of events now is seen to be that by and large the Thomas and Q traditions existed side by side and flowed into Mark, and Luke and Matthew quoted both Mark and Q, as well as Thomas. Because of the overlap it can sometimes be hard to tell which comes from Q or from Thomas, except if there are elements in common between both Luke and Matthew which are not in Thomas, then by a process of elimination they must come from Q. Now an example:

Can one blind person guide another? Won't they both end up in some ditch? Students are not above their teachers. But those who are fully taught will be like their teachers.

Q:(Luke 6:39-40)

They are blind guides of blind people! If one blind person guides another, both will end up in some ditch. Students are not above their teachers, nor slaves above their masters. It is appropriate for students to be like their teachers adn slaves to be like their masters."

Q:(Matthew 15:14; 10:24-25)

These two quotes were from Miller, ed., The Complete Gospels, p. 259.

Now, here is how the Critical Edition merges these two by interpolation into a hypothetical Q source:

Can a blind person show the way to a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not superior to one's teacher. [ It is enough for the disciple that he become] like his teacher.

Q 6:39-40

For good measure, here is the parallel tradition from the Thomas gospel, Logion 34, in Pursah's rendering:

J said: If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole.

And there you can hear a Jesus before Christianity, once you lift it out of the context of later narratives. The Jesus who speaks here (implicitly he is the teacher), is the same one who in the Thomas gospel says (Pursah's rendering):

Whoever drinks from my mouth shall become like me. I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to that person.

PGoTh, Logion 108

Here we find none of the tendency of putting Jesus on a pedestal and making him different from us, which is so prominent in the Christian rendering of him. It is instructive to compare a closely related concept in A Course In Miracles:

Equals should not be in awe of one another because awe implies inequality. It is therefore an inappropriate reaction to me. An elder brother is entitled to respect for his greater experience, and obedience for his greater wisdom. He is also entitled to love because he is a brother, and to devotion if he is devoted. It is only my devotion that entitles me to yours. There is nothing about me that you cannot attain. I have nothing that does not come from God. The difference between us now is that I have nothing else. This leaves me in a state which is only potential in you.

ACIM: T-1.3:5-13

So there we have a Jesus who simply says that we can learn from him because he's ahead of us, but there's nothing we cannot learn, as we have the full potential of realizing what he has realized already. This thought seems remarkably consistent with both the Q and Thomas quotes above, and the later Christian theology which puts Jesus more and more on a pedestal, and makes him as a person into God's only begotten son, and thus separate from us, who remain as adoptive children (according to Paul), reflects a different and later theological view, which developed among Peter, Paul, c.s., and was clearly not an original teaching of Jesus.

It remains a curious fact that Thomas Jefferson composed his "Bible," The Life and Morals of Jezus of Nazareth, in ca. 1819-1820, in other words, just before the Q hypothesis was firmly developed. Some have observed that there is a strong correspondence with the Thomas material, but we might note here that Jefferson's method was comparable to how scholars have arrived at Q, namely simply comparing texts side by side. Jefferson's efforts don't quite have the same scholarly character as the modern research into Q, but overall the broad direction of his inquiry, and his conclusions are the same, namely the original Jesus taught something very different from the Christian version of him, and it is worth returning to. Because of Jefferson's own bias, as a self-styled "materialist," he may at times have left out too much, but nevertheless, his effort is testimony to what was in the air, and now it has been validated at least in outline by modern scholarship. So, if nothing else, Jefferson was remarkably perceptive. And like Jesus, he was not a Christian.

The Critical Edition of Q,  which I'm dabbling in from time to time, is really a modern, scholarly version of a process for which Jefferson laid out the model. This edition is overkill for most students, because it gives the parallel passages in Greek, with English, French, and German translations, but if you care to follow how the scholars arrived at Q precisely, this is your book. And in-line with the work of Stevan Davies, it allows us to see many times how a lot of material about Jesus only becomes Christian because of the context in which we first learned of it, namely the narrative gospels of the New Testament, which uniformly have some amount of editorial influence from the emerging belief system of primitive Christianity interwoven in the narrative. In many cases reading the statements without the surrounding editorials, can be quite startling at first, when we come from a Christian culture, and we can only marvel again that Thomas Jefferson sat there in his office culling his book together with scissors and glue, with little else to guide him but his own intuition. In short, what Jefferson felt in his stocking feet, is now pretty much established by historical scholarship, and serendipetously reconfirmed in the work of Gary Renard, through the comments of Arten and Pursah, in their recollections of their prior incarnations as Thaddeus and Thomas respectively.

