Absolute Thomasine Priority The Synoptic

Absolute Thomasine priority - the
Synoptic Problem solved in the most

unsatisfactory manner
Absolute Thomasine priority, part I
Martijn Linssen, MA
Copyright © 2019 Martijn Linssen. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior
written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in
critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law
Martijn Linssen 22-10-2019

Absolute Thomasine priority - the Synoptic Problem solved in the most 2019
Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2
The Synoptic Problem ......................................................................................................................2
Material shared between gospels ................................................................................................. 3
Major theories for priority ........................................................................................................... 6
The meaning and purpose of Thomas ............................................................................................ 8
The themes of Thomas ................................................................................................................ 9
The date and time of Thomas .................................................................................................... 12
The gospel of Mark and its side-effects ......................................................................................... 14
The Thomasine priority series.................................................................................................... 15
The impact of Thomas ................................................................................................................ 17
The Synoptic Solution?................................................................................................................... 18
From Adam until Zedekiah: the creation of John the Immerser .................................................. 19
Zedekiah the Immerser...............................................................................................................42
The end of the temple, Jerusalem, Judah and Israel - and all Jewish grandeur ....................47
Adam .......................................................................................................................................... 49
Jacob the Righteous ........................................................................................................................ 52
A writer's goal: why compose a gospel at all? ................................................................................58
Why religion? ..............................................................................................................................59
On Reality, Truth, and Dialogue ....................................................................................................65
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................... 73
Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 1

Introduction
Almost 75 years ago the gospel of Thomas (Thomas) was recovered among the manuscripts of
Nag Hammadi. The first photographic edition was published in 1956, and its first critical
analysis appeared in 1959. Tens of thousands of attempts have been made to interpret it,
among others placing it in a biblical context, a Gnostic context, even Buddhist and Zen
contexts.
One major question has been the issue of dependency between Thomas and the canonicals:
was one party dependent on the other, or did they (also?) draw from a third source? Many
theories have developed over the past two to three centuries, and although some of the dust
has now settled there is still as much agreement as disagreement, with neither "camp" having a
wholly convincing case.
The Synoptic Problem
Tons of books, articles and papers have been written about the Synoptic Problem, and I am not
going to repeat much if any of it, nor use that to build a large list of footnotes. I will merely
state the facts and agreements: that there is an indisputable dependency among the gospels of
Matthew, Mark and Luke, and that it is clear that there was another source (be that oral,
textual or both) to all of them, unequally divided among the three.
The majority of scholars accepts Markan Priority, meaning that Mark wrote the first gospel and
Matthew and Luke (in either order) are of a later date. Augustine (354-430) claimed that the
canonical order (Matthew, Mark, Luke) was the order in which the gospels were written, and it
wasn't until the 1700's that this order became contested. John is left out of the equation as his
gospel is so entirely different from the other three, and its composition is rather closer to
Thomas than to the others - in my view.
I will quote John S. Kloppenborg1 and wish I could leave it at that ([comment mine]):
Ever since the publication of William Farmer’s 'The Synoptic Problem' in 1964 solutions
to the synoptic problem other than the Two-Source or Two-Document hypothesis
(2DH) have won many advocates (and opponents). Of course prior to Farmer’s work
there were dissenters from the 2DH: one thinks of B. C. Butler, Austin Farrer, Léon
Vagany and others. But it is fair to say that in the wake of Paul Wernle and B. H.
1
Kloppenborg, Conceptual stakes in the Synoptic Problem, p 13

Streeter’s monographs and William Sanday’s edited volume on the Synoptic Problem,
these voices were drowned out by the large majority of those advocating (or simply
presupposing) the 2DH. [...] I will not rehearse the case in favour of the 2DH nor offer
arguments against the Farrer hypothesis (FH) or the 2GH [the Two Gospel (neo-
Griesbach)]. I am not of the view that definitive arguments for or against any of these
hypotheses or variations on these are in fact possible. At best, we can propose
compositional scenarios that account for most of the data, most of the time, by what
we think of as the ‘most probable’ explanations.
I can only agree with that: there is no satisfactory and uncontested solution to the Synoptic
Problem and each theory has its own issues and problems.
I have a better offer: a solution to the Synoptic Problem that does address all issues, settles all
affairs, and solves all problems. There is only one problem with that solution: it implies that all
of Christianity is an invention, a hoax, a Lie. A fabrication, fiction, all of it, down to the very
person of their Jesus himself. Everything Christian is brought about as reaction and
counteraction to the words of Thomas, who wrote his text and invented his main character, IC
(a nomen sacrum ever since), perhaps just because he liked the sound of the name.
Thomas was first and foremost and he created IC / Jesus, Jesus likely never existed, but most
certainly didn't consider himself to be Jewish at all, whatsoever.
In terms of the Synoptic Problem: Thomas is 'Q', Mark copied a third of it, and Luke and
Matthew sat side-by-side writing their different gospels together: they doubled the copies from
Thomas, and simply made up the rest in unison; while Luke addressed the Thomas supporters,
and Matthew the (moderate) Jews, both changed and added to Mark what was needed at that
time.
Material shared between gospels
What is the Synoptic Problem all about? In short, the principal phenomena include
'agreement', the sharing of words, sentences, verses among gospels:
• A significant amount of material is common to all three gospels, in most of which

either all three of the gospels agree, or the material shows Mark and Matthew agreeing

against Luke, or Mark and Luke agreeing against Matthew. These agreements are
known as the Triple-Tradition material;
• There is material which is shared between Matthew and Luke but which is not in
Mark, and that is known as the Double-Tradition material;
• Naturally, there is material that is unique to either Matthew’s or Luke’s Gospel.
However, there is other material that doesn't fit these categories, including:
• A few stories only present in Mark;
• Material in all three Synoptic Gospels where Matthew and Luke agree with each other
against Mark. This material is sometimes known as the Minor-Agreements, although
when the agreements are more substantial, they are known as Mark-Q Overlap
material. Agreements sometimes involve not only the same events, but accounts of the
events in similar or identical words, and the same ordering of events.
A picture2 says more than a couple of words:
2
Relationship between synoptic gospels.png by Alecmconroy

Mark, Luke and Matthew have a lot in common, with Luke and Matthew having essentially all
of Mark, yet Luke and Matthew share a considerable amount of material as well. In essence, it
all is a question of who copied whom, as it is indisputable that material is copied - in large
quantities. In order to establish the copier, the search is first about who wrote the first gospel.

Major theories for priority
As no one has thus far seemed particularly eager to propose a case for Lukan priority, the
major theories developed are solely about and between either Matthean priority or Markan
priority:
• The Augustinian Hypothesis: the canonical order (with Matthew in pole position)
represents the order the gospels were written, and the later gospel-writers knew the
earlier ones. An early theory, the dominant one for many centuries, and outdated for
obvious reasons of textual criticism;
• The Griesbach (or Two-Gospel) Hypothesis, 2GH (named after J.J. Griesbach who
proposed this solution in 1790): Matthew was first, and then Luke made use of
Matthew. Mark is merely a brief summary of Luke and Matthew. This hypothesis has
been revived by William R. Farmer in the 20th century and as such is also known as the
neo-Griesbach theory;
• The Two-Source Hypothesis (2DH for Two Document Hypothesis): Mark was written
first. Matthew and Luke copied Mark but independently, and in addition, they both
used a document known as ‘Q’ (Quelle, the German word for source), which contained
the material common to Luke and Matthew, but not in Mark (the ‘Double Tradition’
material) - Christian Hermann Weisse proposed this theory in 1838. In a variant of this,
the Four-Source hypothesis, Luke also used a source ‘L’ (Lukan Sondergut), which
contained the material unique to Luke, and Matthew used a source ‘M’ (Matthean
Sondergut), which contained the material unique to Matthew. The idea of Markan
priority is today closely associated with Streeter’s 1924 work, The Four Gospels: A Study
of Origins;
• The Farrer Hypothesis (named after Austin Farrer who proposed it in 1955): Mark was
first, Matthew copied from Mark, and Luke used both to write his own
The 2DH is most widely accepted yet its weak point is the minor agreements between Matthew
and Luke against Mark in the triple tradition material. If Matthew and Luke did not have
knowledge of one another, they shouldn't have much if any in common: and while it seems
there should be very few agreements against Mark, the fact that there are about 700 of those

poses quite a problem. Streeter was aware of this, and punched a hole in his own theory by
coming up with 'Mark-Q overlap'3:
It is now realized that Q, as well as Mark, contained versions of John’s Preaching, the
Baptism, Temptation, Beelzebub Controversy, Mission Charge, parable of Mustard
Seed, and that Matthew regularly, Luke occasionally, conflates Mark and Q. Hence
agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in these contexts can be explained by
the influence of Q
To further excuse unwanted and unexplainable phenomena of Luke and Matthew agreeing so
very strongly with only each other, Streeter grabs the emergency brake and applies the
favourite band-aid of biblical scholars4:
I proceed to explore the hypothesis that a large number of the Agreements are due, not
to the original authors, but to later scribes, being, in fact, examples of the phenomena
of accidental omission, or of assimilation between the texts of parallel passages, which
we have seen to be the main source of textual corruption
That won't do, of course. A large number of counterarguments to a theory must be explained
by textual corruption? My theory is right and the text is wrong? That very same theory that not
only is based on the text but in actuality is meant to explain the text and how it has come into
being? Nestle Aland didn't exist back then, and copies of manuscripts usually only furthered
differences, not harmonised them.
A far better theory to explain the minor agreements is the Farrer theory although that has the
weak point of Luke often not copying the (far) more eloquent Matthew, as well as leaving out
entire Matthew passages, and this theory also doesn't explain why Luke doesn't follow
Matthew's order, but Mark's instead.
Both main theories show lacunae, and the theories surrounding them have become more
complicated as a result: Q has been argued to have developed in layers or strata so not every
gospel-writer had access to the same Q (thereby neatly upholding the theory on the outside),
and other differences can be accounted for by another fine biblical research band-aid, 'oral
3
Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, p 305
4
Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, p 306

memory'. As one may notice, both these additional theories can neither be confirmed nor
denied, and they have prolonged the stalemate in and around the Synoptic Problem.
What would really address the Synoptic Problem at its core are thus two issues: a reason for
Luke and Matthew having so many agreements against Mark, a reason for Luke being so
different from Matthew, and a reason for Mark having access to 'Q' while only copying a small
amount of it. And I have them all.
The meaning and purpose of Thomas
One cannot really start to give meaning to a text unless one has a good understanding of it.
One cannot start to make claims about texts unless one knows what the text is about. Thomas
has been twisted and turned and rotated and 360-ed thousands of times, and most if not all of
its 'handlers' failed to grasp even the slightest notion of and in Thomas.
Thomas is a text solely about Seeking, and its main concept is non-duality. I have made a
convincing case for that in 'The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of
Thomas'5 and will summarise that in the following chart:
Parable Meaning
Cluster
The parable of the net (logion 8) There's nothing to seek, everything's already here
Seeking
The parable of the sower (logion 9) Throw any ideas around you, some will prove fruitful
The parable of the mustard seed Work hard on the place where ideas prove fruitful
(logion 20)
The parable of the house owner Don't trust anyone or anything, thieves will come and
(logion 21) rob you blind
Outside threats
The parable of the strong man Even subtler approaches will work for the thieves, they
(logion 35) might just come as Greeks bearing gifts
The parable of the seed and the Don't panic even when you are the open and direct
weeds (logion 57) target of your enemies
The parable of the rich man (logion Don't delay your quest for even a proverbial minute
Quest drawbacks
63)
The parable of the dinner (logion Your friends have become strangers already - no one
64) will accompany you
The parable of the vineyard (logion Don't outsource your quest to anyone, the only
65) outcome will be catastrophe
The parable of the pearl (logion 76) Cut all ties and fully embrace the quest Conclusion
The parable of the leaven (logion 96) Work diligently and patiently on the quest in secret
Details of
Seeking
The parable of the jar (logion 97) Pay attention at all times to everything, and regularly
"look back"
5
The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas

The parable of the powerful man Everything only happens inside your head
(logion 98)
The parable of the brigands (logion Use your knowledge to arm yourself against the thieves
103)
Seeking recaps
The parable of the shepherd and the Toil without pause, be solitary, look until you find that
sheep leaving the 99 (logion 107) one
The parable of the hidden treasure Anyone and everyone can "find this treasure" that no
(logion 109) one knows about
There is perfect order and sense in Thomas, if only when viewed through a clear and clean
lens. Thomas indeed seems to not be hindered by any notion of the Jesus we know; in fact,
Thomas writes as if his Jesus were his alone. There is no resurrection, no crucifixion, no
betrayal by Judas (although it perhaps is a remarkable coincidence that Thomas names himself
also Judas), no massive healing of sick or driving out demons, no nothing - of what is in the
canonicals.
Thomas appears to be about something entirely different, as analysing his sixteen parables
illustrate: those tell a tantalising tale in perfectly logical and chronological order, neatly
constructed in and grouped by separate sets of logia.
The themes of Thomas
I have merely scratched the surface, and found out that the translations that we have are
corrupt. Logion 74 has been silenced and censored6 and one cannot suppress the impression
that the cause of that was either incompetence, or something else. Quispel even makes the
unbelievable remark7:
The Coptic text is corrupt, but can be restored, because the Greek text is saved by the
catholic dogmatist Origen (ca. 250) in his book against the pagan philosopher and
Christendom-critic Celsus. There the Word is as follows: 'How many around the well
and no one in the well'
That is so far besides the truth that I would have only one choice in words to label it - so I
won't.
With logion 74 literally and correctly translated as "Said-he this: Lord, there-are-many (who)
go-around in-the-separation; while-none, however, in-the-sickness" we catch two birds with one
6
Translation versus interpretation in Thomas: the perplexing treatment of logion 74
7
G. Quispel, 'Het Evangelie van Thomas', 2004

stone: the separation (especially with its article being of the opposite gender) is a clear pointer
to non-duality, and the sickness (also having an article of the opposite gender, to confirm that
the first occurrence wasn't accidental) suddenly gives meaning to logion 14 (...heal the sick
among them...) and logion 31 (...no physician heals those who know him...), and all of a sudden
'healing the sick' becomes a grand and likely main theme in Thomas. A theme that would be
associated with Jesus; Jesus would exhort to 'heal the sick' many times, and followers would
use that phrase - and know very well that it meant to cure the duality in people, to make
people aware of the fact that they live in duality, to point them to that disease that they are
unaware of, yet must be cured. And the cure would lie in Thomas' relentless self-seeking
(logion 2 ff), the 'fasting from the world' (logion 5, 10, 21, 22, 26, 27, 36, 55, 56, 68, 76, 101), the
paying attention to everything around them with their 'ears' (logion 8, 9, 21, 24, 63, 65, 96, 97).
The cure would not lie in fasting, praying, giving alms or observing the Sabbath (logion 6, 14,
27, 104), nor would it be magically fixed in a heaven of any kind (logion 3, 11, 51, 111). Thomas
rejects all that, just as he rejects reincarnation (logion 29, 87, 112). The cure would most
certainly not lie in listening to the Pharisees or other religious peers (logion 12, 34, 39, 45, 53,
88, 100, 102). The cure would lie in becoming like a child again: going back to the beginning,
the moment before separation kicks in and we become dualised: logion 4, 18, 19, 21, 22, 37, 46,
47, 50, 59, 70, 72, 76, 79, 89, 106, 107. The answer would lie in hard work; 'toiling': logion 8, 9,
20, 58, 97, 107. And most importantly, the answer would not lie in rebuilding something, but
only in destroying - the image you have of yourSelf: logion 16, 40, 71, 77, 101.
Most of the rest of Thomas is known and has been described by many: its very strong anti-
Pharisee attitude, its rejection of Judaic customs such as praying, fasting, giving alms (and
observing the Sabbath), its ridiculing of the teacher-disciple paradigm by portraying the
disciples as ignorants - all that can be found in the canonicals as well, albeit applied to quite a
different goal, of course. What hasn't been written about much if any, but what certainly is in
both as well, are the two major themes in Thomas: 'make the two one' and 'become like
children to enter the kingdom', both inherently related to Thomas' non-dual approach of going
back to the beginning.
What has never been written about at all, to my knowledge, pertains to the implications of
Thomas being first: the creation of characters in Thomas and their - sometimes more than
scant - character development in the canonicals as a result thereof: Jacob the Righteous
(mostly mistranslated and -interpreted as James the Just, in English) and John the Immerser
(mostly mistranslated and -interpreted as John the Baptist).

As will be demonstrated in this paper, Jacob points to Jacob the son of Isaac and Rebekah
(Genesis) and John the Immerser points to Zedekiah, the last king of the Kingdom of Judah
(Jeremiah, Chronicles, Book of Kings).
I have been looking for the pointer to John the Immerser for quite some time now, and finally
found it. That is the reason for me to publish this paper, as it is the final piece of evidence that
Thomas was the first to publish about Jesus and that all of the four canonical gospels are
dependent on him. Allow me to first unravel the rest of my theory and you will be rewarded in
the end...
Putting the 72 logia of Thomas side-to-side with their copies in the canonicals will show their
development from a literal point of view: Mark starts a tentative copy which he sometimes
applies to a troublesome goal (which either Luke and / or Matthew fix), and Luke and Matthew
follow up on that, making it slightly better each time - with Matthew usually finishing with a
nicely eloquent version. The order of Luke and Matthew is uncertain although Luke always has
the most verbatim copy of Thomas and usually follows Mark where Matthew usually follows
Luke, yet it is clear that both Luke and Matthew take the Thomas material from Mark and fill
the void: Mark has 35 logia copied and 6 Thomas parables, and makes up 1 parable of his own:
the parable of the budding fig tree (Mark 13:28-31). Luke and Matthew double the material to
69 logia and 13 Thomas parables, yet betray themselves by creating 14 (!) parables of their own:
logia increase by 100%, parables increase by 115%, and non-Thomas parables increase by...
1,400%!
Those homemade parables slowly evolve from Thomas-like parables, of which Mark's own
creation was quite a successful copy (concise, cryptic, full of allegory and (in)animate objects)
to their own inventions (long, mundane and sometimes very simple, filled with humans
interacting and dialoguing with other humans). Where Thomas always has only one
protagonist to each parable, Luke and Matthew usually have more, used to portray 'good' next
to 'bad' and serve their highly dogmatic and simple scheme of punishment (hell) and reward
(heaven) that is supposed to lure the faithful. Where the canonicals do make use of inanimate
objects, none of those have purpose: the ten minas might as well have been cookies, the
virgins' lamps lunch boxes. Their parable settings also have no purpose: the vineyard of the
labourers might as well have been a scrapyard, and the groom of the ten virgins a doorkeeper.
Where Q has been invented as a kind of no-man's land, a buffer state like Paraguay, and sadly
even brought to life by the Jesus Seminar - and very deplorably now is usually treated as factual
text by most if not all "scholars" - it is clear that, with 45% of Thomas material in Q, the part
that Luke and Matthew share yet is not to be found in Thomas is very small, only a little over

