3 ms·

I actually suspect the 'Thomas' addition was an archetypical figure modeled around the theme of twinning present in the aforementioned proto-Gnostic first centu

by kromem 3y ago

I actually suspect the 'Thomas' addition was an archetypical figure modeled around the theme of twinning present in the aforementioned proto-Gnostic first century tradition, initially added to John (which was arguing against this group) and then later added to the Synoptics which might be why an apostle allegedly nicknamed 'twin' doesn't appear much in the events and only in lists of the 12 apostles which don't agree with each other. In the Gospel of Thomas (the text I'm discussing above), there's only two associations with 'Thomas' as a person, both which emphasize a secret character to the teachings, internally inconsistent with saying 33 and which I suspect are a second century addition. So I suspect there was initially the ideas around a first and second Adam, first physical and second spiritual, plus the over-realized eschatology around the transition having already happened, which are concepts found in the Epistles. If you want more, there's three key documents: First is the Gospel of Thomas, second is book 5 of Pseudo-Hippolytus's Refutations of all Heresies on the Naassenes (the only group explicitly recorded following the Gospel of Thomas), and Lucretius's Nature of Things which is the glue that helps contextualize ideas like Thomas's "the cosmos is a corpse" or the Naassenes interpreting seed parables as referring to indivisible parts of matter making up all things and being the originating cause of the universe. The scholarship is pretty shitty given the 50 years of erroneously thinking the text was Gnostic, followed by general disinterest by most scholars, and to date no scholarship yet considering Epicureanism as a foundation for the philosophy in it despite a 1st century Talmud saying about "why do we study the Torah? To know how to answer the Epicurean" or Josephus talking about the Sadducees (who shared Epicurean ideas) loving to debate with philosophers.

selimthegrim 3y ago
I mean, I think epikoros is a pretty well-known epithet
- kromem 3y ago
  It only later developed into the general term as opposed to initially specifically referring to Epicureans. See Labendz, "Know What to Answer the Epicurean": A Diachronic Study of the ʾApiqoros in Rabbinic Literature (2003) And I agree - you'd think that given how well known it is that scholarship would engage with considering Epicureanism as a context for a text discussing souls depending on bodies, describing spirit arising from flesh as a greater wonder compared to the other way around, described the cosmos as being like a body that died, and whose followers interpreted its seed parables as referring to indivisible points as of from nothing which made up all things and were scattered in the universe to cause all things to exist.

by kromem 3y ago

selimthegrim 3y ago

I mean, I think epikoros is a pretty well-known epithet

kromem 3y ago
It only later developed into the general term as opposed to initially specifically referring to Epicureans. See Labendz, "Know What to Answer the Epicurean": A Diachronic Study of the ʾApiqoros in Rabbinic Literature (2003) And I agree - you'd think that given how well known it is that scholarship would engage with considering Epicureanism as a context for a text discussing souls depending on bodies, describing spirit arising from flesh as a greater wonder compared to the other way around, described the cosmos as being like a body that died, and whose followers interpreted its seed parables as referring to indivisible points as of from nothing which made up all things and were scattered in the universe to cause all things to exist.