Thought Experiment with Thomas

While on the one hand the Thomas gospel is simply an odd collection of sayings of Jesus, and hardly a complete presentation of his teachings, it is important to realize that it is truly the most complete document we have before Jesus was posthumously remolded into a Christian by the diligent efforts of Paul, Peter and the gang. It just turns out that our whole understanding of the situation is so molded by the mythologizing of Christianity that has indoctrinated us all with its version of the facts. In Gary Renard's books his teachers, Arten & Pursah, also point out that the Thomas gospel was not a very complete document, mainly, as Pursah explains, because in her incarnation as Thomas she was ultimately decapitated, and never had the opportunity to add certain thing she might have wanted to add, leaving the book somewhat unfinished.

However because the Thomas sayings predate the canonical gospels, and most particularly Paul whose theological veneer has been applied to all of the New Testament, there is reason to try and focus on the Thomas sayings in isolation, and if you're comfortable with the selection of 70/71 sayings which Pursah presents, as I am, then I would suggest you stick to that, because this selection eliminates numerous ambiguities which otherwise spoil the soup. You have now just eliminated all of the theology of Christianity, and so as a pure thought experiment it is now worthwhile to try to understand what Jesus is saying within just the context of those 70 sayings, for in doing so, you will come as close as you could to hearing him without any addition of extraneous stuff that came later.

As a young man I thought I would get to this point by learning Aramaic, Coptic, etc., until I suddenly knew intuitively that if Jesus was indeed who I deep down knew he was, then also he could bloody well speak to me in my own language, and I should not have to learn some abstruse language to be able to understand him better. The way I look at it today, that was truly the Voice of the Holy Spirit, or Jesus if you will, speaking to me--it was an inspired thought. Since then--having once and for all seen the fallacy--I gave up my efforts at that kind of scholarship, although I'm still happy that I can at least read my New Testament in Greek.

What I would like to suggest here then, as an ongoing thought experiment, is to read the Thomas sayings purely in the context of that collection itself, and stopping yourself as much as possible from pulling in the later Christian theology, and try to add essentially nothing to them. Just let them speak for themselves. By the end of this exercise it will be thoroughly clear to you that Jesus was not a Christian, because very simply Christianity had not been invented yet. So he never had a chance to go to catechism class either, for those had not been invented yet either. This, in my view, is the sort of hidden invitation which the Thomas gospel extends to you, its reader. Try it, you might like it!

Seventy (One) or One Hundred Fourteen?

That's the difference between the Pursah version, and the Nag Hammadi text. Or to be precise, it's really 71 vs 114, since 6 & 14 are contracted into one saying in the Pursah version, and so her selection of 70 corresponds to 71 one sayings in the Nag Hammadi text. Thus, counting purely the number of sayings in the Pursah version, it covers just 62% of the material. She also adds substantial material to Logion 13 (on page 81 in DU), so that it seems fairly justifiable to condider her version to equate to a good two thirds of the Nag Hammadi version. Understandably however, questions do come up from people about the justification for Pursah's selection.

We have only the statements of Pursah to fall back on, which really boil down to the fact that she claims there was too much corruption in the other sayings. Historically that is a credible suggestion, except that the extant materials make it very hard to figure out what such a kernel might have been, though it would seem that the most "accepted" belief currently is that indeed the Thomas Gospel would have existed in some recognizable form within 20 years after the crucifixion, and many would assume that this was not necessarily the full collection as we know it now from the Nag Hammadi text. And so it remains that we have really only Pursah's testimony as her past-life recollection that authenticates her particular selection. The reader either accepts that or not, that is a personal decision, but some of Pursah's edits and comments seem highly credible. In particular the contraction of 6 & 14 has that "Why didn't I think of that? " feel to it.

Along with that, it seems to me Pursah is not rejecting every word in the other sayings, which she excludes from her collection, but on the whole she indicates, as reported in YIR on page 160, that "the other 44" were later additions. Again that does not state that pieces of them might not contain authentic words etc., her point seems to be only that the 70 as provided by her are totally solid, and the other 44 just were not part of the original collection, the "kernel," and are thus under suspicion of having too much corruption in them. In a more general sense she has indicated in DU, that once you truly understand Jesus's thought system it is relatively straightforward to figure out which ones are authentic and which ones are not. Some people may wish to try their hand at sorting out the chaff from the wheat for the other 44, but that is likely to end up with endless bickering, that is not of interest for the student who is simply interested in understanding Jesus better.

It is these practical considerations which also led me to stick with just the Pursah collection for my book, and not to overly emphasize the NH version, there are already too many books on that one, and they seem to keep coming. This collection in the Pursah version grows on you the more you work with it, exactly because of its coherent nature.

The Thomas Effect

It has been clear to me that one of the roles my book may play is simply to help people familiarize themselves more with the Thomas sayings, and even during the preparation of the book for its release this summer/fall, it is now becoming clear to me that this is already happening. In spite of the many editions on the market it is not as yet well known.
Somehow the imagery of the Thomas gospel does not come natural to today's readers for a variety of reasons. Many of us are not familiar with the popular culture of Palestine 2,000 years ago, and today we don't see people store flour in earthenware jars, let alone run down the street with them, as is the case in one of the Logia. So it takes us a bit of time to familiarize ourselves with these images. Undoubtedly this is also why Pursah is quite specific that the 22 sayings that are quoted in DU, are in effect a selection that is easy on the ear of the modern audience.