2,000 words. Luke and Matthew must have sat side-by-side in the same time and place, likely
even the same building or room, writing their different gospels together in an attempt to
answer the questions that arose after Mark, and also to fix the mess that Mark sometimes
made: examples of the latter are e.g. the illogical baptism of Jesus, the declaring of foods clean,
the contradictory outcome of the attempt to address 'make the two one', and Luke like
Matthew will struggle with the children entering the kingdom. John will come to the rescue in
the two latter cases, with his 'I and the father are one' and his beautiful 'reborn' - if Thomas
had known that last word he'd surely have used it!
Luke's role was to address the Thomas supporters while it was Matthew's place to address the
Jews - and given his use of scripture those couldn't possibly have been orthodox Jews or very
proficient in the Tanakh. Matthew's sermon on the mount served for Luke's sermon on the
plain and vice versa, among others, and both completed Mark and clad Jesus: they provided a
lineage, a birth narrative (and quite the copy of Samson's that is), they fixed John's while at it,
provided an excuse for 'Nazarene', gave John some mini-stry, and so on, yet most importantly
they effectively wrote Jesus into heaven and out of history, likely to prevent Elvis-like eye
witness accounts of a resurrected Jesus seen walking in the streets of any village or town, or on
water for that matter.
The date and time of Thomas
No one can tell when an ancient text was written. Nor can anyone tell when such a text was
brought into circulation. The only thing that one could tell with some certitude within a
margin of years or decades, is when such a text caught on in a given area - and for that we can
only rely on written documents. Thomas could have been written as soon as the 2nd half of the
2nd century BCE for all we know, lying dormant for a century or two because it lacked fertile
ground. It could have come into circulation in e.g. 130 BCE, perhaps in Judea, possibly even
Jerusalem, and then just did not catch on - anything is possible; as possible as irrelevant really,
as only events that have an effect do impact.
Let's attempt to narrow it down; when did the Pharisees arise8?
After defeating the Seleucid forces, Judas Maccabaeus's nephew John Hyrcanus
established a new monarchy in the form of the priestly Hasmonean dynasty in 152 BCE,
thus establishing priests as political as well as religious authorities. Although the
8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees#Emergence_of_the_Pharisees

Hasmoneans were considered heroes for resisting the Seleucids, their reign lacked the
legitimacy conferred by descent from the Davidic dynasty of the First Temple era.
The Pharisee ("separatist") party emerged largely out of the group of scribes and sages.
Their name comes from the Hebrew and Aramaic parush or parushi, which means "one
who is separated." It may refer to their separation from Gentiles, sources of ritual
impurity or from irreligious Jews. The Pharisees, among other Jewish sects, were active
from the middle of the second century BCE until the destruction of the Temple in 70
CE
During that time 152 BCE-70 CE, Thomas must have been written - somewhere around that
entire region of Judea, Palestine.
When did it come into circulation? The best guess for that is to look at Luke who tries to put a
date to the gospels - one can only suspect that the entire goal of doing so was to preclude the
circulation of Thomas from having happened before that time. So my working assumption is
that the erroneous attempt by Luke to fixate the birth of Jesus in 6 CE by mentioning the
Census of Quirinius in Luke 2:3 (Luke uses it as the means to establish the birth of Jesus yet
places it within the reign of Herod the Great, who died 9 years earlier) is meant as a first and
ultimate 'terminus post quem'. Luke has another attempt to establish a date in 3:1, and 'In the
fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea' places the
baptism of Jesus in 29 CE, and the likely date for his death - as meant by Luke! - then is 30 CE,
which then is the real terminus post quem for its coming into circulation and catching on at a
large enough scale. The catching on of Thomas, its attraction of a large set of followers great
enough to cause a disturbance around Judea, is what drives the attempts by the canonicals to
date their works; those must predate Thomas of course, at least by a year or so. As we'll see
Mark also omits to do so, but the later canonicals try to fix it.
Is there a terminus ante quem? The practical ante quem is set by Mark who includes Judas - the
Judas who undergoes such extraordinarily great character development in all canonicals9 and
who undeniably is meant to portray Thomas. It isn't until John that the author of Thomas is
known and mentioned as Didymos Thomas, but it is highly likely that before that he was
referred to by his Hebrew name Judas (Didymos is Greek for twin and Thomas is Aramaic for
twin, and my working thesis for the text is that it was distributed in twin copies indeed; one in
Greek and one in Aramaic). The Judas Iscariot that we know is Thomas, and understandably
9
Judas, the kiss, the morsel - and lifting of heels

the canonicals had to be very cryptic about him because mentioning him would give away that
Thomas was earlier than their writings - but they just had to discredit the author of Thomas
during their attempt to create their own version of his Jesus, and shape their religion on the
way. It is evident how Matthew gave Judas the worst treatment: fully aware because not
possessed, even quantifying the amount of money, and then hanging himself - most of which
served to 'fulfil prophecies' Matthew-style, yet still. Luke and John giving Judas the benign
treatment, with John even outdoing Luke - all the pieces of the puzzle fit perfectly.
Anyway: with that, the catching on of Thomas in Judea can roughly be dated to 30-60 CE, and
its writing as early as 150 BCE. It surely predates the canonicals; anything in the New
Testament comes after it.
The gospel of Mark and its side-effects
With all the rudimentary and sometimes clumsy writings of Mark, I've often wondered
whether his creation of Jesus was even meant to start a new religion, or whether it was merely
aimed at infuriating the Jews by hijacking their Messiah concept, nullifying their food laws and
probably stepping on another few toes that I have missed - and thus create a counterforce
against the Jesus of Thomas. Jesus is just dropped on us as an adult. No idea about his age,
clothing, physique - nothing. He 'was Nazarene', that we know, but even John the Baptist (and
only John, of all the people in all of the four gospels) has his clothing described - not Jesus. No
background, no parentage, no lineage, no youth.
Jesus also leaves us just like that, and the oldest copies of Mark that don't include anything else
after verse 16:8, date from the 4th century CE, and the longer ending is first cited in other
books around the end of the 2nd century CE. There are actually two alternative endings: a
short one and a long one, which together appear in six Greek manuscripts and dozens of
Ethiopic copies.
The "dance around Elijah", with John the Baptist only serving to have him fulfil the role of
Elijah (John makes his appearance in Mark 1:4 and exits 10 verses later in Mark 1:14, with his
last act even being in verse 9) continued to harass the canonicals even unto the gospel of John;
questions must have arisen whether John or Jesus was Elijah, and Jesus performing miracles
just like Elijah (for instance reviving a dead child in 2 Kings 4:18-35) only aggravated that
problem. Miracles, of course, all entirely ephemeral in nature, the evidence of any of them
gone in a matter of minutes, at best hours. With all the sick people around them Jesus

apparently didn't ever feel obliged to e.g. conjure a five-story high hospital of a few thousand
square metres from thin air - now that would have been a miracle!
It certainly is a magnificent achievement to create Mark's Jesus, and Mark does deserve more
than great credit for that. But it is equally certain that what he did posed many problems for
those who came after he did so.
The essence of writing and publishing is that something becomes 'fact' when written,
published, nailed onto a wall or hammered onto a church door. Mark achieved something
miraculously, no matter what you think of his prose or purpose, conjuring his Jesus out of thin
air was a miracle indeed - but he established Church legacy at the very moment that he did. All
that Mark wrote became fact, and although some of it is twisted and turned by his fellow
gospel-writers just as all of them twist and turn Thomas, fact it is. It was a clever move to allow
for four gospels to lead Churchianity as there is always one of those who has 'the proper story'
to any given event - while ignoring that there are usually more who oppose it. It was inevitable
to put Matthew into pole position, just as inevitable as it was that Mark couldn't be written out
of history anymore, so he got squeezed in between Matthew and Luke. Was John even meant
as a purely Churchian gospel? I highly doubt that as he is so close to Thomas, so beautiful, so
poetic and spiritual. James David Audlin has undertaken major and majestic research on John
and I have had a peek here and there, and the original John appears to perhaps be even further
removed from Churchianity than Thomas could have been. John the Presbyter is beautiful, and
although it is just a story like all other stories it is also true like all other stories, but in essence
it is a purely beautiful apocryphal story and I can't wait to read the last of James' restoration.
Not because it might shed light on the historical Jesus of course, but simply because I suspect
John to be a lot more Thomasine and a lot less Churchian in its original form.
The Thomasine priority series
The work that lies ahead of me is large, and must be undertaken in parts - at this point I'm
guesstimating it at roughly a thousand pages altogether - without one to two thirds of every
page filled with the seemingly obligatory footnotes naming other scholars and their works - so
those are real pages. Most of it I already have in some form, and some of that is vast: the 72
logia and their 'canonical cousins' comprise almost 200 pages.
The most important part of it all, however, is continuing to work on the literal Thomas
translation that is so desperately needed to make the best sense of Thomas: the normalisation
of its words which among others brings out the stress on 'toiling' and paying attention by its

use of '(h)ear'. Undoing the mistranslations undertaken by scholars who interpreted Thomas
through a Christian or Gnostic lens, undoing the confusions added by using multiple English
words for one and the same Coptic word, or using one and the same English word for more
than one Coptic word: that mess is more than complete. Undoing the 'emendations' that
served to make the text wrong where its editor deemed himself right, e.g. translating
'strangers' with 'guests' and 'separation' and 'sickness' with 'well'.
Thomas is an utterly highly literate piece of work, and ought to have been treated as poetry,
not just another 'Gnostic find' in a vast series of related works - Thomas is unique, and stands
on its very, very own. A strictly literal translation in every sense should have been the very
start, and only where the context of the text itself demanded so should have been deviated
from that. What has happened, however, that the content of Thomas has been read in the
context of Christian and Gnostic writings, and that those served as (mostly unmentioned)
excuses to change the content.
The papers published in my first series should be read in the following order:
1. The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas - 'Literal

Thomas', Part V10
2. Judas, the kiss, the morsel - and lifting of heels - 'Literal Thomas', Part IV11
3. Translation versus interpretation in Thomas - the perplexing treatment of logion 74 -
'Literal Thomas', Part VI12
4. One-pager Translation versus interpretation in Thomas - the perplexing treatment of
logion 74 (belongs with the paper)13
5. Forthcoming: The gospel of Thomas: literal translation without interpretation14
(expected end of 2019)
10
https://www.academia.edu/40301171/The_perfectly_sensible_chrono_logically_ordered_Jesus_parables_
of_Thomas
11
https://www.academia.edu/39976842/Judas_the_kiss_the_morsel_-_and_lifting_of_heels
12
https://www.academia.edu/40387654/Translation_versus_interpretation_in_Thomas_the_perplexing_tr
eatment_of_logion_74
13
https://www.academia.edu/40399465/One-pager_on_Translation_versus_interpretation_in_Thomas_-
_the_perplexing_treatment_of_logion_74
14
https://www.academia.edu/40471247/The_gospel_of_Thomas_literal_translation_without_interpretatio
n

These are the other volumes (Parts) to be expected in the series of Absolute Thomasine
priority:
2. Two types of Jesus parables: canonical vs Thomasine - like night and day (expected
October 2019)
3. Making the two one and entering the kingdom as children: dramatic evolution of
Thomas themes in the New Testament (expected November 2019)
4. The 72 logia of Thomas and their canonical cousins (expected February 2020)
5. Fixing Mark's mistakes: how and why Luke and Matthew wrote different gospels
together - and why Q never existed (expected May 2020)
The role and goal of Judas has been published via the series 'Literal Thomas' as mentioned
above, in Part IV. I have purposely not answered the question of 'Why?' that the paper ends
with, but have done that here: discrediting the author of the character of Jesus had to be
stealthy as that would give away "some if not more". Luke giving Judas a very benign treatment
is clear as he was addressing the Thomas supporters, just as clear that Matthew was addressing
the Jews (and look what he did to Judas).
I will be publishing these volumes over the course of the next months, and hope to wrap it all
up in 2020 with one volume that covers all. And I will be glad if I manage to do so before the
end of 2021. I am not a scholar, I am an amateur with a 40-hour work week - and a typewriting
diploma.
The impact of Thomas
It is fair to assume that two millennia ago a similar thing happened as a result of Thomas, as
that which has happened since 1945: Thomas dropped like a bomb and made a huge impact.
Treated like the proverbial elephant in the room, everyone ran off with a different piece in a
different direction.
When I read the works that have come to be known as 'Apocrypha' in the context of
Christianity, I cannot help but see Thomas to the right, Churchianity to the left, and
everything else in between, drawing from either or both source(s). I think I've made more than
enough claims for a few lifetimes in this paper alone, but allow me to make yet another one: I
wouldn't be surprised if Thomas started it all - all of it - if not most. Thomas made Mark come
up with his counter-gospel; Mark forced Luke and Matthew to fix all the errors he made and all

the questions he caused to be asked - and the entire movement he apparently loosened; Acts of
the Apostles served to carry on the carrying over of Jesus to Peter - yet another part that Mark
forgot to act out - and Paul tried to cement it all in history by pretending to be writing and
preaching to churches and more or less faithful followers in - so very conveniently - far away
locations.
And with that, there were two sides of a coin, two camps, and 'spurious writings' spread like a
disease in between, combining the Jesus of Churchianity with the many Platonic and Gnostic
topics of Thomas, none of which he embraced himself.
The Synoptic Solution?
Two millennia. For two millennia the religious institutes have continued to rule this world,
and on an unprecedented scale. The Church has made an impact far surpassing that of
Thomas, such is for sure - it has affected billions of people, millions of lives, for thousands of
years, in hundreds of countries, on a handful of continents.
The first question is: does my theory solve more of the Synoptic Problem than any other
preceding theory?
The second could be whether it is plausible, probable or likely - as it must be indisputable that
it is always possible - and after that many other questions could and will follow. But the very
first question must be: does this theory solve the Synoptic Problem better than any other
theory? And you probably know why I want it to be the first question, because it certainly does
so, rather completely, I think. And it will satisfy all scholars as it gives us a perfect reason why
Q couldn't possibly have remained in existence - although it proves beyond a doubt that Q
couldn't possibly have had to exist.
But it also shows why Thomas had to disappear, why all other 'Gnostic' writings had to vanish
as well, why all their supporters had to be labelled heretic, and had to be silenced, persecuted,
killed, murdered, and all the evidence buried along with them.
Was that all planned? Impossible, that's not how things work. People get confronted with
situations and then make decisions, and as that process repeats itself there comes a moment
when a point of no return is reached - rinse and repeat, and the cycle starts anew and goes on
and on for seemingly eternity. When the stakes get higher, the tolerance for collateral damage
gets higher - and the death toll.
Did Jesus even exist? I think he didn't, but that doesn't really matter - if a Jesus existed then it
was only the Jesus of Thomas. The Jesus of Churchianity never existed, such is for sure: there is

not a single scholar in the world who believes in everything the New Testament says about that
Jesus. If a person named Jesus ever existed, he was a sage indeed, feverishly anti-religious,
ridiculing Judaism including God himself, and indeed or perhaps a person named Judas wrote
down his words, in Greek as well as Aramaic. The Jewish cynic portrayed by the Jesus Seminar
is not so far from the "truth", I think.
Did every author of every piece of New Testament writings knowingly and willingly write down
a lie while narrating their story about their Jesus? Certainly not; stories live their own life and
gradually "become true" to people. The further away they are from the actual event the easier
they become to embrace, as they get increasingly harder to debunk.
Impossible to confirm, impossible to deny: just have faith, and the truth will set you free...
From Adam until Zedekiah: the creation of John the Immerser
John the Immerser, or John the Baptist or Baptizer, is a legendary figure.

I am not religious myself yet was raised Roman Catholic, and I remember very well when it
suddenly dawned me that my theory had a flaw: if Thomas created and started it all, then John
the Baptist had to be a figment of his imagination. John the Baptist! The legendary, larger-
than-life, figure of John the Baptist - not for real? Impossible. The idea was ludicrous,
preposterous, and I laughed out loud, with a bitter finish: that was the end of my theory, I
thought - it was impossible for John the Baptist to have been made up.
I had a moment of total despair; after having noticed the differences in application of the logia
by the canonicals and the recurring pattern that showed, I happened to discover the five
elements of the Thomas parables, their contrasting metamorphosis, and I became convinced
that Thomas was original, purely original, compared to the canonicals - it really was impossible
to turn that around with Thomas copying them. When I continued looking at the Jesus of
Thomas, there was not a shred of anything the canonicals clad him in. And whereas Thomas
quotes and uses plenty of the Tanakh to illustrate his story, there is naught of the New
Testament. Wouldn't Thomas at the very least put in a good or bad word for Judas? Or take
some canonical quote and turn that against itself, perhaps? Where the canonicals explicitly
combine both his sub-themes of anti-Pharisee attitude on the one hand and rejection of
fasting, praying, giving alms as a whole on the other, Thomas would have at least stressed, in
one way or another, that their point of view was wrong, that it was not okay to pray, fast or
give alms - period. With Thomas being so full of contrasting themes such as dark and light,
heaven and earth, and life and death, how is it possible that he says nothing, nothing at all,

about the death of his own Jesus - the real, physical death? Doesn't even hint at a future event?
Didn't the Jesus of Thomas know that the Jesus of the canonicals died horribly? And rise from
the dead? And be born from a virgin?
With Thomas so vehemently ridiculing and rejecting religion in general and the concept of
heaven in particular, next to considering fasting and praying as undeserved punishment, he
would and should have lashed out at Matthew, flogging him into tiny strips of bloody meat, for
his repetitive 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' alone. All the talk about Jesus going up to
heaven, and especially the verse about the Son of Man sitting next to God in heaven - that
must have seemed outrageously outrageous to Thomas! To Thomas, that would have been
blasphemy of the worst kind - if he had seen it.
Thomas passes on every single occasion to target anything currently in the New Testament -
he just doesn't bite at all. Thomas uses a lot from the Tanakh, and completely nothing from the
New Testament - to spite and smite it as in his usual way. Now that is so very, very odd...
So I tested my theory, and I will provide the same test here. You may keep in mind what you
think of John the Baptist at this very moment, all that he stands for, and all that he has brought
to life. All the rituals, all the words, all the objects used in baptism. Picture them, write them
down - right now, before it's too late.
I would like to make it short and use only Mark. I could use Luke, Matthew and John as well,
but it would be more of the same and very confusing, with John not having John the Baptist
baptise Jesus at all, with Matthew excusing himself to do so. Yet naturally I will include the
three other gospel-writers; better, I will include all of the New Testament in my search for and
analysis of John the Baptist. But I could, and really should, start and end just with Mark, and
Mark alone - because that just sums it all up very, very nicely.
For Mark had only one use for John the Baptist, and that was to portray him as Elijah right
from the very beginning - and end:
Mark 1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2 As it is written in
Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your
way, 3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make his
paths straight,'" 4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism
of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem
were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their
sins. 6 Now John was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist

and ate locusts and wild honey. 7 And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is
mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and of whose
sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8 I have baptized you with water, but
he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." The Baptism of Jesus 9 In those days Jesus
came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And
when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and
the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven, "You are my
beloved Son; with you I am well pleased." The Temptation of Jesus 12 The Spirit
immediately drove him out into the wilderness. 13 And he was in the wilderness forty days,
being tempted by Satan. And he was with the wild animals, and the angels were
ministering to him. Jesus Begins His Ministry 14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus
came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God,
That's it, that's the entire performance by John in Mark: John enters the stage, dresses up (or is
that 'down'?), speaks two sentences, does one baptising, and exits. The entire performance of
John lasts six verses, from verse 4 of chapter 1 up to including verse 9 of chapter 1 - and that last
action even is a passive one. One line, one action, and off he goes, this Prophet Of Most High,
the only prophet in the history of both Old and New Testament to not only be alive during the
coming of a Messiah, but even meet him.
So, as there is no mention of John the Baptist in the Tanakh, nor baptism or anything the like;
baptising came either from Thomas or from the gospel-writers.
What is baptism, even? (Am I really going to do this? Yes I sure am, and you'll wonder (sic)
along with me on the path, because baptism is nothing like that what you think it is):
Mark 1:4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching the baptism of repentance for
forgiveness of sins. 5 All the country of Judea and all those of Jerusalem went out to him.
They were baptized by him in the Jordan river, confessing their sins. 6 John was clothed
with camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist. He ate locusts and wild honey. 7 He
preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not
worthy to stoop down and loosen. 8 I baptized you in water, but he will baptize you in the Holy
Spirit."
That's it. Immersion (the literal translation of the Greek word) in water, while you confess your
sins. The (ultimate) goal? Unknown. The frequency? Unknown. The origin? Unknown -

although attempts have been made to compare it to the Judaic tvilah, which was an immersion
in water for ritual purification. Undoubtedly, that is one of the least original ideas since the
invention of spirituality and religion by mankind, as cleansing one's naked body from head to
toe with a fluid like water is a perfectly sensible, harmless, cheap and pragmatic way of doing
exactly that: cleansing oneself by making sure that every single piece of the body is touched,
refreshed, wiped clean.
It can be witnessed, verified, attested, checked, repeated if necessary - touching every part of
your body with water is an almost evolutionary fact of life and rite. The sweat lodge of the
indigenous people of the Americas, the bathing of Hinduism; Cleopatra bathing in donkey
milk, Achilles being immersed in the Styx - I think it's a safe bet that every culture and religion
has some story on complete immersion into something.
Back to baptism: being baptised for forgiveness of sins... how would that operate on Jesus?
Why does Jesus get baptised? He's free from sin, according to the prophecies - why did he get
baptised? There isn't a reason at all to baptise Jesus. Isn't there?
Malachi 3: 1 "Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me; and the Lord,
whom you seek, will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom
you desire, behold, he comes!" says Yahweh of Armies.
The Lord will come to the temple of the messenger? Now that's interesting: Jesus comes to
John the Baptist because prophecy foretells so - but why don't the gospel-writers mention that,
why do they miss out on a chance to fulfil scripture? Maybe Matthew will shed some light on
that, prone as he is to fulfil scripture any which way he can.
What else does Mark have to say about baptism? He limits his treatment of the act of baptism
to what is strictly necessary, with Jesus merely:
Mark 1:10 Immediately coming up from the water, he saw the heavens parting and the Spirit
descending on him like a dove.
That's it. No ritual, no acts, no words from either John or Jesus; just come up from the waters
and you're baptised. Is that the complete ritual? What comes before that? And does nothing
come after that?
Mark has Jesus use the word two times, which doesn't particularly clarify its use and
application:

Mark 10:38 But Jesus said to them, "You don't know what you are asking. Are you able to drink
the cup that I drink, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" 39 They said
to him, "We are able." Jesus said to them, "You shall indeed drink the cup that I drink, and you
shall be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with;
Riddling that is, baptising others with the baptism that Jesus has been baptised with. That
almost suggests that the baptism of Jesus could be reused and applied to others; is there
perhaps a particular unique way in which someone is baptised? Is a device created for it,
especially and only for that occasion? And is Jesus here implying that that unique way of
baptism or device could be reused for his disciples, reapplied to them?
Mark then spends only one more set of verses on baptism:
Mark 11:29 Jesus said to them, "I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what
authority I do these things. 30 The baptism of John-was it from heaven, or from men? Answer
me." 31 They reasoned with themselves, saying, "If we should say, 'From heaven;' he will say, 'Why
then did you not believe him?' 32 If we should say, 'From men'"-they feared the people, for all held
John to really be a prophet. 33 They answered Jesus, "We don't know." Jesus said to them,
"Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things."
A bit of partners in crime here? Jesus rubs John's back so Jesus benefits even more from
everything John does for him? Mark stresses that John is a prophet so that John's claim of Jesus
being the Messiah acquires even more weight, credibility, praise and following? Perhaps that
could be the case, but again we find no details whatsoever on what baptism is.
Baptism could be anything if it were up to Mark. And in fact it entirely is up to Mark, as his
gospel witnesses the very birth of baptism - it is fair to claim that right there it is the first time
in the history of mankind that the term baptism is used and written down; the verb or even
noun isn't in Thomas. There is no mention of it in the Tanakh either.
And baptism could be anything at this point, the end of Mark: digging a hole then filling it
with water and immersing oneself or someone else in it; letting someone face the water and
then gently nudging him into the water or shoving him with a foot or arm, with whatever
force; having two persons grab someone by hands and feet and them tossing him into the
water: anything is feasible. Holding someone under water until the point of drowning, thereby

mimicking the concept of death and rebirth? As dangerous as that would be, at this point in
time it is still perfectly feasible - completely and utterly perfectly feasible.
Nothing is inconceivable about baptism at this point in time as nothing that Mark writes about
it could contradict it; because that's exactly what Mark says about baptism: nothing, nothing at
all, only that sometimes it involves - not necessarily ends with - emerging from the water.
I am not being difficult here; I am just reading what I read with an open and blank mind, as if I
were living in the first century CE while consulting all the documentation in the world
available to me on the very subject of baptism - and this is it.
What does Luke do? Luke adds at least something of a goal by telling that John:
Luke 1:3 He came into all the region around the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for
remission of sins.
A baptism of repentance for remission of sins! That's quite a difference from forgiveness:
remission implies that once baptised your sins are all gone, you're even, starting anew with a
blank slate. Your sins aren't just forgiven by someone, they have completely disappeared as if
they never existed.
Luke gives examples of John's preaching, turning his next verses into somewhat of a mini-stry:
Luke 3:7 He said therefore to the multitudes who went out to be baptized by him, "You offspring
of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore produce fruits worthy of
repentance, and don't begin to say among yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father;' for I tell
you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones! 9 Even now the ax also
lies at the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doesn't produce good fruit is cut down, and
thrown into the fire." 10 The multitudes asked him, "What then must we do?" 11 He answered
them, "He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none. He who has food, let him
do likewise." 12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, "Teacher, what
must we do?" 13 He said to them, "Collect no more than that which is appointed to you." 14
Soldiers also asked him, saying, "What about us? What must we do?" He said to them, "Extort
from no one by violence, neither accuse anyone wrongfully. Be content with your
wages." 15 As the people were in expectation, and all men reasoned in their hearts concerning
John, whether perhaps he was the Christ, 16 John answered them all, "I indeed baptize you with
water, but he comes who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to loosen.
He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire, 17 whose fan is in his hand, and he will

thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor, and will gather the wheat into his barn; but he will burn
up the chaff with unquenchable fire." 18 Then with many other exhortations he preached good
news to the people,
John isn't being particularly nice to all who come to him for baptism but baptises all of them
anyway, according to his actions in 3:21. As we can see here, he hands out a few instructions on
how people can avert the wrath of God, which apparently is still needed after this baptism that
completely wipes clean your slate of sins. Was it a one time only remission of sins then, that
which you got from baptism, just forgiving your sins up until then? It would appear that Luke
applies it as something similar to confession of sins.
Luke 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus also had been baptized, and was
praying. The sky was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form like a dove on
him; and a voice came out of the sky, saying "You are my beloved Son. In you I am well pleased."
Jesus is baptised by John like all other people and is praying. There's no coming out of the
water, just this: after baptism you pray. Is it a gross exaggeration to claim that everyone prays
after baptism? No, it could be very well possible, based on every single bit of text about
baptism so far. Nowhere does it say that people pray after being baptised yet nowhere does it
say that they don't - it could just have been an unmentioned detail up to this point, and Jesus
might very well be praying as part of baptism - although it also might exclusively have to do
with only his baptism. Or it is just a completely unrelated event.
What else does Luke say about the use and application of this baptism?
Luke 7:29 When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they declared God to be just,
having been baptized with John's baptism. 30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the
counsel of God, not being baptized by him themselves.
According to Luke, John has a baptism with which he baptises you, just as according to Mark
Jesus will or at least can baptise you with the baptism Jesus has been baptised with. On that
same topic, later on Luke states something even more startling and surprising:
Luke 12:49 "I came to throw fire on the earth. I wish it were already kindled. 50 But I have a
baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!

Jesus has at that point already been baptised, by John. And now he announces that he has
another baptism to be baptised with - by John or by someone else? This is yet another new and
unknown application of baptism, that it noticeably can be applied twice to the same person -
or only to Jesus? Who was going to baptise Jesus for a second time then, given the fact that
John was dead when Jesus spoke those words?
This is an incredibly significant statement by Luke; as incredible as it is that Jesus has been
baptised, being free from sins as he is, it is impossible, absolutely inconceivable that Jesus
would actually announce any baptism that involves himself. Such could only mean that not
only Jesus will sin at some point in the future, but he even knows about it - and is perfectly
content with it, even looking forward to it!
The details that are supplied on baptism by Mark and Luke are minute, but they are confusing
and sometimes even greatly distressing. Instead of baptism becoming more clear, it becomes
less clear, obscure even.
That is everything Luke has on baptism; now how about Matthew?
Like Mark, Matthew starts with dressing up John in 3:4, and just like Mark Matthew also is
conveniently cladding John identical to Elijah in camel's hair and a leather belt (2 Kings 1:8).
Matthew also has John baptise people, people who are 'confessing their sins'. And he has a
slightly different baptism of Jesus:
Matthew 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14 But
John would have hindered him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and you come to me?" 15 But
Jesus, answering, said to him, "Allow it now, for this is the fitting way for us to fulfill all
righteousness." Then he allowed him. 16 Jesus, when he was baptized, went up directly from the
water: and behold, the heavens were opened to him. He saw the Spirit of God descending as a
dove, and coming on him. 17 Behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is my beloved Son, with
whom I am well pleased."
No praying after baptism here, so the two aren't necessarily always related. The phrase 'the
fitting way for us to fulfil all righteousness' is puzzling, but it seems a conversation piece
between two brothers in arms, who unquestionably know each other or at least each other's
role in the grander scheme of things, as well as what and why they are doing what they're
doing right here. It is even slightly intimate in some way - and alas, utterly unrelated to and
devoid from any specifics of baptism.

My guess is that 'righteousness' here is implying scripture, and that Matthew is pointing to
Malachi 3:1 that was mentioned during Mark's baptism of Jesus, which said that the Lord
would come to the temple of the messenger. Why no one, not even Matthew, grabs this
opportunity to fulfil scripture is beyond me. A simple and obvious explanation could be that
there is none to point at, but then the riddle of the righteousness fulfilment remains. Or will
it?
Why did Mark have Jesus baptised? The Messiah comes to the temple of the forerunner, is
what Malachi said:
Malachi 3: 1 "Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me; and the Lord,
whom you seek, will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom
you desire, behold, he comes!" says Yahweh of Armies.
John the Baptist doesn't have a temple, and the gospel-writers couldn't have supplied him with
one because that would obviously have had to remain in its place and it would have become
well known with all the people having to visit him there - what other purpose would the
temple of John the Baptist serve? It would have had to be a large temple, perhaps the size of a
church or even cathedral, or people would have stood in line for it for many kilometres - at
least that is what one would suspect, based on the text of the gospels.
All the events in the life of Jesus, all the miracles, everything: they all are perfectly transient.
Temporary, short-lived, ephemeral, impermanent - and so on. Driving out demons, healing
people, raising one or two (three, actually) from the dead who will die eventually anyway;
magically conjuring food out of thin air that hours later has been digested and disappeared:
nothing that Jesus does persists for longer than a few hours. The veil of the Temple that is
allegedly torn is the only exception, yet an event that can't be witnessed or confirmed because
it covers the most sacred of the entire Temple and only the High Priest is allowed to visit it -
once a year. Naturally, there is no record of the event outside the gospels.
Nothing that Jesus does can be proven - and that is great, because that means it can't be
disproven either: it can't be disproven that the Temple veil did not tear, nor can it be disproven
that Jesus raised people from the dead, nor can it be disproven that he cured hundreds of sick
people. So John the Baptist isn't assigned a temple by the gospel-writers, because it should
have been located at a place easily accessible to multitudes of people, in plain sight of many: it
could be disproven that there ever was a temple at that location.

Hence, Jesus has to visit John wherever he is, and the gospel-writers carefully omit the
location: "in the river Jordan" says Mark, a river that is 250 kilometres long. Luke states "all the
region around the Jordan", even less precise (even though "the river Jordan" is more than
imprecise enough), and Matthew states that Jesus came to the Jordan to John. What is he to do
there? Whatever the Lord is to do in the temple of the messenger - it doesn't say, only that it is
'suddenly', and that it is.
Jesus and John could have had a conversation, but about what? It would deepen John's
character, but most importantly it would settle the matter between which of the two really was
Elijah - of all the things incredible it would have been more than most incredible that neither
of the two would bring up the topic. That is why there is no conversation at all between the
two, and why John sends his messengers to Jesus so the gospel-writers can use that as a pretext
to come up with the logion about John the Baptist.
So Mark, desperately searching for an angle, a way to shape and fulfil just another terribly
inconvenient prophecy, probably has a mental breakdown - and in a momentary lapse of
reason, Mark has Jesus baptised.
At that point, Church history is written, the event is fixed, Mark's legacy extended, and Jesus is
to be baptised by the others as well - period. As easily as Mark could have forgotten to mention
that Mary was a virgin, it really is impossibly implausible to omit an incredibly significant
event - even when that is a significantly incredible event. The baptism of Jesus couldn't be
undone, yet the clever and cunning Matthew turns their weak point to a strong point and takes
on all challenges at the same time: he does let Jesus and John have a conversation with each
other, and he does infer scripture. Matthew certainly doesn't quote Malachi 3:1 nor use any
other words to infer scripture, but only has Jesus say the very vague 'Allow it now, for this is
the fitting way for us to fulfil all righteousness.'
It is clear by now: yet another one of Mark's errors, a part of his legacy, is to baptise Jesus -
which is a move that undermines the credibility of baptism, as the entire goal of baptism is
repentance, the remission of sins. Although it is not spelled out by the first three gospel-
writers, Jesus was supposed to be free of sin. John is the only one to spell it out, although not
literally:
John 1:9 The true light that enlightens everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the
world, and the world was made through him, and the world didn't recognize him. 11 He came to
his own, and those who were his own didn't receive him. 12 But as many as received him, to them

he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name: 13 who were born
not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 The Word became
flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the only born Son of the Father,
full of grace and truth.
A true light, the only born Son of God, full of grace and truth: such a description is not likely to
apply to someone who would or even could err, let alone commit sin. And as such, John simply
doesn't baptise Jesus. One would assume he does, given everything else that happens, but he
doesn't. John simply refuses to have Jesus baptised, he won't have it; it is his gospel and he will
have none of such nonsense. The following narrative depicts the first time that John meets
Jesus:
John 1:29 The next day, he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who
takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who is
preferred before me, for he was before me.' 31 I didn't know him, but for this reason I came
baptizing in water: that he would be revealed to Israel." 32 John testified, saying, "I have seen the
Spirit descending like a dove out of heaven, and it remained on him. 33 I didn't recognize him, but
he who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'On whomever you will see the Spirit descending
and remaining on him is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.' 34 I have seen, and have testified
that this is the Son of God."
John doesn't have John baptise Jesus - that is an easy way to remember that, isn't it? John the
gospel-writer is completely out of the gospel-writers' league, and even Matthew doing what he
pleases pales next to him. John couldn't possibly have John baptise Jesus because he explicitly
(although not literally) states that Jesus is free of sin, so he just omits the deed - as simple as
that. Because he also knew what was the reason behind the baptism of Jesus, as well as the
implications of said baptism, and decides to not baptise Jesus but play along nicely and please
Mark's legacy by repeating the most significant event - the Holy Spirit descending on him - and
bury it all under a ton of words.
John doesn't even suggest that Jesus was baptised by dropping the word 'water': he plays
absolutely straight and fair, leaving it all up to the already programmed mind of the reader to
read the baptism of Jesus into his words. What John the gospel-writer does truly is just, brave
and praiseworthy, it is all very highly commendable; I honestly mean that, no sarcasm
intended.

The quest into baptism continues with Matthew, and the statement from John about Jesus
baptising him instead. That helps with the quest into baptism and provides a clarification for
his comment just a few verses before:
Matthew 3:11 "I indeed baptize you in water for repentance, but he who comes after me is mightier
than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit. 12 His
winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor. He will gather
his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire."
That is a difference, and a connection between John and Jesus (apart from them being related):
John baptises in water, Jesus baptises in the Holy Spirit. Matthew explicitly uses the word 'in'
and not 'with'; only Luke baptises 'with' water, all the others baptise 'in'.
In Matthew also, Jesus can baptise people with the baptism he has been baptised with:
Matthew 20:22 But Jesus answered, "You don't know what you are asking. Are you able to drink
the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?"
They said to him, "We are able." 23 He said to them, "You will indeed drink my cup, and be
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on my right hand and on my left
hand is not mine to give, but it is for whom it has been prepared by my Father."
Whatever that may mean - still no detail whatsoever on it all. The very last mention of baptism
by Matthew comes at the very end when Jesus instructs his disciples, and we have another
application of baptism: people can be baptised 'in the name of' someone else. Could that be a
reference to the baptisms that people have been baptised with, and with which baptisms they
can baptise other people, as narrated by Jesus?
Matthew 27:19 Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Jesus will baptise in the Holy Spirit, according to John, and here Jesus tells his disciples to
baptise in the name of (the Father and the Son and) the Holy Spirit - those two could be the
same, given their strong likeliness, or at least two of a kind.

Baptising 'in the name of'; I can imagine words spoken on such an occasion. By the baptiser?
The baptised? Both? Are those words spoken softly, aloud, once or twice or even more often?
Are the words spoken, or can they also be words that are sung, or even a poem perhaps? A
prayer?
After three whole gospels, we know literally nothing about baptism; except that people have
been baptised in the river Jordan and that it involves emerging from water (although only Jesus
did that), and that one can be baptised with the baptism that someone else has been baptised
with. It seemingly was the calling of a John the Baptist, a relative of Jesus, who wasn't seen by
anyone until he started baptising because he 'was in the desert until the day of his public
appearance to Israel' (Luke 1:80). As far as we know John the Baptist was the only person on
the face of the earth ever to have baptised anyone.
After three whole gospels, that's the entirety of our truth concerning baptism.
It isn't until John (the gospel-writer) that Jesus performs some baptising of his own:
John 3:22 After these things, Jesus came with his disciples into the land of Judea. He stayed there
with them and baptized. 23 John also was baptizing in Enon near Salim, because there was much
water there. They came, and were baptized; 24 for John was not yet thrown into prison.
Apparently a lot of water is needed for baptism; that can only indicate that more than one
person can be baptised by someone at the same time: even if John's disciples would also be
baptising, how much (body of) water would be needed for simultaneous baptising? Roughly
anything from 1 to 10 square metres of water per baptism or person to be baptised?
I think this is an important clue, and that more than one person can be baptised by a baptiser
at the same time. John could have any number of disciples, from a minimum of three (at some
point he calls two of them, so there must be more than two) to any number of thousands if you
like, although a dozen or more seems more likely - which is a completely random and
unfounded number by the way, but so is thousands. With a hundred baptisers and 10 square
metres per baptised, would a shallow lake of 25 by 40 metres qualify as "much water"? We can
only guess.
There is another interesting fact about baptism:
John 4:1 Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and
baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus himself didn't baptize, but his disciples), 3
he left Judea and departed into Galilee.