Having said that, I'm noticing now that repeat exposure is in and of itself opening peoples ears for these sayings, and I have gotten some interesting reactions from my proofreaders for the book. One of them feels the urge to send me quotes from the book, and the other waxes lyrical, and is hearing symphonies, but both of them seem to feel like the Thomas sayings are opening up to them purely by virtue of the repeat exposure. This is a very interesting development and it really makes me feel hopeful that Closing the Circle could help people close the circle of understanding the continuity and oneness of Jesus across time and space.

In short, for many people this version may become the first version of the Thomas Gospel they knew, which is not a bad thing, for the inner contradictions within the collection with the sayings Pursah has left out is much harder to appreciate, exactly because of that lack of agreement. In the process of preparing the book I've found myself losing mostly all interest in those sayings which Pursah leaves out.

Tradition and Textual Criticism

And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it. But without parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples. (Mk 3:33-34)

One of the interesting aspects of the emergence of Pursah's Gospel of Thomas is that it makes us think again of the whole business of textual tradition and textual corruption. One of the fundamental issues with the world's misunderstanding of the teachings of Jesus lies in the problem of reporting. To begin with there is the issue of contemporaneous reporting: there is none.

However, by studying the problems of textual transmission even a little bit, we can definitely begin to intuit a lot about the problems of transmission, particularly if we take into account that before the written stage, there was a period of purely oral transmission. The way Pursah pares back the Thomas Gospel to its bare essence in her version of it is fairly instructive. The contraction of sayings 6 & 14 into one makes immediate intuitive sense if you read them in the Nag Hammadi version and then compare it to the form in Pursah's Gospel of Thomas. Realistically however, we need to understand that there is no authority to say that Pursah's version is authentic as she claims, other than your own inner guidance that could make you feel comfortable with her text. In this regard there is no external authority to validate the apparent facts. Having said that, many of her edits do seem to make immediate intuitive sense.

Another contribution of the Pursah version which makes intuitive sense, lies in the fact that she systematically strips out the "Jesus said" and therefore radically alters the nature of the presentation from story-telling mode, into one of direct address. The text speaks directly to the reader, and therefore through the text Jesus speaks directly to us, in a manner not dissimilar from A Course In Miracles. A lot of Pursah's changes up to that point could be viewed on the basis of the commonly understood issues of oral tradition, similar to the telephone game, where people whisper a story in each others ear, and the last person tells it out loud to the group, at which point the originator shows the original written story which the first person read, and the transition tells you a lot about the changes along the way. Simple experiments like that may cure us of any notion of the reliability of oral tradition. Scriptural corruptions per se are easier to deal with because once you have multiple texts, you can compare, and you can decide which ones are older, which ones have a shorter path of transmission etc., and the more you can reconstruct this, the more you can feel comfortable that it is reasonable to attempt to filter out an original text, an authoritative text, which you can pretty much vouch for at that point. However, there is another dimension, which Pursah implicitly appeals to in her comments.

This other dimension is understanding. Pursah's presentation in DU sets us up to explore that dimension with her comments in that book: that it should be intuitively obvious which of the 114 sayings should be original sayings of Jesus, and which contain evident contradictions. In Your Immortal Reality she subsequently indulges us by actually giving us her version, and she is pretty emphatic that this is how it originally sounded, except that it would have been in Aramaic. In the process, however, she has invited us to get in touch with our own understanding of and intuition about the material. This appeal is a crucially important part of the process, and should also make us do a double take about the issues surrounding oral tradition discussed above.

The very important difference is about "understanding," as alluded to in the quote from Mark with which I opened this comment. The point is that individually Jesus explained everything to his apostles. And so also did the teaching style of the apostles doubtlessly develop with their growing understanding. And they in turn taught from their own understanding, in a manner similar to Jesus, in which they might have reused images, stories and words they heard Jesus say, or they might simply make up their own story, based on the situation they were in, or their own life experience, but focused on transmitting to their interlocutor or their audience, the spirit or meaning, the content of Jesus's teaching. And thus the essential point is that the teaching was about expressing the truth Jesus taught, in a way that the audience could hear. Once we begin to fathom this dimension, it should be readily obvious to us that the whole point is about transmitting meaning, so that many corruptions in form, may not be corruptions at all if they adequately convey the meaning.

To students of the Course this should be obvious, for the miracle is really the instrument of teaching, and we realize that as we learn to choose the miracle, Jesus really is taking us by the hand, and making us understand in the circumstances of our life what his teaching of love means to us, right here, right now, in our own life. The miracle in that sense is the definition of the teaching moment in which Jesus explains "everything" to us when we are alone with him, i.e. when we drop the interpretations of the ego, and listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit instead. Through those experiences we come to understand in the context of our own specific experiences the meaning of what Jesus teaches, then, now, and always. Therefore, the validation of Pursah's proposed "Kernel" of the Thomas Gospel lies only in that inner experience of consistency which altogether speaks for itself. And so, again, the role Pursah plays serves to underscore one of the principal tenets of the Course namely that its purpose is not to become the basis for a new cult or religion, but rather to help some people find their Internal Teacher (ACIM:Preface). Pursah in effect refers us to our Internal Teacher first to validate the soundness of the kernel of the Thomas Gospel which she proposes. Besides inviting us to validate her preferred text in this fashion, she also emphasizes that in understanding it, we should not seek external authority, but learn to become our own ministers and teachers, by letting the Thomas sayings speak to us, and developing our own understanding, as we let the spirit work through us.

Spoken Miracles

Visitors to the Yahoo! group on The Disappearance of the Universe will recognize the name of Martha Lucía Espinosa immediately, and know that there was a discussion on the forum about her plans for this upcoming book, which is based on a hint that was contained in DU, namely that the 365 Course quotes contained in that book provide a complete summary of the Course's teachings, which one could use for daily meditations etc. Because of her editorial choice to present these "quotes" as a "sayings collection," I felt a discussion of the book was in order here. Those of us who have really worked with Gary's books are in no doubt that they are inspired material, for they speak to us on so many levels all at once, and they clearly represent yet another dimension to facilitate our learning of the Course, by re-casting it in the framework of Gary's conversations with his friends, the ascended masters Arten and Pursah. Gary's experiences with Arten and Pursah, and with learning the Course, on one level are nothing but a dramatization of our own learning opportunities with the Course, inviting us to empathize, and identify with Gary as Course student par excellence, as he goes through his own slapstick routines of Course learning. Clearly, in preparing this little book Lucía has discovered yet another dimension in which this material operates, which she reflects in her choice of title. Not only was the Course spoken to Helen Schucman, the 365 quotes from the Course were again spoken through Gary's books during his conversations with Arten & Pursah. And Lucía heard the spoken quality in those quotes, in particular also because of the context of the Thomas Gospel  which permeates Gary's work, in as much as his own discovery of having been Thomas in a prior life, as well as Pursah representing the recollection of that lifetime, which is obviously central to the book. Throughout Gary's books the focus is on what "J" really did say, 2000 years ago as recorded by Thomas, and today in the form of ACIM, and to clear away the clutter of subsequent interpretation and distortion, and to get back to what the words were meant to say as they were spoken by the speaker. The Thomas Gospel is fast becoming the symbol of hearing the authentic teaching of Jesus, before the distortions of it began to accumulate in the narrative Gospel tradition which came later, and which was never again to get out from under the heavy editorial influence of Paul, whose first letters are contemporaneous with the Gospel according to Mark, which in and of itself has perhaps the least amount of Pauline influence, but nevertheless already shows some of the influences that were to distort the teachings of the living Jesus into the dead body of Christian dogma (eucharist etc.). Pursah's kernel of the 70 authentic sayings in the Thomas Gospel help us find the "historical" Jesus in pure form, free of the materials that were added on later. In Spoken Miracles, Lucía hears a kernel of the Course, almost as a sayings tradition, which can speak to us in a very direct way as a refresher of the Course - though it could also be an introduction to the Course. The book represents Pursah's Cliff-notes for A Course In Miracles, and as such it is a wonderful way to straighten us out, if we get wrapped around the axle with the ego's complications again. Lucía's own introduction is fascinating, and may serve to make the material accessible to many seekers. No doubt few might have wandered as widely and at such a young age as Lucía has, starting with studying a form of Gnosticism at age 13, but as she meandered through various spiritual and religious traditions, she touches seemingly on anything that is around in the contemporary landscape, including a brush with the dogmatic certainty of fundamentalist judgment and the Leave Behind series, to which Gary also offers some choice comments in the course of his books. The Course itself emphasizes in the first entry of the Manual for Teachers, that God's Teachers come from anywhere and everywhere, from any religion or no religion, and in that spirit Lucía's wide ranging explorations will offer many readers the opportunity to recognize themselves in her, and thus to hear again the still small voice inside, which leads us to truth in the end. Reading the book is a mind-blowing experience, for even if we already realized the rich crystalline structure of the Course, until Gary came along, most of us would have thought a popular introduction to the Course was an impossibility, and a meaningful summarization equally an impossible task, except that it turns out that DU, like a Russian doll, contained this supposedly impossible summarization. It just took Lucía's faithful scribal work to free it up from its rough shape and to polish the diamond. This resulting little gem of a book truly astound us with the brilliance of the Course on yet another level, as impossible as that seems. I've studied the Course for too long to venture a guess how this book would strike someone who came to it without a knowledge from the Course, it seems to me that very much like the sayings of Thomas it would evoke a hunger to know and understand more of the thought system that was being implied more than explained in them, in which case it could lead people to the Course. As a refresher for long standing Course students, it is definitely... well... if I may say so: refreshing! It could be used as the thoughts for the day for a year long refresher program, or also simply read, or you could dabble in it. Last, not least, this book is also a great buy at $9.95, and in a way it provides a more portable Course than the portable Course - the small format edition of the Course from the original publishers, which is still more luggable than portable. So for a weekend trip take this one along if you are traveling light!  And I supect that just like The Disappearance of the Universe itself serves as an introduction to the Course for many people, this little book too may become a first invitation to the Course for a great many people - kind of a no risk trial.