Jesus himself didn't baptise there after all, it appears - only his disciples. Jesus had twelve
disciples, and those twelve could baptise more than John and his disciples together!
Actually, now we mention it, it says nowhere that John's disciples did any baptising, John is
always the one doing the baptising, and when John speaks about baptising he never uses the
plural, it's always himself doing all the work.
That's a relief, there is some certainty there. But it is also slightly complicating the reason for
'much water' being necessary for John's baptising in John's gospel chapter 3, if it's only John
doing the baptising - although that would decisively indicate that mass-baptism was practiced
by John, with perhaps a maximum of ten people baptised per baptism, if the twelve disciples of
Jesus could outperform John. That is, of course, entirely assuming that the disciples of Jesus
were baptising only one at a time, that the disciples of Jesus were just as quick as John in
baptising a person, that the terrain was equal for both parties, with the slope of the hill as well
as the shallowness of the water for both about fairly the same angle, that the people to be
baptised were about the same age and agility so that one wouldn't for instance have to wait for
ages until that old lady finally got around being baptised, much like that old lady in front of
you at the supermarket who just can't seem to locate the right coins in her small change, and...
- and now I'm being difficult, and I'll stop it.
With these verses being the last of John on baptism, there is nothing on baptism in the four
gospels at all, whatsoever. Baptisms involves emerging from water, sometimes prayer can
follow afterwards, one's baptism can be reapplied to others so the act or method of baptism
seems to have a reusable property, and baptism is not one-on-one but multiple people (a
guesstimate is a dozen) can be baptised by a single baptiser at the same time. Lastly, one can
be baptised 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' and Jesus was said
by John to baptise in the Holy Spirit. Known baptisers: John the Baptist himself and the
disciples of Jesus - but definitely not Jesus himself. Baptism serves the goal of repentance and
causes remission of sins, and most surprisingly even Jesus was baptised although John the
gospel-writer vehemently disagreed with that idea. Jesus himself anxiously announced his
second baptism, possibly indicating that he was going to sin at some point in the future, but
that has never been witnessed.
If verily veracious, only Jesus comes up from the water when baptised: in Matthew and Mark
alone. The only gospel-writer who has other people being baptised in water is Mark, and that is
in his 1:5 when people are baptised in the Jordan river. Is this really all then? Yes it is,

absolutely all there's to it in the first four gospels, and that is exactly when and where the
whole concept of baptism is birthed.
If you forget everything you've always "known" about baptism and go through the four gospels,
this is the exact and complete definition of baptism: nothing less, and most certainly nothing
more. And at the exact point in time when all four gospels had been written for the first time
together (likely somewhere at the end of the 1st century CE), this undoubtedly also must have
been the complete definition of baptism.
I will dig deeper then, and make an exception for John the Baptist: I really want to get to the
bottom of this, in order to identify all the details of baptism - there must be far more to it than
this!
It isn't until the book of Acts that baptism becomes more, starting as a varying ritual with
people being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ 'for the forgiveness of sins', upon which
people receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ
appears to be some primary form of baptism after which another can take place, according to
the phrase in Acts 8:16 'only been baptized in the name of Christ Jesus'. Chapter 8 also shows
us that walking into or going down into water is used in baptising:
Acts 8:36 As they went on the way, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "Behold, here
is water. What is keeping me from being baptized?" 37 He commanded the chariot to stand still,
and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
A requirement, possibly some kind of pre-ceremony, shows up as well:
Acts 10:47 "Can anyone forbid these people from being baptized with water? They have received
the Holy Spirit just like us." 48 He commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Then they asked him to stay some days.
Receive the Holy Spirit and then you can be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ; that sure
looks like a requirement, unless it's particular for the Gentiles who are mentioned here. And
how it's used here, it seems that one can even insist on baptism in the name of Jesus Christ
after one has received said Holy Spirit! Given the scene from Acts 8, it seems that just being in
water is good enough for a baptism; it is fair to assume that the two persons just stood in
water, although it remains unclear how far they went into it.

Insightful information, the lot of it. Chapter 11 once more demonstrates that one can also be
baptised in the name of the Holy Spirit, and chapter 12 shows exotic side effects of being
baptised:
Acts 12:1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having passed through the upper country, came to
Ephesus and found certain disciples. 2 He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you
believed?" They said to him, "No, we haven't even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." 3 He said,
"Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Paul said, "John indeed
baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe in the one
who would come after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the
name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them
and they spoke with other languages and prophesied.
John baptised with the baptism of repentance - that seems to be the first stage of baptism, after
which you apparently don't receive the Holy Spirit. The next stage is being baptised in the
name of the Lord Jesus, and that presumably can follow immediately after the first stage.
As Paul demonstrates here, upon being baptised in the name of Lord Jesus one receives the
Holy Spirit. Another extra detail disclosed is Paul laying his hands on them; is that invoking
the Holy Spirit or just part of the baptism ritual? What is not helping is that a few chapters
earlier:
Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the
word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for
them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit; 16 for as yet he had fallen on none of them. They
had only been baptized in the name of Christ Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them, and
they received the Holy Spirit.
Wait - being baptised in the name of Christ Jesus doesn't give you the Holy Spirit? That seems
to be fairly guaranteed, given verse 16. So we then have baptisms in the name of Jesus Christ,
Lord Jesus, and Christ Jesus - three different baptisms, it appears.
According to Acts 10:47 you can be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ when you have
received the Holy Spirit. Being baptised in the name of Lord Jesus leads to the Holy Spirit
coming on to you (Acts 12:5-6), yet being baptised in the name of Christ Jesus is guaranteed to

not let you receive the Holy Spirit, but that can be fixed by just laying hands on you (Acts 8:15-
17).
After Acts only a few verses mention baptism but its application remains (this) wide and
vague, and utterly confusing.
John the Baptist only performs on half a handful of stages in the gospels, and only during a
very limited time, and then is silenced forever. Looking at his initial withdrawal from public for
probably three decades he strikingly closely resembles one of those people in books who had
their records expunged by the FBI, CIA or another TLA. John appears out of nowhere, strikes
once or twice, and disappears for good - he's the ninja of the gospels. Is John the Baptist a
figment of Thomas' imagination, thus forming an effective historical fact for the Church just
like Thomas did with Maria, Salome, Thomas, Judas, Simon Peter, Matthew and Jacob the
Righteous aka James the Just - not to forget Jesus himself?
Yes, of course.
John the Baptist is the most important prophet ever in the history of Christianity.
The only prophet, actually, ever, to be alive during the life of a Messiah - the Messiah,
according to Christianity.
The only prophet ever to be related to a Messiah - the Messiah, according to Christianity.
What's more, this prophet even had direct and indirect contact with said Messiah - the
Messiah, according to Christianity.
This John the Baptist truly is 'a prophet of the Most High' (Luke 1:76).
And this is all that remains of his legacy, his ministry, his teachings? His entire life? This is the
entirety of the role he played as the utmost important prophet of Christianity?
I'm more than willing to argue that John the Baptist came from Thomas and couldn't possibly
be ignored given the kind of attention and brightness of spotlight he received from Thomas,
being mentioned in the same logion as Adam although both were said to be "born of woman" -
was that a play by Thomas, denying that Adam was created by God?
Because the Messiah was prophesied to have a forerunner, John was cunningly portrayed from
the very beginning of Mark as Elijah in disguise: literally clad in Elijah's clothes, and clothed in
Malachi's 4:5 and Isaiah's 40:3 prophecies of 'preparing the way of the Lord':
2 Kings 1:8 They answered him, "He wore a garment of hair, with a belt of leather about his
waist." And he said, "It is Elijah the Tishbite."

There is no description of anyone else's attire in the four gospels, save for John the Baptist -
and the irony of it all is, they're not even his own clothes.
In reality, only the Jews who didn't care about the Elijah prophecy would have believed in John
the Baptist.
Delicately balancing between Elijah and John the Baptist, thus not knowing exactly what to do
with John, the gospel-writers turned him into somewhat of a prophet doing his extremely non-
descript baptism thing and stashed him away for later. But there never was a later, as he was
quickly silenced in a bizarre way: as Herod's prisoner he was beheaded on request of the
daughter of Herodias (who merely passed along her mother's wish). That's not all; the request
literally was to bring John's head on a platter - all this was granted because Herod swore an
oath to her to give her anything she wanted, up to half of his kingdom.
What a tragic and absurd death! Such a cruel, strange, awkward thing - what is the story
behind that? The official story is that John was imprisoned by Herod for uttering one sentence,
at that same moment incurring the wrath of his brother's wife, Herodias:
Mark 6:18 For John said to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." 19
Herodias set herself against him, and desired to kill him, but she couldn't,
Matthew shares the same story, Luke doesn't at all, he has virtually nothing on John the Baptist
- but adds a detail:
Luke 3:18 Then with many other exhortations he preached good news to the people, 19 but Herod
the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias, his brother's wife, and for all the evil things
which Herod had done, 20 added this also to them all, that he shut up John in prison.
A slightly better reason for imprisonment, or rather, less bad - but then again Herod really was
known - according to the historian Josephus - to be a cruel despot who had a few of his own
sons executed. But that would be Herod the Great, who allegedly murdered the newborns in
Bethlehem, of which the only historical record is Matthew 2:10 and that same historian
Josephus. The Herod who allegedly had John the Baptist beheaded (John's death was put on
record by Josephus as well) was Herod Antipas, one of his sons, who came to rule Galilee after
his death - and this Herod was unknown for any cruelty of any kind.
Granted, this Herod swore an oath:

Matthew 14:6 But when Herod's birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced among them
and pleased Herod. 7 Therefore he promised with an oath to give her whatever she should
ask. 8 She, being prompted by her mother, said, "Give me here on a platter the head of John the
Baptizer." 9 The king was grieved, but for the sake of his oaths and of those who sat at the table
with him, he commanded it to be given, 10 and he sent and beheaded John in the prison.
An oath - that really is something that can't be broken. But which king is silly enough to
promise a young girl whatever she wants, and swear an oath on that? Mark even went a whole
lot further than that:
Mark 6:22 When the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she pleased Herod and
those sitting with him. The king said to the young lady, "Ask me whatever you want, and I will
give it to you." 23 He swore to her, "Whatever you ask of me, I will give you, up to half of my
kingdom."
Up to half his kingdom, is what Herod promises, according to Mark - promising a teenage girl
up to half his kingdom is what Herod does, according to Mark, and Luke leaves that out!
Matthew also leaves it out, and it is as such that we can easily recognise a "fix" by Luke and
Matthew: this is one of the many places where they agree, together, against Mark. Why do
both Luke and Matthew omit that fact?
Esther 5:3 The king said, "What do you desire, Esther? What is your request? Ask even to the half
of my kingdom, and it shall be yours."
A familiar scene, it seems, or is this mere coincidence? Esther is a queen, wagering half of your
kingdom to a queen is not unfeasible - but the (probable) teen daughter of your wife? The half
of the kingdom from Mark disappears in Luke and Matthew, such is certain.
While we're at it, by now we've become well acquainted with the rather loose way in which
prophecies sometimes are treated by the gospel-writers: for instance Mark's pointer in 1:2 to
Isaiah, which in fact refers to both Malachi and Isaiah. Matthew's false claim to prophecy
fulfilled by the Bethlehem massacre when he points to Jeremiah 31:15 which for a change really
is a prophecy, but about the people of Israel in exile, and already fulfilled centuries earlier -
and about Ramah, not Bethlehem. Matthew's false claim to prophecy fulfilled regarding the

flight to Egypt; Matthew's false claim to a non existing prophecy regarding Jesus coming from
Nazareth; Matthew's confusion of Zechariah with Jeremiah when Judas returns the 30 silver
pieces.
In the light of all that, would it be feasible that the so very peculiar beheading of John the
Baptist served a purpose? Other than relieving the gospel-writers of their duty to assign him a
true role as Jesus' one and only prophet and to thoroughly deepen his character - and have him
finally actually do something to 'turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of
the children to their fathers' as the real Malachi prophecy foretold?
2 Kings 2:1 When Yahweh was about to take Elijah up by a whirlwind into heaven, Elijah went
with Elisha from Gilgal. 2 Elijah said to Elisha, "Please wait here, for Yahweh has sent me as far
as Bethel." Elisha said, "As Yahweh lives, and as your soul lives, I will not leave you." So they went
down to Bethel. 3 The sons of the prophets who were at Bethel came out to Elisha, and said to
him, "Do you know that Yahweh will take away your master from your head today?" He
said, "Yes, I know it. Hold your peace."
Laugh if you will, I know I did when I first saw it. Not a prophecy at all yet a historical narrative
of Elijah's being taken up into heaven, and even already fulfilled - and it does contain the
words 'take...away...master...head' but that's really all about it. The master is taken from the
head, it's not saying the reverse, that the head of the master will be taken, and head is naturally
used figuratively here.
Is it insane to presume that this "prophecy" instigated Mark's invention to have John the
Baptist beheaded? In the light of the loose way in which the prophecies are wielded, I think
not. I think that Mark had been frantically looking from the very start of their gospel for a way
to get rid of John the Baptist so Elijah could take his place in the transfiguration:
Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a
high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, 3 and his clothes became
radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them. 4 And there appeared to them
Elijah with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus
John's entire purpose is to die as fast as he can, so they can use the Elijah in him. They could
have dropped John from the stairs but that would have raised suspicion. They could have given
him some kind of heroic death but heroes have character, and they were intent on not

deepening John's character - John was Elijah and Elijah alone, period. So John's imprisonment
was invented, the scene from Esther remembered, and all that was needed was a proper death.
Was it bad memory of 2 Kings? It seems absolutely plausible that one would remember Elijah
being taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot, rather than him suffering of his head being taken
away - this is all getting less feasible by the minute, isn't it?
Absurd idea? Yes. Preposterous? Maybe.
Mark has a pointer:
Mark 9:12 He said to them, "Elijah indeed comes first, and restores all things. How is it written
about the Son of Man, that he should suffer many things and be despised? 13 But I tell you that
Elijah has come, and they have also done to him whatever they wanted to, even as it is written
about him."
As it is written about him? Is Mark claiming that John met his fate accordingly to what was
written about him, in scripture? Prophesied perhaps even, within the very loose context of the
gospel-writers? That must mean Elijah of course, as John the Baptist is a Thomas invention and
nowhere to be found in the Tanakh. But there is nothing about Elijah in the Tanakh that
indicates what would happen to him after he had returned from his presumed death or sky
ride - in theory he could still be living of course, many people in the Tanakh grew to be many
hundreds of years old. So this must be about John, but that can't be?! Then John must have
suffered something that was "prophesied" in the context of Elijah.
The fate of John the Baptist referred to by Mark in this way, pointing to 'suffer many things
and be despised', could hardly be his unjust imprisonment, but must have been that other
grand negative event in his life: death by beheading. The Jews have 'also' done to John what
they wanted to, similar to the Son of Man. So they have done something to John that they have
also done to Jesus at that moment? We know Mark by now, and he almost gets it right, he says
almost exactly what he means to say. Unfortunately, Luke doesn't repeat anything Mark said
here. Fortunately, Matthew does:
Matthew 17:12 but I tell you that Elijah has come already, and they didn't recognize him, but did
to him whatever they wanted to. Even so the Son of Man will also suffer by them."
Matthew repeats all of Mark, and discloses that the suffering of many things and the being
despised that Mark mentions hasn't already happened to Jesus. By using the future tense,

Matthew implicitly states here that whatever Jesus has undergone by now, more than half-way
through his gospel, is nothing compared to what Jesus will undergo in the future: 'will also
suffer by them'.
So what the Jews have done to John is what they will do to Jesus, and what they will do to Jesus
is what they have done to John. That can mean only one thing: death.
Matthew repeats Mark, but leaves out the reference to scripture. Wait, what?! Matthew of all
people is passing on a chance to quote scripture? That very same Matthew who makes up
scripture prophecy from scratch if need be? Indeed, that very same Matthew doesn't look up
Mark's prophecy about the death of John the Baptist; doesn't quote Mark's prophecy about the
death of John the Baptist; doesn't name the prophet of Mark's prophecy about the death of
John the Baptist, and doesn't even merely repeat Mark's vague scripture reference about the
death of John the Baptist.
This seems similar to the baptism of Jesus: a bait of scripture yet nobody bites.
Can John the gospel-writer offer any help? Alas, he mentions nothing about John the Baptist
and Herod, no imprisonment or death in his story to be found.
Mark thought that he'd be fulfilling scripture by beheading John the Baptist, also known as
Elijah - and he even wrote that down. So I wouldn't be surprised if a very old version of a bible
were to be found somewhere that contains verses or, more likely, a footnote with a direct or
indirect reference to Elijah or the second book of Kings along with the passage of John the
Baptist's beheading, with highly likely yet another claim of a prophecy fulfilled.
Killing three birds with one stone it would be: getting rid of (the name and) the character of
John the Baptist who Thomas forced onto the gospel-writers just like he did with (the name of)
Jesus. It would be undisputedly proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that John in fact was
Elijah because he suffered "the same death" as Elijah. The bonus to it would be fulfilling yet
another prophecy - gospel-writers' style.
What could be the most likely other explanation for Mark pointing to scripture and no one
else copying him? That the scripture in question was actually looked up and judged to be not
plausible enough to continue on, perhaps even a mistake - but John the Baptist being
beheaded couldn't be undone. So that story simply was repeated and retold, the vague pointer
to 'it being written' omitted, and that was that.
John the Baptist goes only skin deep, and never developed his character. Even Judas of all
people undergoes a major character development in the Church story, yet John the Baptist

completely fails to obtain the body required for and deserving of a prophet in the usual Judaic
sense of the word. Prophets who love to fill page after page with monologues from God or
themselves, full of instructions that are carefully and meticulously quantified and qualified.
It's not as if they forgot to elaborate on John; Luke spends 21 consecutive verses on John in his
very first chapter, starting at verse 5; then he takes a break and continues again at verse 57,
ending with verse 80. Forty-five, 45, verses on the birth of John; so there was plenty of space
and energy to dedicate to John, and plenty of time and attention to do so.
Yet after Luke's chapter 1 not more than a few handfuls of verses are spent on John in all four
gospels together. Eleven verses are spent by Luke on his "preaching", a word which, truth be
told, is more than overrated: "share clothes and food which you have in abundance" and "don't
be dishonest when exercising your profession as tax collector or soldier" is, loosely translated,
the full extent to what John states there - that's all far from exciting or mind-blowing.
The gospel-writers didn't want to elaborate on John, they wanted John to just be Elijah - and
they all excused themselves by Luke's spiritless invention:
Luke 1:80 The child was growing and becoming strong in spirit, and was in the desert until the
day of his public appearance to Israel
John the Baptist fails to become Elijah, fails to get the approval of the Jews, and even John the
gospel-writer feels obliged to spend a few verses on Project Elijah - with the stunning result
(and thus apparent goal) of letting John the Baptist emphatically deny that he is Elijah:
John 1: 21 They asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the
prophet?" He answered, "No." 22 They said therefore to him, "Who are you? Give us an answer
to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?" 23 He said, "I am the voice of
one crying in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as Isaiah the prophet said."
John has John emphatically deny being Elijah; he is just a forerunner. If we take that seriously,
and traverse back to the John of Mark, what does that leave of him? If we take all the actions of
John the Baptist from Mark, everything that he meant to Jesus and his movement, his entire
legacy before he died, then this is it:
Mark 1:4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching the baptism of repentance for
forgiveness of sins. 5 All the country of Judea and all those of Jerusalem went out to him. They

were baptized by him in the Jordan river, confessing their sins. 6 John was clothed with camel's
hair and a leather belt around his waist. He ate locusts and wild honey. 7 He preached, saying,
"After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop
down and loosen. 8 I baptized you in water, but he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit."
This is it - nothing else; the rest is prison, beheading, and small talk. It is evident that Mark
considered John the Baptist a nuisance, and that his only part was meant to portray Elijah.
Below are all verses referencing Elijah and the word part bapti:
BOOK OF MARK
Chapter 1
4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
Chapter 6
14 King Herod heard of it, for Jesus' name had become known. Some said, "John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers
are at work in him."
15 But others said, "He is Elijah." And others said, "He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old."
24 And she went out and said to her mother, "For what should I ask?" And she said, "The head of John the Baptist."
25 And she came in immediately with haste to the king and asked, saying, "I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter."
Chapter 8
28 And they told him, "John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets."
Chapter 9
4 And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus.
5 And Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah."
11 And they asked him, "Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?"
12 And he said to them, "Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be
treated with contempt?
13 But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him."
Chapter 10
38 Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am
baptized?"
39 And they said to him, "We are able." And Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be
baptized,
Chapter 11
30 Was the baptism of John from heaven or from man? Answer me."
Chapter 15
35 And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "Behold, he is calling Elijah."
36 And someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink, saying, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will
come to take him down."
Chapter 16
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Eleven, 11 verses about anything to do with baptism, and eight, 8, about Elijah, and one, 1,
about both. If we leave out the verbs and nouns referring to baptism and only count the names
of Elijah and John, then in Mark there are 8 verses about Elijah and 7 about John the Baptist.
Did John the Baptist, blandest of all prophets, develop enough character to become a credible
Church person instead of just a name in Thomas? The answer to that can only be unanimous,
notwithstanding all my findings and claims in this very chapter: so at least that mission was
successful.
Zedekiah the Immerser
So if John the Baptist is a figment of Thomas' imagination, what is the wordplay on? Where is
Thomas secretly pointing us to, where is the pun in it? That can only be the Tanakh, of course,

being the only verified source that Thomas quotes from. Why does he name Adam and John,
what is their connection? Adam is the first man, so perhaps John is the last? The last of what?
(46) Jesus said, "From Adam until John the Baptist, among those born of women, there is no
one exalted above John the Baptist so that his eyes should be broken. Yet I have said,
whoever of you comes to be a child will know the kingdom and will be exalted above John."
Breaking eyes... yet another puzzling Thomasine riddle. Gathercole sums it up nicely15:
The Coptic’s reference to John’s eyes literally breaking (ⲛⲟⲩⲱϭⲡ⳿ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲛⲉϥⲃⲁⲗ )
is very peculiar. Plisch suggests textual corruption, and it may be that the
better sense is ‘eyes failing’, a common biblical idiom referring to a state of being
deeply troubled with no comfort
Ah, textual corruption! That's the favourite playground of our esteemed "scholars" whenever
they don't understand a text - it must be corrupt! I am right, and this 2,000 year old, unique
text, more poetry than prose, is wrong - of course, why didn't I think of that earlier...
It is no wonder that with academics of this calibre the text of Thomas hasn't made any
progress during six decades. Much to Gathercole's credit, he doesn't fall for that trap:
46.1 Such that his eyes should break. See the textual comment above on this curious
phrase. Other translations, such as be ‘cast down’, ‘downcast’, ‘averted’, are not so
much translations as attempts to change what is said in order to make some
sense. Similarly, Nordsieck’s reference to ‘eyes not breaking’ as an image of life beyond
death is also a guess. If the conjecture suggested above is correct, the sense would be
that there is none is greater than John such that John would be overcome with a sense
of inferiority: similarly, in the Gospel of Judas, in contrast to the other disciples Judas
can stand before Jesus, but cannot look at him (35,6 – 14).
I do disagree with Gathercole on essential matters, but I am quite charmed by this very book of
his and its beautifully detailed content. Yes, feeble attempts to excuse one's lack of imagination
is what they are, although Gathercole makes a note of the extend of his efforts to get behind
15
S. Gathercole, The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction and Commentary, 2014

the meaning of it all: 'I have not been able to find a parallel to ‘eyes breaking’. My colleague John
Ray, the Professor of Egyptology in Cambridge, was also unaware of any such expression in
Egyptian literature (personal communication, 9.xii.2011).'. I have no idea what Egypt has to do
with Thomas, but I can only assume that at that point Gathercole had already exhausted all his
efforts on the Tanakh, and perhaps even further writings.
And it does require a fair bit of digging; there are 438 verses in the Tanakh containing the word
'eyes', yet only 3 that match:
BOOK OF 2 KINGS
Chapter 25
7 They slaughtered the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of
Zedekiah and bound him in chains and took him to Babylon.
BOOK OF JEREMIAH
Chapter 39
6 The king of Babylon slaughtered the sons of Zedekiah at Riblah before his eyes, and
the king of Babylon slaughtered all the nobles of Judah. 7 He put out the eyes of
Zedekiah and bound him in chains to take him to Babylon.
Chapter 52
10 The king of Babylon slaughtered the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and also
slaughtered all the officials of Judah at Riblah. 11 He put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and
bound him in chains, and the king of Babylon took him to Babylon, and put him in prison
till the day of his death.
The word in the Septuagint (and Codex Sinaiticus) is 'τουσ οφθαλµουσ σεδεκιου εξετυφλωσεν',
"the eyes of-Zedekiah they-out-blinded", of the verb 'ετυφλωθειν' with root 'τυφλος' meaning
"blind" in a literal and figurative sense: "they out-blinded the eyes of Zedekiah". Almost all
bible translations use the verb 'to put out' and only the ISV uses 'blinded'. Zedekiah's eyes
weren't burnt, poked out or ripped out, but gouged out: literally broken. Thomas uses
wordplay here, referring to both the literal and figurative sense: you deflect your eyes when
you look up or down, which also is a kind of "breaking" if your usual view is to look straight
ahead. Who is meant by 'his' in Thomas, John or the one who is exalted? That is unclear, but
either men should "break their eyes" when looking at each other from a position where either
one of them is exalted: the one looking up, and the one looking down.
What's all this about being exalted then? That doesn't make much sense either.

BOOK OF 2 KINGS
Chapter 25
27 And in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth
month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, Evil-merodach king of Babylon, in the
year that he began to reign, graciously freed Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison. 28 And
he spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat above the seats of the kings who were
with him in Babylon.
BOOK OF JEREMIAH
Chapter 52
31 And in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth
month, on the twenty-fifth day of the month, Evil-merodach king of Babylon, in the year
that he became king, graciously freed Jehoiachin king of Judah and brought him out of
prison. 32 And he spoke kindly to him, and gave him a seat above the seats of the
kings who were with him in Babylon.
Jehoiachin? But that's not Zedekiah! That's correct, and quite a bit of genealogy is at its place.
The Kingdom of Judah was an Iron Age kingdom of the Southern Levant. The Tanakh depicts
it as the successor to the Kingdom of Israel under biblical kings Saul, David and Solomon and
covering the territory of two historical kingdoms, Judah and Israel.
The major theme of the Tanakh is the loyalty of Judah, and especially its kings, to God.
Accordingly, all the kings of Israel and many of the kings of Judah were "bad", which in terms
of Biblical narrative means that they failed to enforce monotheism. Of the "good" kings,
Hezekiah (727–698 BCE) is noted for his efforts at stamping out idolatry (in this case, the
worship of Baal and Asherah, among other traditional Near Eastern divinities), but his
successors, Manasseh of Judah (698–642 BCE) and Amon (642–640 BCE), revived idolatry,
drawing down on the kingdom the anger of God. King Josiah (640–609 BCE) returned to the
worship of God alone, but his efforts were too late and Israel's unfaithfulness caused God to
permit the kingdom's destruction by the Neo-Babylonian Empire in the Siege of Jerusalem (587
BCE).
The story about Josiah and his sons is narrated in 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, and last but not
least Jeremiah. Bear in mind that in the Tanakh, Chronicles is part of Ketuvim, the third and
final Book, in which Chronicles is one complete book, and the last book, thus being the very
last book of the Hebrew Bible: Divrei ha-Yamim (‫ )דִּ בְ רֵי הַ י ִָּּמים‬- Chronicles.

Josiah had three sons: '1 Chronicles 3:15 The sons of Josiah: the firstborn Johanan, the second
Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, and the fourth Shallum. 16 The sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his
son, and Zedekiah his son.'. Johanan is our pointer to John the Baptist, Ïⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ ⲡ ⲃⲁⲡⲧⲓⲥⲧⲏⲥ,
Johannes the Immerser as mentioned in the Coptic text of Thomas - all others changed names
upon becoming king, neither of which did Johanan. Josiah reigned very well, and although he
met his demise in an unfortunate accident, even Jeremiah mourned him:
2 Chronicles 35:20 After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Neco king of Egypt went
up to fight against Carchemish by the Euphrates, and Josiah went out against him. 21 But he sent
ambassadors to him, saying, "What have I to do with you, you king of Judah? I come not against
you today, but against the house with which I have war. God has commanded me to make haste.
Beware that it is God who is with me, that he not destroy you." 22 Nevertheless Josiah would not
turn his face from him, but disguised himself, that he might fight with him, and didn't listen to
the words of Neco from the mouth of God, and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo. 23 The
archers shot at king Josiah; and the king said to his servants, "Take me away, because I am
seriously wounded!" 24 So his servants took him out of the chariot, and put him in the second
chariot that he had, and brought him to Jerusalem; and he died, and was buried in the tombs of
his fathers. All Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. 25 Jeremiah lamented for Josiah,
and all the singing men and singing women spoke of Josiah in their lamentations to this
day; and they made them an ordinance in Israel. Behold, they are written in the lamentations. 26
Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and his good deeds, according to that which is written in
Yahweh's law, 27 and his acts, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of
Israel and Judah.
Right after, chapter 36 starts, and gives a neat summary of the remaining four kings of the
Kingdom of Judah:
2 Chronicles 36:1 Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and made
him king in his father's place in Jerusalem. 2 Joahaz was twenty-three years old when he began
to reign; and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. 3 The king of Egypt removed him from office
at Jerusalem, and fined the land one hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold. 4 The king of
Egypt made Eliakim his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem, and changed his name to
Jehoiakim. Neco took Joahaz his brother, and carried him to Egypt. 5 Jehoiakim was twenty-five

years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. He did that which
was evil in Yahweh his God's sight. 6 Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against him,
and bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon. 7 Nebuchadnezzar also carried some of the
vessels of Yahweh's house to Babylon, and put them in his temple at Babylon. 8 Now the rest of
the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he did, and that which was found in him,
behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah; and Jehoiachin his son
reigned in his place. 9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned
three months and ten days in Jerusalem. He did that which was evil in Yahweh's sight. 10 At
the return of the year, king Nebuchadnezzar sent and brought him to Babylon, with the
valuable vessels of Yahweh's house, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and
Jerusalem. 11 Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven
years in Jerusalem. 12 He did that which was evil in Yahweh his God's sight. He didn't
humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet speaking from Yahweh's mouth. 13 He also rebelled
against king Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God; but he stiffened his neck, and
hardened his heart against turning to Yahweh, the God of Israel. 14 Moreover all the chiefs of the
priests, and the people, trespassed very greatly after all the abominations of the nations; and they
polluted Yahweh's house which he had made holy in Jerusalem. 15 Yahweh, the God of their
fathers, sent to them by his messengers, rising up early and sending, because he had compassion
on his people, and on his dwelling place; 16 but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised
his words, and scoffed at his prophets, until Yahweh's wrath arose against his people, until there
was no remedy.
The end of the temple, Jerusalem, Judah and Israel - and all Jewish grandeur
The last three kings 'did that which was evil in Yahweh his God's sight'. Let's recap: after Josiah
dies, his son Shallum is made king, aka Jeohahaz / Joahaz. After three months the Egyptian
king Neco makes his brother Eliakim king, aka Jehoiakim. After eleven years Nebuchadnezzar,
king of Babylon, makes his son Jeconiah, aka Coniah, aka Jehoiachin king. After three months
and ten days that same Nebuchadnezzar makes his uncle Zedekiah king, aka Mattanyahu /
Mattaniah.
Is it clear that referring to any of these by any name would be in vain? Many of these names are
also used within other genealogies, of other families - a pointer to the name of the firstborn of
Josiah isn't all that bad, really, and it's the best pointer there is before directly pointing to
Josiah himself - or Zedekiah, for that matter, both of which would be considered great spoilers.

What are the evils of this trio? Jehoiakim killed the prophet Uriah himself (Jeremiah 26:23),
and burned a scroll by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:21-24). Jehoiachin doesn't have much to go on;
only this little verse in 2 Chronicles chapter 36 speaks ill of Jehoiachin. Zedekiah imprisoned
Jeremiah in his tenth year and locked him up in the court of the guard (Jeremiah 37:21), after
Jeremiah pleaded with him: the princes had put Jeremiah away in the house of 'Jonathan the
scribe' (Jeremiah 37:15), which was the makeshift prison, for allegedly wanting to defect to the
Chaldeans. But the princes were not happy with Zedekiah's move:
Jeremiah 38:4 Then the princes said to the king, "Please let this man be put to death;
because he weakens the hands of the men of war who remain in this city, and the hands of all the
people, in speaking such words to them: for this man doesn't seek the welfare of this people, but
harm." 5 Zedekiah the king said, "Behold, he is in your hand; for the king can't do anything to
oppose you." 6 Then they took Jeremiah and threw him into the dungeon of Malchijah the king's
son, that was in the court of the guard. They let down Jeremiah with cords. In the dungeon
there was no water, but mire; and Jeremiah sank in the mire. 7 Now when Ebedmelech the
Ethiopian, a eunuch, who was in the king's house, heard that they had put Jeremiah in the
dungeon (the king was then sitting in Benjamin's gate), 8 Ebedmelech went out of the king's
house, and spoke to the king, saying, 9 "My lord the king, these men have done evil in all that
they have done to Jeremiah the prophet, whom they have cast into the dungeon. He is likely to die
in the place where he is, because of the famine; for there is no more bread in the city." 10 Then
the king commanded Ebedmelech the Ethiopian, saying, "Take from here thirty men
with you, and take up Jeremiah the prophet out of the dungeon, before he dies." 11 So
Ebedmelech took the men with him, and went into the house of the king under the treasury, and
took from there rags and worn-out garments, and let them down by cords into the dungeon to
Jeremiah. 12 Ebedmelech the Ethiopian said to Jeremiah, "Now put these rags and worn-out
garments under your armpits under the cords." Jeremiah did so. 13 So they lifted Jeremiah up
with the cords, and took him up out of the dungeon; and Jeremiah remained in the court
of the guard.
Zedekiah's princes take Jeremiah and let him down in the dungeon where he sinks in the mire
(mud), and in the end Zedekiah orders him to be pulled out. And that, from beginning to end,
is immersion - albeit in mud. Zedekiah immerses Jeremiah in mud - Jeremiah, one of the major
prophets. Afterwards Zedekiah meets Jeremiah in secret, upon which he instructs Jeremiah to
lie about the meeting - which Jeremiah does.

The next event, a few months later, is Jerusalem being sacked by Nebuchadnezzar, who 'put
out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in chains, and the king of Babylon took him to Babylon,
and put him in prison till the day of his death'. The book of Jeremiah ends with chapter 52, with
its last four verses:
Jeremiah 52:31 And in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the
twelfth month, on the twenty-fifth day of the month, Evil-merodach king of Babylon, in the year
that he became king, graciously freed Jehoiachin king of Judah and brought him out of prison. 32
And he spoke kindly to him, and gave him a seat above the seats of the kings who were with
him in Babylon. 33 So Jehoiachin put off his prison garments. And every day of his life he dined
regularly at the king's table, 34 and for his allowance, a regular allowance was given him by the
king according to his daily need, until the day of his death, as long as he lived.
Zedekiah wasn't there so there is no exaltation above him, and even though his eyes are
broken, he didn't have to break his eyes there then.
The last king of the last kingdom of Israel, Zedekiah. Who revolts against Nebuchadnezzar by
refusing to pay tribute, and makes a pact with the Egyptians. All the warnings by Jeremiah are
ignored by him, and he even agrees with Jeremiah being put to death - yet changes his mind
soon after when it is probable that Jeremiah will die of starvation.
Zedekiah with the broken eyes, Zedekiah the Immerser, Zedekiah the brother of Johanan,
firstborn son of king Josiah, the last great king of the kingdom of Judah - which Zedekiah very
effectively put an end to, thus ending the last kingdom of the Jews, Israel, and what not. With
Jerusalem utterly destroyed, and its temple levelled to the ground, the entire Israelian dream
completely and utterly shattered. It would take more than half a century to rebuild the temple,
and it was smaller and less majestic than its predecessor.
Adam
From Adam until John the Immerser - what do the two have in common?
Both of them defy God - first and foremost. Adam was the first man to walk the earth
according to Genesis, Zedekiah was the last king to lead an Israeli kingdom - and witness the
first successful siege, and destruction, of Jerusalem- and its temple. It all ended with Zedekiah,
and Thomas praises the man out loud: no more temple, no more Jerusalem, no more Israeli
power: good riddance, is what Thomas must have wholeheartedly thought.

Adam defied God, it's the second thing he did, and there's perhaps a bit of a joke that he
listened to his wife and got punished for that by God, but that isn't what Thomas wants to say
with this logion, I think. The Tanakh is full of people who defy God, ridicule and even harm his
prophets, but from the first to do so - Adam - up until the last, the achievements of Zedekiah
are the most magnificent: they put an end to Israelian rule and kingdoms that lasted four
centuries. Thomas is citing Chronicles here with this very logion:
The First Book of Chronicles

Chapter 1
1 Adam, Seth, Enosh,
(...)
The Second Book of Chronicles
Chapter 36
20 He carried those who had escaped from the sword away to Babylon, and they were
servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia, 21 to fulfill Yahweh's
word by Jeremiah's mouth, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths. As long as it lay
desolate, it kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years. 22 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of
Persia, that Yahweh's word by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Yahweh
stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout
all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, 23 "Cyrus king of Persia says, 'Yahweh,
the God of heaven, has given all the kingdoms of the earth to me; and he has commanded
me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among you of
all his people, Yahweh his God be with him, and let him go up.'"
Chronicles starts with Adam, and ends with Zedekiah - it narrates the entire story of the rise
and fall of the Jews. So Thomas captures two (one, in the Tanakh) bible books in one logion,
and hides one hell of a hidden message in it. One thing is for sure: that message has not been
revealed in the past two thousand years, or Mark wouldn't have ventured out on his feeble
journey that had John the Baptist only serve as a vessel for Elijah so that Elijah could appear in
the transfiguration along with Moses. The scriptures foretold a forerunner for the Messiah, as
well as Elijah preceding him, and Thomas had brought to life a Johannes the Immerser (among
others). Mark thought he could address and fix all those problems in one go by dressing John
in Elijah clothes and have him do a completely non-descript baptism of Jesus, after which John
exits so that he can die before Elijah has to make his appearance:

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2 As it is written in Isaiah the
prophet, "Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, 3 the voice of
one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,'" 4 John
appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the
forgiveness of sins. 5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and
were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. 6 Now John was clothed
with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist and ate locusts and wild honey.
7 And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals
I am not worthy to stoop down and of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8
I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." The Baptism of Jesus
9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
(...)
Mark 6:26 And the king was exceedingly sorry, but because of his oaths and his guests he did not
want to break his word to her. 27 And immediately the king sent an executioner with orders
to bring John's head. He went and beheaded him in the prison 28 and brought his head on a
platter and gave it to the girl, and the girl gave it to her mother. 29 When his disciples heard of it,
they came and took his body and laid it in a tomb
(...)
Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a
high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, 3 and his clothes became
radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them. 4 And there appeared to them
Elijah with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus.
Mark gives John six verses, in chapter 1 only, and that is the grand total of all of John's actions:
dressed up in Elijah's clothes, reading one line from script(ure), performing one act, and then
it's exit. In chapter 6 Herod finds a highly implausible excuse to kill John in order to free up
Elijah, and Elijah fulfils his extremely non-descript and completely inactive role in the
Transfiguration. Another tick off the scripture box, as half-hearted as it is.
I'm surprised that Mark thought he'd get away with all that, and it's clear that he didn't do so
at all: Luke and Matthew continue his struggles with John the Baptist and Elijah, and even John
the Presbyter has to handle it - and destroys all previous work done by simply having John B.
state that he is not Elijah...