---

Marvin Meyer's Gospel of Thomas

Marvin Meyer's translation is without any doubt the leading translation of the Thomas Gospel and is available in numerous editions, both by itself and as part of larger collections. Before there was Pursah's kernel of the Thomas Gospel, as published in Gary Renard's Your Immortal Reality, Pursah at one point recommended  the Marvin Meyer edition to Gary as the best translation at that time. At the time Gary shared this information on the Yahoo-list for Disappearance of the Universe. I favor the separate edition, which has the Coptic text, Marvin Meyer's introduction and notes.

Meyer's introduction is succinct and to the point, and wonderfully insightful. I may not always agree with it in detail, but it is helpful, and his point of view is reasonable. He comes to the conclusion that evidently pieces of the Thomas Gospel go back to the early times, and that as a literary form the sayings gospels predate the narrative gospels. He feels however that the book as a whole probably congealed closer to the date of the Oxyrrhynchus Papyri, which he puts at 200 AD, but that is a detail since he clearly allows for an early origin, which is critical as I've pointed out elsewhere on this blog.

He cites some specific examples that make it insightful to the reader why, besides the general form of the sayings gospel being part of the early tradition along with Q, certain specific logia very evidently present an early form which was later embellished in the narrative gospels, thereby giving us strong clues about the historical relationship between the two. The example he gives is the parable of the sower in saying 9, which reappears in the synoptic gospels in an embellished form, making it seem very logical that Thomas has the "original" form. On the whole however he does allow for some disagreement among scholars, in terms of the relationship, which evidently do exist, and by the way are easier to accommodate with Meyer's position that some sayings are from the early days but the book as a whole from the second century. This particular aspect of his position might actually harmonize well with what Pursah does say in Your Immortal Reality, namely that the kernel of seventy sayings which she gives was together early on, and that the rest were embellishments which simply accrued over time, which would explain why by the date of the Oxyrrhynchus papyri, we might have an expanded Gospel of Thomas, of now 114 sayings, and a lot of internal contradiction.

Next he explores the position of the Jesus seminar which also is that the Thomas sayings have a high likelihood of going back to the original Jesus of history, noting along the way that this means the recently fashionable view of the apocalyptic figure of Jesus as portrayed by Albert Schweitzer, can no longer be supported based on the Thomas information. Jesus now appears more as a wisdom teacher, as a spiritual guide. One of the points of contrast with the traditional Christian view he cites is the obvious emphasis at the outset that by finding the meaning of these sayings we will be enlightened, and that is evidently a totally different Jesus speaking than anything Christianity has shown us. Another is in saying 113, the notion that the Kingdom is here now, except we don't see it. This comes close to the position of the Course, and the notion of our responsibility for sight, by choosing between ego and Holy Spirit. His notion of seeing Jesus more as a cynic philosopher, who is looking to awaken us from our mental rut is a very reasonable assessment of the new notion of Jesus. In all this introduction of 15 pages covers more worthwhile material than some entire books.

The text and translation are wonderful, meticulous, but nowhere forced. He chooses not to try and capitalize terms like Kingdom and Heaven, which is reasonable, though it would not be my preference. The argument for it is to remove it from Christian stereotypes. For readers who come at this material from a Course perspective, that risk seems less likely, and we might like to see the familiar capitalization. Printing the translation on facing pages next to the Coptic text is a pleasant arrangement, and simply beautiful, even if you can't read Coptic. The notes at the end are wonderful, and like the style of the introduction, succinct and to the point, which does not mean I always agree. In the notes to the prologue, Meyer argues that the "Living Jesus" probably does not refer to the resurrected Jesus, when I feel that this definitely is exactly what it would mean, i.e. that the resurrection which is an experience of the mind, predated the crucifixion and that for the time of his ministry on earth Jesus was an Awake from the dream, which is why he could teach the way he did. This is one of the arguments which raged in the early centuries between the "heretics" (gnostics and other dubious folk), and the emerging orthodoxy, which finally settled on the resurrection of the body, which takes place only after the crucifixion. With the Course we might look at that differently, simply realizing that advanced teachers could appear at will, and that the Christian focus on the body misses the point.

The book concludes with an essay from Harold Bloom, who has a particularly gnostic take on the Thomas Gospel. He certainly hits many interesting points, though for my money of course the Course perspective as given by Pursah carries the day, and we would hardly see Jesus as a Gnostic teacher, though we might notice with interest that many core notions of his teachings were developed in interesting ways by later Gnostics, such as Valentinus. Meyer on his end definitely tempers the currently fashionable trend of declaring the Thomas Gospel a gnostic book, and he alludes to all the uncertainties and confusion attached to the term. In all this book is, next to the edition of The Five Gospels by the Jesus Seminar, undoubtedly my favorite Thomas edition, though there are many other worthwhile editions around.

Thomas one of Five? Ask the Jesus Seminar.

 This has to be one of my favorite editions of the Gospels currently on the market in English. This book is thorough and complete, and it really empowers you to study, ask your own questions, and it is not beholden to church positions which force other authors to assume later dating of Thomas, ultimately so as not to upset the applecart of Christian orthodoxy.

The book starts with a thorough exposé on the historical position of the Thomas Gospel as a precursor to the narrative gospels (synoptics), relying on the common sense insight that the sayings gospels were a type that preceded the more elaborate and interpretative narratives of later authors, all of which seem to date two or more generations after Jesus. The Q and Thomas traditions which just collected sayings seem to go back to the first generation, immediately following Jesus' death, roughly the years 35-55 AD. They lay out the time line very carefully, showing both Q and Thomas as originally oral traditions that flowed gradually into the written traditions and provided raw material for the later writers.

The translation is fresh and new and thought-provoking. They provide a reasoned accounting for their assessment of the authenticity of the Thomas sayings, which makes a fascinating read if you're in to that. By providing thorough cross-referencing they offer plenty of food for thought and opportunity to make your own assessments of the likely flow of ideas. One inspiring notion is their translation of 'Kingdom' as 'Heaven's Imperial Rule.' To my personal taste that seems a case of 'close but no cigar' because of the awkwardness of the 'imperial' moniker, given how Jesus uses Caesar as a symbol of the ego, and the ruler of the world. However in Pursah's version she chooses in some places the expression 'God's Heavenly Rule,' and that seems to be a next step along the same line of thinking, which does make sense, and so clearly Pursah is concerned to convey a more practical sense of the meaning of the somewhat forbidding term 'Kingdom,' though she uses it as well, as does the Course.

Besides the Marvin Meyer translation, this is probably the Thomas version I use the most. It is remarkably free of prejudice overall, because it does recognize that Thomas is from an early date. The one thing we might ask is, why do they make the editorial choice of putting the synoptics in chronological order (Mark first), rather than in the accepted (orthodox) theological order (Matthew first), but yet they still put Thomas last? Purely chronologically Thomas should come first. However this raises the next question, and that is why indeed stop at five? Just because Thomas is the most complete? This is still an indication that the book belongs to a Christian world view. I believe the independent world view at the present state of our knowledge would simply recognize that the canonical tradition has nothing to recommend it, other than that they won out, with a little help from their friend, the Emperor Constantine, solidifying the intellectual supremacy of a Christian orthodoxy which relied on Paul, Peter, bishops Irenaeus, and Athanasius, congealing first in the Nicene Creed at 325, and later Athanasius' list of the NT Canon in 367. So, in putting Thomas last, this edition still is deferential to the canon. I would argue so are some of its conclusions about the authenticity of Jesus' statements, except that by providing the full accounting they do, the reader can really draw his own conclusions.

In short, if we let go more and more of the limiting framework of later orthodoxy (post Nicea), we would simply read the literature from those years in a spirit that evidently nobody completely understood Jesus, some succeeded in making a world religion out of him, arriving at the opposite relationship to the Roman Empire of what Jesus had foreseen ('Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's.'). Others followed quite their own path in a variety of contemplative paths, gnostic philosophies and religions, mystery religions, faiths and practices, all of which highlight very different aspects of his teaching, and the sheer variety of which practically defies the imagination. Ever more we would find ourselves in a fix, having to decide that we are really on our own, and need to follow our intuition as to what Jesus really said. For me, the only real answer in the end comes not from the rubble of history, no matter how brilliant the treatment, but from the statement at in the preface of A Course in Miracles, saying that "Its only purpose is o provide a way in which some people will be able to find their own Internal Teacher," or in fact in the oft repeated injunctions from Jesus in the old literature: "Seek and ye shall find," as well as "Follow me, and I'll make you fishers of men." Without our own relationship with him, which is questioning and based on the acceptance that we have not understood, but we're willing to learn, so that we now come to him as a student, as a disciple, and no longer as a theologian who already knows, and really ends up telling Jesus what he means to say, which is what Christianity has mostly done.

Besides a general collection of the Nag Hammadi writings, this book is probably the single most helpful source for someone raised to some degree in  a supposedly Christian world, to begin to develop a broader view of what the historical impact of Jesus might have been, what his authentic meaning might have been, before he was bombarded into being a proto-Christian after the fact by the 'winning' clan of Bishops gathered at Nicea.