Mark is struggling with everything throughout his gospel, and rightfully so, but it is clear that
not only he didn't have a feel for Judaic scripture, but that he must have disliked to comply
with it as well.
Jacob the Righteous
Jacob the Righteous, or Ïⲁⲕⲱⲃⲟⲥ ⲡ ⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ as the Coptic states, doesn't make much of an
appearance in the four gospels. Paul and Acts address him, and portray him as James the Just,
brother of Jesus, who continues the ministry of Jesus and shapes the infant Church.
Why does Thomas point to this Jacob, and how?
It is evident that Thomas depicts the disciples as ignorant, as he dislikes the teacher-disciple
paradigm as well - check out logion 65 and my interpretation in case you have doubts about
that. The solitary, that is who will enter the kingdom; not those who lack self-seeking and self-
thinking. I translate logion 12 as follows:
ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲙ̄ ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲛ̄ ⲓ̄ⲥ̄ ϫⲉ ⲧⲛ̄ ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ϫⲉ ⲕ ⲛⲁ ⲃⲱⲕ` ⲛ̄ ⲧⲟⲟⲧ ⲛ̄ ⲛⲓⲙ` ⲡⲉ ⲉⲧ ⲛⲁ ⲣ̄ ⲛⲟϭ ⲉ ϩⲣⲁÏ ⲉϫⲱ ⲛ
ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲓ̄ⲥ̄ ⲛⲁ ⲩ ϫⲉ ⲡ ⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ ⲉⲓ ⲙ̄ ⲙⲁⲩ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁ ⲃⲱⲕ` ϣⲁ Ïⲁⲕⲱⲃⲟⲥ ⲡ ⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲉⲓ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁ ⲧ ⲡⲉ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲡ
ⲕⲁϩ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲃⲏⲧ ϥ̄
Say the disciples to Jesus : we know that you will go from our hand. Who is-it who will
become great up over us?
Says Jesus to them : the place you-have-come there you-will go to Jacob the Righteous,
this-one had the sky with the earth come-to-be because-of him
The Jesus of Thomas is miffed and lashes out at the dumb disciples who desire any teacher, as
long as there is one; that is most definitely not what Thomas has in mind. Where the disciples
ask a question about a certain moment in time, Thomas directs them to a place, a physical
location, and pigeonholes them: if you seek a rabbi then just go to Judaism! He points them to
Jacob, the poster child of Judaism, and Israel:
Genesis 25: 21 And Isaac prayed to the LORD for his wife, because she was barren. And the LORD
granted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22 The children struggled together within
her, and she said, "If it is thus, why is this happening to me?" So she went to inquire of the LORD.

23 And the LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within
you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the
younger." 24 When her days to give birth were completed, behold, there were twins in her womb.
25 The first came out red, all his body like a hairy cloak, so they called his name Esau. 26
Afterward his brother came out with his hand holding Esau's heel, so his name was called Jacob.
Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them. 27 When the boys grew up, Esau was a skillful
hunter, a man of the field, while Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents. 28 Isaac loved Esau
because he ate of his game, but Rebekah loved Jacob. 29 Once when Jacob was cooking stew, Esau
came in from the field, and he was exhausted. 30 And Esau said to Jacob, "Let me eat some of that
red stew, for I am exhausted!" (Therefore his name was called Edom. ) 31 Jacob said, "Sell me your
birthright now." 32 Esau said, "I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?" 33 Jacob said,
"Swear to me now." So he swore to him and sold his birthright to Jacob. 34 Then Jacob gave Esau
bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his
birthright.
And thus, Jacob acquires the birth right of Esau. ‫ם‬

ֵ ֵָּ‫ ת‬is usually translated with 'blameless', not
'quiet' - and so should it be here. Jacob is quite the character, really:
Genesis 27:1 When Isaac was old and his eyes were dim so that he could not see, he called Esau
his older son and said to him, "My son"; and he answered, "Here I am." 2 He said, "Behold, I am
old; I do not know the day of my death. 3 Now then, take your weapons, your quiver and your
bow, and go out to the field and hunt game for me, 4 and prepare for me delicious food, such as I
love, and bring it to me so that I may eat, that my soul may bless you before I die." 5 Now
Rebekah was listening when Isaac spoke to his son Esau. So when Esau went to the field to hunt
for game and bring it, 6 Rebekah said to her son Jacob, "I heard your father speak to your brother
Esau, 7 'Bring me game and prepare for me delicious food, that I may eat it and bless you before
the LORD before I die.' 8 Now therefore, my son, obey my voice as I command you. 9 Go to the
flock and bring me two good young goats, so that I may prepare from them delicious food for
your father, such as he loves. 10 And you shall bring it to your father to eat, so that he may bless
you before he dies." 11 But Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, "Behold, my brother Esau is a hairy
man, and I am a smooth man. 12 Perhaps my father will feel me, and I shall seem to be mocking
him and bring a curse upon myself and not a blessing." 13 His mother said to him, "Let your
curse be on me, my son; only obey my voice, and go, bring them to me." 14 So he went and
took them and brought them to his mother, and his mother prepared delicious food, such as his

father loved. 15 Then Rebekah took the best garments of Esau her older son, which were with her
in the house, and put them on Jacob her younger son. 16 And the skins of the young goats she put
on his hands and on the smooth part of his neck. 17 And she put the delicious food and the bread,
which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Jacob. 18 So he went in to his father and said,
"My father." And he said, "Here I am. Who are you, my son?" 19 Jacob said to his father, "I am
Esau your firstborn. I have done as you told me; now sit up and eat of my game, that
your soul may bless me." 20 But Isaac said to his son, "How is it that you have found it so
quickly, my son?" He answered, "Because the LORD your God granted me success." 21 Then
Isaac said to Jacob, "Please come near, that I may feel you, my son, to know whether you are
really my son Esau or not." 22 So Jacob went near to Isaac his father, who felt him and said, "The
voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau." 23 And he did not recognize him,
because his hands were hairy like his brother Esau's hands. So he blessed him. 24 He said, "Are
you really my son Esau?" He answered, "I am." 25 Then he said, "Bring it near to me, that I
may eat of my son's game and bless you." So he brought it near to him, and he ate; and he
brought him wine, and he drank. 26 Then his father Isaac said to him, "Come near and kiss me,
my son." 27 So he came near and kissed him. And Isaac smelled the smell of his garments and
blessed him and said, "See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field that the LORD has
blessed! 28 May God give you of the dew of heaven and of the fatness of the earth and
plenty of grain and wine. 29 Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you. Be lord
over your brothers, and may your mother's sons bow down to you. Cursed be everyone
who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you!"
Three explicit lies in a row, on top of all the deceit - against his father, of all people. That is not
the end of it, but it earns him the blessing of his father. Esau doesn't take it all lightly, and
understandably so:
Genesis 27:36 Esau said, "Is he not rightly named Jacob? For he has cheated me these two times.
He took away my birthright, and behold, now he has taken away my blessing." Then he said,
"Have you not reserved a blessing for me?" 37 Isaac answered and said to Esau, "Behold, I have
made him lord over you, and all his brothers I have given to him for servants, and with grain and
wine I have sustained him. What then can I do for you, my son?" 38 Esau said to his father, "Have
you but one blessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, O my father." And Esau lifted up his
voice and wept. 39 Then Isaac his father answered and said to him: "Behold, away from
the fatness of the earth shall your dwelling be, and away from the dew of heaven on

high. 40 By your sword you shall live, and you shall serve your brother; but when you grow
restless you shall break his yoke from your neck."
Not a future filled with prosperity and happiness for Esau, and he is determined to kill Jacob
after this - for which their mother warns Jacob. She advises him to flee, and surprisingly so
Isaac agrees to that, blesses him and gives him some instructions for on the way. Shortly after,
Jacob has a dream:
Genesis 28:11 And he came to a certain place and stayed there that night, because the sun had set.
Taking one of the stones of the place, he put it under his head and lay down in that place to sleep.
12 And he dreamed, and behold, there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it
reached to heaven. And behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it! 13 And
behold, the LORD stood above it and said, "I am the LORD, the God of Abraham your father and
the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring. 14 Your
offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the
east and to the north and to the south, and in you and your offspring shall all the families of the
earth be blessed. 15 Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will
bring you back to this land. For I will not leave you until I have done what I have
promised you." 16 Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, "Surely the LORD is in this place,
and I did not know it." 17 And he was afraid and said, "How awesome is this place! This is none
other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven." 18 So early in the morning
Jacob took the stone that he had put under his head and set it up for a pillar and poured oil on the
top of it. 19 He called the name of that place Bethel, but the name of the city was Luz at the first.
20 Then Jacob made a vow, saying, "If God will be with me and will keep me in this way
that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, 21 so that I come again to
my father's house in peace, then the LORD shall be my God, 22 and this stone, which I
have set up for a pillar, shall be God's house. And of all that you give me I will give a full
tenth to you."
Jacob has some nerve, negotiating with God after all that that same God told him in his dream!
A ladder to heaven, this is the place where heaven and earth come into being because of Jacob:
the gate to heaven, according to Jacob.
At least Jacob keeps his promise, although he does do quite a bit of altar building all over the
place:

Genesis 32:24 And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the
day. 25 When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and
Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. 26 Then he said, "Let me go, for the day
has broken." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." 27 And he said to him,
"What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob." 28 Then he said, "Your name shall no longer be
called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have
prevailed." 29 Then Jacob asked him, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you
ask my name?" And there he blessed him. 30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying,
"For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered." 31 The sun rose upon him as
he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not
eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob's hip
on the sinew of the thigh.
It is the dreaded confrontation between Jacob and - arguable - Esau. The 'man wrestling' is an
angel, supposedly, who gives him a new name, Israel, and even blesses him. The odd story
including the hip socket gets quite a make-over in Audlin's restoration of John - that, on a side
note. Let it be noted that Jacob loses the struggle yet demands a blessing before letting go of
the man! Where normal people would surrender, Jacob even makes demands.
Genesis 35:6 And Jacob came to Luz (that is, Bethel), which is in the land of Canaan, he and all
the people who were with him, 7 and there he built an altar and called the place El-bethel, because
there God had revealed himself to him when he fled from his brother. 8 And Deborah, Rebekah's
nurse, died, and she was buried under an oak below Bethel. So he called its name Allon- bacuth. 9
God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Paddan-aram, and blessed him. 10 And God
said to him, "Your name is Jacob; no longer shall your name be called Jacob, but Israel
shall be your name." So he called his name Israel. 11 And God said to him, "I am God
Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and
kings shall come from your own body. 12 The land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to
you, and I will give the land to your offspring after you." 13 Then God went up from him in the
place where he had spoken with him. 14 And Jacob set up a pillar in the place where he had
spoken with him, a pillar of stone. He poured out a drink offering on it and poured oil on it. 15 So
Jacob called the name of the place where God had spoken with him Bethel.

A lot of altar building, a lot of naming places, sometimes even twice just like here. There is
much more to the story of Jacob, the unrighteous deceiver, who gets the full righteous
treatment from God on every single occasion. The twelve tribes of Israel, the twelve sons of
Jacob: this is where it all started, and this is where Thomas' Jesus tells the ignorant disciples to
bugger off to: the 'Israel' that Thomas so greatly despises.
It has nothing to do with the supposed leadership of the supposed brother of the supposed
Jesus, the supposed James the Just - of course. Logion 12 is not in the least in conflict with
logion 13 where Thomas gets all the credits; logion 12 is a marvellous putdown by Thomas to
the Jews, Judaism; Israel as a whole. And in the light of my explanation of logion 46 where
Johannes the Immerser sees the light, that shouldn't come as a surprise now.
On a side note, there is an enormous amount of nuances and subtleties to the story of Jacob,
where his heel-grabbing is a metaphor for him being serpent-like, cunning as the serpent of
Eden. Isaac, about the bless his firstborn, would actually break the covenant by doing so, and
the intervention of Rebekah where she conspires with Jacob against her husband, is actually
'doing the right thing' in the eyes of God. There is even much more to it than that but the
point is that 'Jacob the Righteous' points to all of Israel and Judaism, and thence is where the
Jesus of Thomas dismisses the rabbi-aspiring disciples to.
Thomas makes great sense, if only not read through a Christian lens, and certainly not a Jesus
lens. Take the text of Thomas, replace all occurrences of 'Jesus' by 'IC', 'Victor' or any other
connotation-free word, erase your brain as much as you can, and then look at it all. And take
Grondin's translation please, or that of Paterson Brown.
It has always greatly baffled me how people can think that it is about the canonical Jesus, the
Churchian Jesus. Even people who embrace his self-seeking, who believe he has a 'Gnostic'
touch, even those think that this is that Jesus, they think that Thomas tells us about the
canonical Jesus.
Granted, the translation of Thomas has been corrupted from the start, made by people who
also read him through a Christian lens, a Gnostic lens, and simply 'emended' the text where
they failed to understand it. Guillaumont, Doresse, Quispel, Plisch and everyone who came
after them: they read into the text as far as the limits of their imagination could carry them,
and simply changed what fell outside that margin: Doresse translates Jacob the Righteous to
Jacques le Juste, Guillaumont translates with James the righteous, Quispel translates to Jacobus
de rechtvaardige (and that's a literal translation in Dutch, and also the identification for James
the Just in Dutch), Plisch uses Jakobus der Gerechte, and that is also the German name used

for James, the brother of Jesus. Half of them doesn't pay attention to the odd "heaven and
earth" phrase, the other half comes up with a tentative explanation by pointing to something
vague and unverifiable. As tempting as it is to translate the Coptic Greek to the cognomen for
the "brother of Jesus, James", the logion itself should be ground enough to opt for a literal
translation: if the context doesn't fit the content, don't change the content! Don't change the
content, period, if it is in a text that you can make little sense of.
A writer's goal: why compose a gospel at all?
I have become acquainted with biblical scholarship for a while now, amazed at the patterns
and assumptions underlying the Synoptic Problem. Apart from the vast majority echoing what
has been said before, no one has ever brought up the topic of purpose - the purpose behind
writing a text. What I see, when I look at the vast majority of scholarly works, is "peerception":
most scholars perceive their area of research through the eyes but most especially works of
fellow, leading scholars, "authorities in the field" as some of those like to call themselves.
There seems to be very little room and place for critical, original work: real research, as I would
like to call it. Research that takes what the big shots say, research that criticises them for
writing papers, articles and books full of naming (and most certainly no shaming in the very
least) fellow scholars who are either roughly on the same level or are those of the very rare
kind who managed to breakthrough from the bottom because they actually did write
something that hit home relatively hard - recognition of which usually follows after at least a
few years if not decades, if at all.
There are exceptions to that rule, fortunately, and it is striking that most of those are female:
Pagels, Reed, Luijendijk, to name a few.
Why did anyone write a gospel? If a gospel was written in reaction to another one, what was
the goal behind that? How can one possibly motivate and justify the (copying) actions of a
writer if one doesn't address his assumed and supposed purpose, his goal?
When one deals with apocryphal works the judgments and assumptions are outspoken and
quickly and easily made: it was all made up, or it was a counter reaction to another writing, or
both. When it comes to the canonicals, the silence is deafening - even though we all know by
now that the New Testament was heavily censored, at the very least slightly and essentially
altered, and that their writers were no Saints, and certainly no saints.

Why religion?
If you believe the former, perhaps you shouldn't be reading this because nothing will shake
your faith, nothing will turn your belief into true doubt: as an orthodox Christian you passed
the litmus test of Churchianity, that teaches you that you were created and born perfect, after
God's image, yet that original sin makes you bad to the bone (while safely ignoring the
question: if God didn't give you that original sin, then where does it come from)?
Your Jesus died for you and took away your sins, yet somehow still you are in debt, still you
owe someone, and only if you do good - and whatever good is, is up to your peers - you might
have a chance at an afterlife in heaven. Hell they guarantee you, but heaven is a carrot
dangling on a very long and thin stick.
And you believe that, you want to embrace that, because it gives you the answer to that one
question that puzzles us all: this entire world is ruled by punishment and reward, all of it. It's
how we raise and treat our pets, our children, our colleagues, friends and family, and ourselves.
We all like reward, no one likes punishment. Negative as we are, a big theme in our life is not
happiness and bliss, but suffering and drama - we don't occupy ourselves with the former, yet
only with the latter - while taking the former for granted. Why not the other way around? That
is something for some other time, perhaps - back to the topic at hand.
To you Christians, you who passed the litmus test, this all works slightly yet essentially
different: if you get punished, in any form, you will be punished in peace, because you "know"
that it is because you're a sinner at heart. No one wonders when they are rewarded, although
some might see the reward of others as punishment for themselves, yet whenever there's
drama in this world that affects us, we struggle with it: why that drama, why us? Why do we
get punished, what did we do to deserve it? Not you, not you Christian: you know.
Not really, of course: the orthodox Christian doesn't have the answers to that either, the
orthodox Christian doesn't know anything either, but he has an excuse, and fully embraces it:
original sin. And then, just like the Jesus of Thomas promises at the very end of logion 2, in the
Greek version handed down via P. Oxy 65416, he rests...and finds peace.
Original sin gives the Christians peace of mind, it answers their, and our, most important
question: why all this suffering, why all this drama? Why me?
That, on a side note.
16
http://www.agraphos.com/thomas/greek/poxy654/