Stevan Davies Translates the Thomas Gospel

The Shambala Library edition of Stevan Davies' translation is absolutely beautiful in form and in content. It is somewhat unfortunate that the very passionate foreword by Andrew Harvey does not integrate well with the book. First of all we are not even introduced to Mr. Harvey, nor is there any clarification of his relationship to the translator, publisher or the Thomas material in general, other than that he apparently feels inspired by it and has an opinion. We find out mr about Mr. Harvey on-line, here: http://www.andrewharvey.net/biography.html In terms of content this foreword in my view strikes a bit of a discordant note with the rest of the book. While clearly Mr. Harvey feels very inspired by Thomas, and presents a few interesting observation, his overall point of view is highly personal, and if not seemingly at odds with Stevan Davies' views, at least not well integrated with them, nor is it clear in what tradition it stands besides Mr. Harvey's own idiosyncratic reading, based on Sri Aurobindo's work, the rationale of which is less than totally clear from this piece. In a more general sense these comments reinforce for me the feeling that the study of Thomas is pretty much lost at sea if the point of departure is found only in the fact that Jesus somehow teaches something different from Christianity, without any clarity about what the difference is all about, for the Thomas Gospel is not sufficiently comprehensive to support a complete picture. Needless to say I feel that without the vantage point that Pursah provides through the work of Gary Renard, this is pretty much a lost cause.

The part of the foreword by Prof. Davies however is eminently worthwhile and a very good synopsis about the position of the Thomas tradition, and serves to make a few very important points which are not always brought out by even the best texts on Thomas. First, Prof. Davies broadly embraces the timing as represented in the first post on this blog, which provides a foundation for a roughly similar look at the material. However, he makes a number of very insightful comments, which to me were worth the price of admission. These include a very well reasoned view of why and how the emerging main stream orthodoxy starting from Paul and Mark represents a radically different view from the Thomas tradition by placing Salvation in the future. And based on these observations he proceeds to hint strongly that what we know as Christianity may not at all represent Jesus' teachings.

Further, he does take up the issue of the Thomas timeline, and in fact pretty much disembowels the church-favored notion that Thomas must be late and Gnostic, as merely a convenient way to get rid of him. He provides crystal clear logic why Thomas is not automatically a "gnostic" book, because it was found (at Nag Hammadi) with other Gnostic books, as it evidently lacks the cosmogenetic speculations that make the gnostic tradition in the narrow sense so recognizable. Meanwhile of course in the wider sense Thomas does have a focus on the direct knowledge of God, which on the most abstract level is the heart of the Gnostic tradition. In this spirit Davies closes the foreword by referring us to the obvious purpose of the Thomas gospel per se, which is to have our own relationship with the material (and with Jesus no doubt, though Davies does not express that clearly), and explore the meaning of it as a point of departure for our own spiritual growth, making the point that the very idea of learning the "meaning" of this gospel from someone else would defeat that very purpose.

Davies then proceeds with an introduction, which is very helpful, and continues to make very salient observations. He lays out carefully why Thomas appears more "original" than the synoptics, thus reinforcing the very common-sensical view that it must have been older and a source for that tradition, as well as leading an independent life of its own with a tradition that developed in Syria and India. He makes the very astute observation that since it incorporates in saying 12 a recommendation to let James lead the community after Jesus' death, that the book therefore logically should predate the death of James in 62 AD, which seems highly likely also from the point of view of the absence of any Pauline influences in Thomas. His repeated emphasis on the statements that the Kingdom is already here, and "seek and ye shall find," are grist for the mill of Course students, since the Course teaches that "the world was over long ago," and that the  "tiny mad idea" never happened in reality, and that the only thing needed is that the student should "accept the Atonement for himself," referring to the experiential realization that the tiny mad idea indeed did not happen, and had no effect except illusory ones.

Finally, in a little section called "Cast of Characters" he makes the very important observation that the Apostles in Thomas appear as examples of people who misunderstand Jesus' teachings. He does not elaborate on this further, but I would like to add that this is a crucial point. If one has this vantage point, the entire reading of the canonical Gospels changes, for one then abandons the assumed homogeneity of the "Christian" tradition, and reads the books as the attempts of people struggling to understand this teacher Jesus to whom they felt attracted, but who they did NOT understand. We literally don't understand where Jesus is coming from because he is present to us from outside of the time/space framework, and beckons us to come and follow him there, out of the "cave" in which we are chained to the time/space framework - almost literally, the dimensions of time/space are the "walls" of that symbolic cave.
At the moment we shift to that position of uncertainty about our understanding of him, we are back to seeing the whole tradition, canonical and apocryphal alike, as potentially at least equally relevant and as an invitation to come to our own conclusions, and seek our own relationship with the teaching. From that vantage point we have by implication abandoned the arrogance of the orthodox tradition which already knows what Jesus teaches, to one of seeking, in which there is room for Jesus to teach us what it is he has to say. And Jesus explicitly guarantees: "Seek and ye shall find," as Davies frequently reminds us.