Why couldn't Mark have copied only a third of his source? Why couldn't Luke and Matthew
have written their different gospels together? Why couldn't they have used a lot more of
Mark's source than Mark did? Didn't every one of them have his own agenda? Why couldn't
Luke and Matthew have made up stuff, as it is widely accepted that their birth narrative, a
perfect copy of Samson's down to the very letter, is bogus, that Matthew's "prophecies" in
general are heavily abused scripture applied to justifying his writings? Or, as Mark Goodacre
puts it17:
The alternative explanation, that Mark created his starker, more primitive, more
theologically risky account on the basis of editing Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts
seems less plausible than that Matthew and Luke were engaging in a clever damage-
limitation exercise.
That was their goal, their purpose, their main agenda: to control the damage that Mark did.
Mark's gospel must have had unexpected and unprecedented success, and all of a sudden a
whole new market presented itself: new consumers of new thought, to be freshly wielded while
hot. The business case was clear, and where I have doubts that Mark's effort was organised,
that of Luke and Matthew certainly must have been. Where Mark opposed Thomas supporters
who were highly critical, perhaps downright hostile, towards everything Jewish, or at least
Judaic, after Mark's gospel caught on there were two extra forces in play: moderate Jews who
felt attracted to the canonical Jesus, and non-Jews who did the same. Those non-Jews were
mostly people familiar with Thomas I think, or the main effort were just directed towards them
- I have no idea of quantity and quality, and all of this is pure speculation anyway. Just as e.g.
oral memory, traditions written down in layers, and the historical Jesus himself, we will never
ever find out with reasonable certainty how it all went down.
So just like Luke and Matthew felt justified enough to undo the damage done by Mark
regarding applying his 'baptism for repentance of sins' to Jesus, they didn't see any harm in
guiding their audiences like any good shepherd would his flock: both Luke and Matthew
served their audiences exactly that what they deemed was right for them. Luke put immense
stress on Thomas material, and Matthew buried them in scripture, or rather, Tanakh material.
As 'The 72 logia of Thomas and their canonical cousins' will show, the 35 logia of Mark got
doubled to 69; the 6 Jesus parables of Thomas that Mark selected were expanded with 7 more
17
Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: John the Baptist and Jesus, p 182

of them - and that posed a problem. Where Mark had come up with only one parable of his
own (and a fine Thomasine copy it was, Mark 13:28-31 gives us 'The parable of the budding fig
tree'), the score was now 13 to 1! That wasn't right, of course, so Luke and Matthew countered,
and naturally had to outnumber Thomas, and added 14 more parables of their own. Luke
added 4 Thomas parables and came up with the vast majority of their own, the dazzling score
of 10. It is no small wonder that he got tasked with it, as he had to address the Thomas
supporters who were undoubtedly much more familiar with Thomas logia than Matthew's
audience. Matthew introduced 3 new Thomas parables and came up with 4 of his own, all
terribly longwinded moralistic stories of humans interacting and dialoguing with other
humans, each of them with multiple protagonists, each of them juxtaposing good next to bad,
and half of them making very poor and inappropriate use of inanimate objects that served no
parable purpose at all. But that will all be demonstrated ad nauseam in 'Two types of Jesus
parables: canonical vs Thomasine - like night and day'.
That didn't end the fixing of what Mark had omitted, or caused: the daunting task that Mark
had put on his own shoulders also involved trying to explain all the cryptic Thomasine riddles -
and that must have been the hardest part. Where Mark 7:19 declared all foods clean while
trying to give meaning to part of logion 14, Matthew had to undo that, and did so very
effectively, in order to satisfy his Jewish audience, even as moderate as they must have been.
More importantly Mark tried to give shape to the two major Thomas themes of 'making the
two one' and 'become as children to enter the kingdom', and failed horribly; his conflation of
Genesis 1 and 2 actually had the opposite effect and implied, to the not so casual observer, that
joining man and wife would actually be against the will of God who made the one two! On the
other hand, Mark has to be forgiven for being unable to give meaning to the children entering
the kingdom: Luke fails to do so, and Matthew even more - his 'humble like a child' will have
been mocked by all mothers, although in silence of course, as their opinions on theological
matters weren't highly valued, I guess. Children are continuously told to be quiet, to sit still, to
behave - if you manage to see a humble child, then something is seriously worthy of your
attention!
John, poetic and beautiful John, so close to Thomas, will settle it all and smoothly smother
both themes; not only that, but John manages magnificently to even turn them to his
advantage.
Did Mark do good? Oh yes, he sure did. Mark managed fine to cloak and soak his text in
Thomasine context, turning all the figurative contrasting motifs into literal applications: the
fish, the eyes, the ears - the brothers, mothers, relatives; dead and alive became physically dead

and alive, and the healing of the sick in Thomas, undoubtedly the grand theme of the average
Thomasine day, was ruthlessly repeated throughout his gospel. The grand theme of Thomas?
Yes, indeed. With logion 74 now finally debalmed18 it no longer reads the fake and false "He
said, ‘Lord, there are many around the well, but there is no-one in the well.’" or any other version
thereof. Full credit to Simon Gathercole for at least being transparent and forthcoming about
it19 (emphasis mine):
The two sources of water have both been subjects of discussion: the text has ϫⲱⲧⲉ
(‘penetration, separation’)and ϣⲱⲛⲉ (‘sickness’),neither of which make good

sense. Proposed as alternatives are ϣⲱⲧⲉ (‘well, cistern, pit’, Crum 595a) and ϭⲱⲧ
(‘drinking trough’, Crum 833a; var. ϫⲱⲧ B). Most editors propose emending ϣⲱⲛⲉ at the
end to ϣⲱⲧⲉ .2 More diverse has been opinion about the earlier ϫⲱⲧⲉ , seen by Layton
as a variation of ϭⲱⲧ (hence Lambdin’s translation ‘drinking trough’) but by Plisch as a

variant of ϣⲱⲧⲉ (translated, ‘well’). Plisch’s solution, according to which both are forms
of ϣⲱⲧⲉ ,is perhaps simplest, and also brings the saying into line with the parallel in
the Celestial Dialogue: πῶς πολλοὶ περὶ τὸ φρέαρ, καὶ οὐδεὶς εἰς τὸ φρέαρ; (Origen,
Contra Celsum8.15–16).
Logion 74 in fact reads "Said-he this: Lord, there-are-many (who) go-around in-the-separation;
while-none, however, in-the-sickness", and my pretty-interpretation of that is "He said this:
Lord, there are many who struggle with separation, yet no one considers himself to be sick";
people aren't aware of either state. Hence why Thomas states '... When you go into any land and
walk about in the districts, if they receive you, eat what they will set before you, and heal the sick
among them' in logion 14, and hence why Luke copies the part of logion 31 that the others leave
out: 'Jesus said, 'No prophet is accepted in his own village; no physician heals those who know
him.'
Healing the sick! I have struggled so hard with that, I couldn't possibly give Thomas credit for
driving that theme into the canonicals, with only the few loose and unconnected words in
logion 14 and logion 31, that didn't make sense at all. It is perfectly clear that the canonicals
follow Isaiah 35 and Luke 7:22 and Matthew 11:5 remind us of it in case we forgot:
18
Translation versus interpretation in Thomas: the perplexing treatment of logion 74
19
Gathercole, S., The Gospel of Thomas, p 485

Isaiah 35:1 The wilderness and the dry land shall be glad; the desert shall rejoice and blossom like
the crocus; 2 it shall blossom abundantly and rejoice with joy and singing. The glory of Lebanon
shall be given to it, the majesty of Carmel and Sharon. They shall see the glory of the LORD, the
majesty of our God. 3 Strengthen the weak hands, and make firm the feeble knees. 4 Say to those
who have an anxious heart, "Be strong; fear not! Behold, your God will come with vengeance, with
the recompense of God. He will come and save you." 5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be
opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; 6 then shall the lame man leap like a deer,
and the tongue of the mute sing for joy. For waters break forth in the wilderness, and streams
in the desert; 7 the burning sand shall become a pool, and the thirsty ground springs of water; in
the haunt of jackals, where they lie down, the grass shall become reeds and rushes. 8 And a
highway shall be there, and it shall be called the Way of Holiness; the unclean shall not pass over
it. It shall belong to those who walk on the way; even if they are fools, they shall not go astray. 9
No lion shall be there, nor shall any ravenous beast come up on it; they shall not be found there,
but the redeemed shall walk there. 10 And the ransomed of the LORD shall return and come to
Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain gladness and joy,
and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.
Selectively quoting as usual, I think it's a pretty good find but Isaiah chapter 35 is about a
whole lot more than these two quoted verses that I emphasised in bold.
It is a pattern throughout the New Testament that almost everything is desperately
"scriptured" in order to prove that it is prophecy come true. That of course doesn't indicate
that the events they tried to justify via scripture were made up, but there are differences
between Mark's "prophecies" and those of Luke and Matthew. One of the things on my todo-
list is to go through all their prophecies and I expect roughly 70% of Mark to be "proper
prophecy" in the sense that it makes real sense, and less than 30% of the rest to be similar to
that. But the real "scripture" behind the great abundance of healing sick people in the New
Testament is Thomas, as now finally is revealed.
And as such, where Mark invents Jesus healing the lame, the blind, the deaf, the mute, the
lepers - it is Luke and Matthew who come up with Isaiah 35, although their visit of John's
disciples likely mostly serves to come up with logion 78 and 46, with Matthew even on his
knees as part of Project Elijah:

Matthew 11:13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, 14 and if you are willing to
accept it, he is Elijah who is to come.

On Reality, Truth, and Dialogue
A text is content; it is perfectly happy by itself, and of itself. All the context it needs is
contained within its content; anything we add, we do so solely at our own risk. An
interpretation of a text can never be valued higher than the text itself; if one were to do so, he
would be obliged to extend the same courtesy to everyone else, and any dialogue would
quickly turn into a debate, where majority - or is that mob - rule would determine the
indecisive outcome. If interpretation were commonly accepted as a means to value a text, there
would be neither heresy nor orthodoxy; viewing something as heresy would simply be
contested with a wrong interpretation of a text, labelling the interpreter as heretic because his
determination of the text as heresy reflects back solely on his interpretation and thus himself.
Let's consider a sample text. It is rather short, and contains only the word 'black':
Black.
That is the entire text: one word. Next unfolds a scene between two persons, A and B:
A: "I love this text, it is unlike anything else. It is so succinct, riddling, and it so clearly
expresses the yang of everything, the dark side: black".
B: "Hahah, do you really think so? The author is a cunning man, playing with your perceptions.
Of course he wrote 'black', just to mislead you. It is beyond the slightest doubt that he means
something else with it - not just something else, but quite the opposite: 'white'. He purposely
uses the word 'black', not to put the focus on 'black', but on its counterpart: 'white'.
A: "Oh come on, you must be joking. Had he wanted to write 'white', he easily could have: it is
his own text! It says 'black', so 'black' it is - and nothing else". B: "You just don't understand the
deeper meaning behind this word, the entire text: an acquaintance of mine made the same
mistake. Now why would he have constructed such a simple notion, with the focus of the
entire text being on this one word? It would be very mundane to write 'white' if one indeed
were to mean 'white', and there would be no point to be made, no deeper mystery behind it - it
wouldn't convey a message like it does. People who are in the know perceive the beauty of this
baffling wonder, exactly like Magritte made the painting of the pipe, describing it in text with
'Ceci n'est pas un pipe' - you don't hear anyone claim that Magritte actually meant to say that
the pipe isn't a pipe, do you?!"

And so on - the discussion, likely to even further turn into a hostile debate could go on for
many pages. There is another example just like that, with a similar unfolding but a different
reasoning:
B: "The text you have is a fake, a fraud. Unfortunately, it still exists although it should have
been destroyed long ago. Some label it as a scribal error but it is obvious that it has been
purposely changed into 'black' from 'white' in order to serve the scribe's goal. The great
historian Palavrus famously lost his temper when commenting on it: 'An atrocity, simply a
crime against mankind' he labelled it. And it is, really, a brutal edit by a devious scribe,
intentionally misleading people with his vile tampering with the text".
A: "Really? Then the sun perhaps also is a fraud, pretending that it is a source of energy
providing us with light, while in fact it is a black hole merely giving us the impression that it is
a sun, right? You have not a shred of evidence for your pathetic claims other than that some
idiot called Palavrus dared to voice his false claim centuries ago - the very prototype of a vile
attempt, solely intended to mislead people".
And so on - see what I'm doing here? A conversation quickly turns to debate, skipping the
stage of dialogue. A loses his temper because B states his opinion as truth, overruling the
common truth that is visible to both; there now are two truths, and the least obvious one is
elevated to The Truth - and the one adhering the common, most obvious truth is labelled as
ignorant, a fool. B implies that he himself is right about the truth, and that A is wrong - and
that is impossible to digest.
It should never be about who is right and who is wrong - we all view the world from within our
own worlds and are always right because we all have our own truths: whatever you believe
becomes true to you, as simple as that. Truth must not be confused with reality of course: you
can firmly believe you can fly, and as long as you don't put that to the test you will be just fine.
Truths are nothing more than mutual agreements made by individuals in groups; from the
beginning of times it was just as true for the average human that the earth was flat as it now
holds true that it is round, yet the earth still doesn't care what we think of it, and never will: in
reality it still is what it was back then. If one had stated back then that the earth was round one
would have been ridiculed, laughed at, maybe even hurt or worse.

Whenever you are in a church, don't be surprised that it is absolutely true that there will be a
Judgment Day and an afterlife, provided by God and likely facilitated by Jesus. Don't be
surprised when you are at an atheist convention and it is absolutely true that there is none of
those things.
These two truths can coexist and both hold true (as long as the twain don't meet under regular
circumstances), simply because we can't put them to the test - we don't know for sure what
reality is like, unlike we now can do regarding the reality of the earth. We believe these truths
in large enough numbers and that's the only reason how and why - and where! - they become
truths and stay true, as long as you're in the right group. You will be laughed at and ridiculed
when you're the only atheist in a church, and maybe you'll even get pushed around a bit. You
will be laughed at and ridiculed when you're the only Christian at an atheist convention, and
maybe you'll even get pushed around a bit.
Truths are made by people - without people truths wouldn't exist. Only reality exists without
people.
We people are addicted to truths, in general; we force each other to adhere to truths, pick
either black or white; if one dares to stand in the grey area in between we accuse that person of
being indecisive, a turncoat, someone who cannot make up his or her mind. Truths divide all,
and only unite those who share the same version of it. Politics and religion are perfectly
pathetic examples of "truths".
The less knowledge you have the easier it is to stay out of that grey area: for instance the earth
isn't perfectly round but it's elliptic; the diameter at the equator is 43 kilometres larger than
the pole-to-pole diameter. Does that matter? That is entirely and solely influenced by your
involvement - if you are concerned with planetary movement involving the earth then it is an
extremely significant detail. If you are an astronomer and working closely with that topic, then
you will be ridiculed when you state that the earth is round; likely, you will even be fired on
the spot.
On this earth 150,000 people die every day; over one hundred people die every single minute.
Does anyone care about that? No.
Yet we do care if a few dozen die in a plane crash or a bombing, a few hundred or thousand in
an earthquake or tsunami - insignificant, trivial numbers compared to the one million people
that die every week. Why do we care? Firstly because we know, secondly because it's one of our
truths that we should care - and that's all there is to it. It is not a truth that we are not

supposed to care about those deaths, and it certainly isn't a truth that we are supposed to not
care.
If you did not know about that certain tsunami, that's okay - but the minute you do, you're
expected to form and voice an opinion about it, and pick either side of the truth on that very
subject; and you'd be better off stating that you don't care rather than saying that you don't
know whether you do care or don't.
Truths are not about content, they are about context. Dialogue is about content, debate is
about context. How different could those two conversations have been:
B: "It does say 'black', such is true and beyond a doubt. But I'm rather fond of the opinion that
the author is a cunning man, playing with your perceptions - in fact, I'm convinced that such is
the case: it has become true to me. He wrote 'black' just to mislead you. It think he means
something else with it - not just something else, but quite the opposite: 'white'. He purposely
uses the word 'black', not to put the focus on 'black', but on its counterpart: 'white'.
A: "That's a quite unconventional point of view, but an interesting idea. Where did you get that
from, and why would he have done such a thing?"
B: "It's just a brain bug of mine, really. There's a deeper meaning behind this word, the entire
text: why would he have constructed such a simple notion, with the focus of the entire text
being on this one word? It would be very mundane to write 'white' if one indeed were to mean
'white', and there would be no point to be made, no deeper mystery behind it - it wouldn't
convey a message. I think this is exactly like Magritte who made the painting of the pipe,
describing it in text with 'Ceci n'est pas un pipe'".
Mutual understanding and agreement. Acknowledgement of what the other person says. A
clear distinction between truths and opinions - and a complete absence of "anger words".
What is the result? Not division, but union: the idea of B now coexists with the idea of A.
Dialogue, not debate.
As simple as that? Basically, yes.

Then why don't we all do that and live in harmony, with the worst outcome of a conversation
being that we agree to disagree?

Because most don't perceive that our truths are opinions, and that we have no idea whether
they're reality - we never took the time to check either notion. When our truths get threatened
we start to doubt them ourselves, and we feel offended by that doubt that we inflict upon
ourselves because we are not supposed to be doubting; one of our truths is that we have to
stick to our truths, lest we are labelled indecisive, a turncoat. The result is that we get angry
because we perceive ourselves to have become doubtful, and that anger gets directed towards
the apparent cause: the place whence the last external action took place.
Putting a finger on a sore spot, is what that is: I put my finger on your sore spot, and you feel
the pain. You associate the pain with me, and direct your reactions to me. But it is your pain,
and it is directly linked to your sore spot - it's all yours, and entirely yours alone. I'm not
causing your pain, your own sore spot is.
Yes I touched your sore spot, but whether that was done intentionally or on purpose is,
primarily, irrelevant. The reality is not that I cause your pain, although most people perceive
exactly that to be the truth; the reality is that your spot causes your pain, and that I directed
attention to your spot. You associate your last internal emotion with the last external action,
and react accordingly; my touch, your pain: I caused you pain.
"I hate it when you say that! It reminds me of my little brother who died way too early, and
that is a tragic event that hurts me deeply, always bringing immediate tears to my eyes".
"I hate you! Look at how you're hurting me, can't you see I'm crying?!".
Two truths, each equally true - of course. One leaves room for dialogue, one opens the door to
debate. Both describe reality, but one of them does so with a lot more detail: does that matter?
Only to those involved: those who already are, and those who want to become so.
We converse like we fight; there is not much difference on the core level. When we get hurt,
we immediately want to hurt back: we lash out. We hear a word, it challenges one of our truths
that is shaky (when it's a firm truth such doesn't happen), we unconsciously doubt that truth,
and feel hurt. Feeling hurt, we feel attacked, and feeling attacked, we defend: we strike, in
order to hurt (back).
In a nutshell, that is it. When we are relaxed, at ease, prepared for an evening of philosophy
with our friends for example, all that happens a lot less, if at all. When we are stressed, among
strangers or even enemies, all that happens immediately - and the point of no return is
reached, the dialogue dies, and the debate dominates. And from that moment it is only about
who wins, and the one who wins is always the one who is loudest, who hurts most, who has the

last word: the winner is, at that point, the one who loses less - debates are always a lose-lose
situation, whereas dialogues are about win-win.
What remains is the matter of right or wrong. Another one of our unfortunately unchallenged
truths is that the world is (to be) divided into right and wrong: right is good and wrong is bad,
good feels good and bad feels bad - such is our programming. A related truth is that hurting
someone intentionally is bad, and hurting someone accidentally is good - if we stick to only
those two absolute qualifications. We never questioned that truth either, but we are
programmed accordingly: if it is obvious to me that you intentionally hurt me then I (am
allowed, or even supposed to) get angry and blame you for that hurt. If it is obvious to me that
you accidentally hurt me then I say "It's okay, you didn't mean to"; the original result and pain
remains unchanged, but it is a truth that I am now not entitled to become angry at you or
blame you. Does becoming angry at you, or not, diminish the original pain? Not at all, that
pain has been inflicted already, prior to the question of anger being justified or not - and
blaming follows that same road of reasoning. Blaming you will not influence the pain that has
been already inflicted, in the past; blaming you will only influence my future actions.
Then what is the use of settling the matter of intentionality, what is its goal, its purpose, its
effect? Its only purpose seems to manifest itself when we reflect on the event, when we call it
back to memory: when we touch that sore spot, that wound, that trauma - τραύμα is the Greek
word for wound. When we put our own finger on our own sore spot, we call the image back to
life that we stored in our brain; we don't recall the event nor bring that back to life, we just
interact with ourselves, in ourselves; nothing of that affects reality outside of ourselves - it only
affects our own truths. When the label of intentionality is affixed to the image recalled, we feel
entitled to derive more hurt and anger from that image, that solidified memory, than when it
isn't.
When we touch our own wounds and evaluate our pain, the primary sole effect of judging
about and deciding on intentionality is whether or not to inflict more pain upon ourselves.
When we derive that extra hurt and anger from our pain, we immediately feel it, and it
becomes real to us. We subconsciously evaluate the process we just went through, decide that
we followed the right road of reasoning and thus did the right thing, and justify to ourselves
that the outcome is also right: and we then add that new truth to our truths.
None of that affects anyone outside us, anything outside our brain: it all happens in our brain
and nowhere else. The extra hurt and anger only exists in our brain and gets stored inside

ourselves, and nowhere else - at that very point when we think about actions that lie in the
past. And which action doesn't?
There is (only) one perfectly sane reason for the use of determining intentionality, but that
only applies to the future, not the present nor the past. If someone did something on purpose
then the chances are much higher that it might occur another time than when it was done
accidentally. There is a lesson to be learned in both cases, the need for which arises out of the
natural need of self-protection, and the two extreme outcomes of that learned lesson vary from
being on extreme alert to being completely not alert - for a repetition of the event, in the
future.
Feel free to feel hurt by anything; that is everyone's "right" and the pain is real - in your mind,
but that doesn't make it less real for you. However, it is your responsibility to handle the truths
that come into being after the pain has been inflicted: are those truths yours, or others', or
both? Most of the time, the truths that we have are our truths, not others' - when we drill
down to the finest level of detail. The more casually and superficially we observe a truth, the
greater the chance that it is also a truth of someone else, or even a common truth. Yet the
truths that we struggle with often, if not always, get nit-picked by us down to the atomic level
and beyond - we consider every single smallest detail of it.
The more detailed something is observed, the higher the chance of mismatching truths - that
is a reality for all. As demonstrated earlier, the higher your involvement in something, the
more important details become; and that is why you are so incredibly more likely to disagree
about something that you care about, than about something you don't care about.
A convinced atheist can be the best of friends with a deeply religious person, they can even live
together and love one another - as long as they don't want to impose their truths onto one
another that are not part of their common truths. They will disagree about everything when
they discuss religion because their involvement in religion is very high, and as such the level of
detail will be very high - they really care about religion. The deeply religious person also cares
for religion, but both care about it.
The chance that people will disagree is exactly proportional to the level of their involvement in
something: and the deeper we are involved, the more emotional we are, and the less room for
rationality and dialogue, and ample space for ugly words and discussion, debate.