The translation itself is unproblematic and clean, and it might be one of my favorite translations. The commentaries are definitely inspired and inspiring, with the proviso of course that there are inner contradictions in the material which only Pursah's Kernel resolves, resulting in a much cleaner reading. In all this is a lovely book, a beautiful edition and certainly a worthwhile introduction to the Gospel of Thomas materials.

Closing the Circle & The GoTh Timeline

Closing the Circle is (going to be) a book about the continuity of the teachings of Jesus, which in turn belies the discontinuity of our world of time and space, which is obfuscated by our seeming experiences of the 'passing of time,' not to mention the illusion of 'development.' The illusory nature of such concepts of reality is exposed head on in the teachings of J, by affirming in so many ways that truth merely is, and does not have to become, and both the Gospel of Thomas (GoTh) and A Course in Miracles(ACIM) are expressions of that truth, which are quite consistent with one another, as is highligted in particular by Pursah's kernel of the Thomas Gospel, as published in Gary Renard's Your Immortal Reality. One of such dubious developments was the repression of the teachings of Jesus, and the blatant replacement of them in the world by Paul's teachings about Jesus, which in order to obliterate all traces of the crime were for good measure named "Christianity," and which in effect were nothing more than the ego's coopting Jesus by producing a g-rated version of him in all respects, and thus to firmly pull him into the world and assign him a role which suited us, and which accordingly could become "popular" as in "popular religion," and "popular culture." One of the items I'd like to consider at the outset is the most probable timeline of GoTh as I see it, and discuss some of its implications. 1) J (30-33 AD) 2) => Q & GoTh (50-60 AD) 3) => Mk (55-65 AD) 4) => Lk & Mt (75 AD) 5) => Jn (90-120 AD) 6) Traditional "Christianity," as formed by the Council of Nicea in 321 AD. The above is a step-wise representation of the funnel of information that led to the formation of the classic notion of a monolithic Christianity, an illusion which even in the official version did not last much longer than to the time of the first split, between the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic church, about 300 years later. What we now understand is that the funnel overflowed a few times, and spilled material which did not fit the mold of what Christianity was becoming. Meanwhile the other traditions lived on without the dubious "benefit" of being the Roman state religion which was arrogantly named after Jesus (Christ), and which made Christ special rather than understanding that we are him, and he is who we truly are. The Thomas tradition lived on in India, and in the West it literally went underground for 1600 at Nag Hammadi, but ultimately was rediscovered there in 1945, and from the 50's till now has led to a gradual re-framing of our understanding of those early years of Christian history, and for many of us to a more intimate understanding of Jesus as he speaks to us directly, without many of the later distortions. At the modern end we thus have the rediscovery of the text in 1945, and the gradual emergence of translations, commentary and interpretations into the public awareness in the 60 years since then. In a way this went amazingly slowly, if one realizes that at least in the Anglo-Saxon world it was not until the simultaneous publication in 2003 of Gary Renard's The Disappearance of the Universe, Elaine Pagels' Beyond Belief, and Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, that active interest in the Thomas Gospel began to dawn on the awareness of main stream audiences. Considering the growing bookshelves of Thomas related literature, it is proving to be fertile territory indeed. I will humbly add my contributions, and through this blog I will discuss some detailed material more in depth which is part of the research for my book. Needless to say, from my perspective Gary Renard's The Disappearance of the Universe and its follow-on book Your Immortal Reality are by far the most interesting of the lot, culminating in Pursah's offering of a kernel of the Thomas Gospel which she represents to be authentic, thus bypassing some of the inevitable historical distortions which are undoubtedly present in the text we found at Nag Hammadi. Moreover the consolidation of Thomas interpretations around A Course In Miracles which Pursah's version implicitly solidifies, provides a clear anchor for the discussion of Thomas which has not existed heretofore and which accounts for the sometimes wildly speculative literature around Thomas. In short, I would argue that the appearance of the Pursah kernel in 2006 consolidates the content of Jesus' teachings in the Thomas tradition in a way which eliminates a lot of corruption of the tradition and gets us back to a coherent whole. If one is stuck however in a Newtonian concept of the world, it would not be possible to give Pursah's version this kind of authentic authority. To many students of the Course however this viewpoint may naturally feel comfortable and "right." I would conclude this introductory comment with the observation that, since Gary quoted my "recap" of revisionist early Christian history in his book, I clearly agree with everything Pursah represents about the history of Thomas' tradition in the overall context, and I gladly accept her endorsement of a position which common sense had already led me to believe was substantially the most reasonable view of the matter. We will come to consider the major different interpretations and dating of Thomas in future postings to this blog.