It is my truth that the gospel-writers copied Thomas, and given my level of involvement at this
very moment of writing this, it is safe to label it as a Truth for me. Is it real, a Reality? Only in
my brain, at best - but I most certainly wouldn't label it as such, as it is just my opinion and
nothing more, or less.
Will I feel hurt if you don't share that opinion, my truth on this subject? No, not at all, but I
might feel hurt when you laugh at me or ridicule me, because you'll then likely be touching a
sore spot of mine - which is something else entirely and won't affect my truth on this.
Dialogue might affect my truth on this, shaping it into a common truth perhaps - I would
really appreciate that, and I wholeheartedly welcome it. This is no small matter...
Will you feel hurt because of my opinion, my truth? That can only occur when it's not your
truth, and when it threatens that truth and touches a sore spot.

Bibliography
Anderson, Paul N., "Why this Study is Needed, and Why it is Needed Now (from John, Jesus,
and History, vol. 1)" (2007). Faculty Publications - College of Christian Studies. Paper 111.
Annese, Andrea, The Sources of the Gospel of Thomas: Methodological Issues and the Case of
the Pauline Epistles, ASE 35/2(2018) 323-350
Arnal, William, The Collection and Synthesis of “Tradition” and the Second-Century
Invention of Christianity, Volume 23 Issue 3-4 (Jan 2011), DOI: 10.1163/157006811X608359
Audlin, James David, Jesus and Buddhism: Philo’s Therapeutæ and Thomas’s Passers-By as
Evidence of Theravada Influence on Jesus’s Teachings, material from: The Gospel of John
Restored and Translated, published by Editores Volcán Barú
Audlin, James David, Making Mary Male: Is Gospel of Thomas Logion 114 Really Misogynist?,
material from: The Gospel of John Restored and Translated, Volumes I and II, published by
Editores Volcán Barú
Audlin, James David, Their Names Tell Their Story: A New Understanding of “Arimathæa”
and “Iscariot”, material from the upcoming new edition of The Gospel of John Restored and
Translated, Volumes I and II as published by Editores Volcán Barú
Audlin, James David, Whence Did Jesus Derive the Term “Son of Humanity”?, Abridged from
The Gospel of John Restored and Translated, Volume I, published by Editores Volcán Barú
Axeland, Tomas, Origen’s commentary on John: Spiritual interpretation, polemics, and
transformation, Thesis, Columbia Bible College
Beer, Jan M. de, Did Jesus really declare all food clean? Interpreting Mark 7:19b within its
various contexts, University of Pretoriah
Berno, Francesco, Notes on a Leading Minority Gnostic Para-Religious Self-Understanding,
SMSR 83 (2/2017) 357-365
Bird, Michael F. , The Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus,
Eerdmans, 2014
Bird, Michael F., Textual Criticism and the Historical Jesus, Journal for the Study of the
Historical Jesus 6 (2008) 133–156
Blatz, Beate, New Testament Apocrypha, Volume 1, Revised Edition, WJK Press, 1990
Blayone, Todd, An Examination of the Origins and Literary Character of the Gospel of
Thomas, 1990

Boulnois, Marie-Odile, La bouchée de Judas (Jn 13, 26-27) d’Origène à Thomas d’Aquin,
Adamantius Rivista del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su "Origene e la tradizione alessandrina" 20,
2014, p. 322-342.
Bowman, Robert M. Jr., Historical Jesus Outlines and Notes, Credo House handout, 2009
Brakke David, Early Christian Lies and the Lying Liars Who Wrote Them: Bart Ehrman’s
Forgery and Counterforgery, University of Chicago, 2016
Brauning, Steven, The Gospels in Parallel: An inductive comparison ( essential version), 2018
Breed, Brennan, What Can a Text Do?: Reception History as an Ethology of the Biblical Text,
2015
Brent Nongbri, Finding Early Christian Books at Nag Hammadi and Beyond, Macquarie
University, DOI: 10.1558/bsor.v45i2.28062
Brewer, Todd, Hamilton, For and Against Narrative: The Hermeneutics of the Parable in
Early Christian Gospels, Durham theses, Durham University, 2015
Brown, Ian Phillip, Where Indeed Was the Gospel of Thomas Written? Thomas in
Alexandria, Journal of Biblical Literature , Vol. 138, No. 2 (2019)
Burns, Dylan, Seeking Ancient Wisdom In The New Age: New Age And Neognostic
Commentaries On The Gospel Of Thomas, Hammer-f12-252-289.indd, 2007
Butti, Elena, A Comparison between Heraclitus’ Logos and Lao-Tzu’s Tao, University College
Utrecht, 2013
Charlesworth, Scott D., The Gospel Manuscript Tradition, In M. Harding, & A. Nobbs (Eds.),
The Content and setting of the Gospel tradition (pp. 28-61), Eerdsmans, 2010
Cherix, Pierre, Codex Cairensis Gnosticus II,2 (EvThomas), Copticherix, 2003
Cherix, Pierre, Lexique copte (dialecte sahidique), v.18.1
Clark, Seth A., "Know Yourself and You Will Be Known: The Gospel of Thomas and Middle
Platonism", CGU Theses & Dissertations Paper 92, 2014
Crislip, Andrew, Lion and Human in "Gospel of Thomas" Logion 7, Journal of Biblical
Literature, Vol. 126, No. 3 (Fall, 2007), pp. 595-613
Crossan, John Dominic, In Parables, Polebridge, 1992
Davies, Stevan, Gospel of Thomas homepage -
http://users.misericordia.edu/davies/thomas/Thomas.html
Davies, Stevan, The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated & Explained, SkyLight, 2002
DeConick, April, Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel and its
Growth, 2005
DeConick, April, The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation, 2007

Dillon, Matthew J., Gnosticism Theorized: Major Trends and Approaches to the Study of
Gnosticis, 2016
Doresse, Jean, L'Évangile selon Thomas, Plon, 1959
Eck, Ernest van & Kloppenborg, John S., An unexpected patron: A social-scientific
andrealistic reading of the parable of the Vineyard Labourers (Mt 20:1–15), HTS Teologiese
Studies/Theological Studies 71(1), Art. #2883, 11 pages. DOI: 10.4102/hts. v71i1.2883
Ehrman, Bart D., Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why,
HarperCollins, 2005
Falkenberg, René, Fall and Rise of Adam: The ‘Apocalypse of Moses’ and the Adam/Christ
Myth of Paul
Falkenberg, René, What Has Nag Hammadi to Do with Medinet Madi? The Case of
‘Eugnostos’ and Manichaeism
Figueiredo, Nestor, O Problema Da Compilação E Surgimento Dos Códices De Nag
Hammadi, Universidade Federal da Paraíba
Finkel, Asher, Elijah in Light of Rabbinic and Early Christian Sources, presented on Sunday,
November 5, 2006 at Seton Hall University, in a program in memory of Msgr. John M.
Oesterreicher
Funk, Robert, Hoover, Roy W., The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of
Jesus, HarperCollins, 1993
Furstenberg, Yair, Defilement Penetrating the Body: A New Understanding of Contamination
in Mark 7.15, New Test. Stud. 54, pp. 176–200
Gathercole, S., The Gospel of Thomas, Introduction and Commentary, Brill, 2014
Gathercole, S., The Influence of Paul on the Gospel of Thomas (§§53.3 and 17)
Gathercole, S., Thomas Revisited: A Rejoinder to Denzey Lewis, Kloppenborg and Patterson,
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2014, Vol. 36(3) 262 –281
Given, J. Gregory, “Finding” the Gospel of Thomas in Edessa, Journal of Early Christian
Studies, Volume 25, Number 4, Winter 2017, pp. 501-530
Giversen, S., Apocryphon Johannis, Prostant Apud Munksgaard, 1963
Goodacre, Mark, "Did Thomas know the Synoptic Gospels? A response to Denzey Lewis,
Kloppenborg and Patterson", Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36/3 (2014): 282-93
Goodacre, Mark, "The Synoptic Problem: John the Baptist and Jesus" in Andrew B. McGowan
and Kent Harold Richards (eds.), Method and Meaning: Essays on New Testament
Interpretation in Honor of Harold W. Attridge (SBL Resources for Biblical Study Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 177-92

Goodacre, Mark, "When is a Text not a Text? The Quasi-Text-Critical Approach of the
International Q Project" in Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin (eds.), Questioning Q
(London: SPCK, 2004; Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2005): 115-26
Goodacre, Mark, On Scholarly Conduct, Duke University, July 2009
Goodacre, Mark, The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem,
Trinity, 2002
Goodacre, Mark, Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas's Familiarity with the
Synoptics, SPCK, 2012
Goodacre, Mark, Too Good to be Q: High Verbatim Agreement in the Double Tradition in
"Marcan Priority Without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis", (LNTS 455; London &
New York: T & T Clark, 2015), 82-100
Goodacre, Mark, “Mark, Elijah, the Baptist and Matthew: The Success of the First Intertextual
Reading of Mark” in Tom Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels,
Volume 2: Matthew (Library of New Testament Studies 310; T & T Clark, 2008), 73-84
Green, Joel B., Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, IVP, 2013
Greenberg, Gillian, Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Jeremiah, Thesis submitted for
the Ph. D. degree, 1999
Grondin, Michael - http://www.gospel-thomas.net/
Grondin, Michael, Interlinear Coptic/English Translation of The Gospel of Thomas, 2002
Grondin, Michael, The 60 and the 120: L111 and 112 as the “Good Fruit" of L9.5
Grossman, Eitan & Richter, Tonio Sebastian, The Egyptian-Coptic language: its setting in
space, time and culture, pp. 69-101 in Egyptian-Coptic Linguistics in Typological Perspective,
De Gruyter Mouton, 2015
Guillaumont, Antoine Jean Baptiste, The Gospel according to Thomas, Brill, 1959
Hasberg Kjær, Malene, The Synoptic problem And The Historical Jesus, Master Thesis In
Exegesis Of The New Testament, University of Copenhagen, 2018
Hatina, Thomas R., The Provenance of Jesus’ Quotations of Scripture:From Form Criticism to
Social Memory Theory, Charles University, Prague
Haygood, Lisa, "The Battle To Authenticate 'The Gospel of Thomas',"LUX: A Journal of
Transdisciplinary Writing and Research from Claremont Graduate University: Vol. 3: Iss. 1,
Article 6, 2013
Hellholm, David & Sänger, Dieter (ed.), The Eucharist – Its Origins and Contexts, Mohr
Siebeck, 2017

Henderson, Jordan, Josephus’s Life and Jewish War compared to The Synoptic Gospels,
JGRChJ 10 (2014) 113-31
Hezser, Catherine, Jewish Literacy and Languages in First-Century Roman Palestine, SOAS,
University of London
Hezser, Catherine, Parables and Daily Life: New Testament and Rabbinic Slave Parables at
the Intersection between Fiction and Reality
Hietbrink, Jonathan, The Kingdom of God in the Gospel of Mark: A Theological
Interpretation, Central College Senior Honors Project, 2002
Hill, C. E., A Four-Gospel Canon in the Second Century? Artifact and Arti-fiction, Early
Christianity 4 (2013), 310-334
Hoeven, Adrie van der, John Mark – Author of the Gospel of John with Jesus' mother, 2008,
DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3024.3843
Hoeven, Adrie van der, Paul's Cephas is Caiphas – Author of 1Peter and Hebrews, 2009, DOI:
10.13140/2.1.1594.8802
Holladay, Carl R., A Critical Introduction To The New Testament, Abingdon, 2005
Huff, Wesley, A Survey of the Gospel of Thomas and its Place in the Study of the Synoptic
Problem, University of Toronto, 2019
Jenks, Gregory C., Imagine this: Jesus and the kingdom of God, 2012
Joosten, Jan, Hebrew, Aramaic, And Greek in the Qumran Scrolls, OUP Uncorrected Proof –
Revises, 4/10/2010, SPi
Junni, Jussi, Celsus' Arguments against the Truth of the Bible, Studia Patristica vol. LXV, 2013
Kasser, Rodolphe, Les manuscrits de Nag'Hammâdi: faits, documents, problèmes, in: Revue
de théologie et de philosophie, 1959
Kazen, Thomas, Jesus and the Zavah: Implications for interpreting Mark, Stockholm School of
Theology, 2009
Kentwell, Forrest AB, Re-envisioning “Light” and “Death” in the Gospel of Thomas: A
Demiurgical Myth?, SBL 2017: “Nag Hammadi and Gnosticism” Panel
Kim, David W., Thomasine Metamorphosis:Community, Text, and Transmission from Greek
to Coptic, 2010
Kirby, Peter - http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
Kloppenborg, John S., A New Synoptic Problem: Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole on
Thomas, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 2014, DOI: 10.1177/0142064X14520653
Kloppenborg, John S., Associations, Christ groups, and their place in the Polis, ZNW 2017;
108(1): 1–56

Kloppenborg, John S., Conceptual Stakes in the Synoptic Problem, Gospel Interpretation and
the Q-Hypothesis, ed. Heiki Omerzu and Mogens Müller. International Studies on Christian
Origins, Bloomsbury, 2018
Kloppenborg, John S., Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel,
Augsburg Fortress, 2000
Kloppenborg, John S., Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and
Sayings of Jesus, Westminster John Knox, 2008
Kloppenborg, John S., Synoptic Problems: Collected Essays, Mohr Siebeck, 2014
Kloppenburg, John S., On Dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to
Matthew, New Test. Stud. 49, pp. 210–236, Cambridge University Press, DOI:
10.1017/S0028688503000110
Kloppenburg, John S., Q Thomas Reader, Polebridge, 1990
Lambdin, Thomas O., The Gospel According to Thomas, Appspublisher, 2012
Layton, Bentley, Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, Brill, 1989
Leipoldt, Johannes, Ein neues Evangelium? in: Theologische Literaturzeitung : Monatsschrift
für das gesamte Gebiet der Theologie und Religionswissenschaft, Nummer 7 83er Jahrgang pp
481-496, 1958
Lewis, Nicola Denzey et al., Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies Building on the Work of
Elaine Pagels, Mohr Siebeck, 2013
Lin, Yii-Jan, "But Analogy May Be A Deceitful Guide": The Use of Biological Metaphor in New
Testament Textual Criticism, SBL Annual Meeting 2013
Litwa, David M., “I Will Become Him”: Homology and Deification in the Gospel of Thomas,
JBL 133, no. 2 (2015): 427–447 DOI: 10.15699/jbl.1342.2015.2772
Loader, William, Mark 7:1-23 And The Historical Jesus, Colloquium 30/2, 1998
Luijendijk, AnneMarie, Sacred Scriptures as Trash: Biblical Papyri from Oxyrhynchus,
Vigiliae Christianae 64 (2010) 217-254
Maaren, John van, Does Mark’s Jesus Abrogate Torah? Jesus’ Purity Logion and its Illustration
in Mark 7:15–23, JJMJS No.4 (2017): 21-41
Macé, Caroline et alii, Chapter 3. Textual criticism and text editing, in: Comparative Oriental
Manuscript Studies: An Introduction, Hamburg, 2015
Malan, G.J., ‘Is rewritten Bible/Scripture the solution to the Synoptic Problem?’, HTS
Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 70(1), Art. #2101, 10 pages. DOI: 10.4102/hts.v70i1.2101
Malik, Peter, The Earliest Corrections in Codex Sinaiticus: A Test Case from the Gospel of
Mark. BASP. 50. 207–254, 2013

Marone, Paola, Il Tema Dell’Infanzia Nel Vangelo Di Tommaso, Bibbia e Oriente LIX, 271-272-
273-274 (2017), pp. 125-140
Marulli, Luca, The Parable of the Weeds (Matthew 13:26–30): A Quest for its Original
Formulation and its Role in the Preaching of the Historical Jesus, Biblical Theology Bulletin
Volume 40 Number 2 Pages 69–78, DOI: 10.1177/0146107910364340
Mason, Steve, Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins, Hendrickson, 2009
Mattison, Mark M., The Gospel of Thomas: A Public Domain Translation
Metzger, B. M. & Ehrman, B. D., The Text of the New Testament: its transmission,
corruption, and restoration, Oxford: OUP, 4 th edition 2005
Meyer, M., Secret Gospels: Essays on Thomas and the Secret Gospel of Mark, Trinity, 2003
Minar, Edwin L. Jr., The Logos of Heraclitus, Classical Philology, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Oct., 1939),
pp. 323-341
Miroshnikov, Ivan, The Gospel of Thomas And Plato : A Study of the Impact pf Platonism on
the “Fifth Gospel”, Academic dissertatio, Faculty of Theology, University of Helsinki, 2016
Mitchell, Margaret M. & Young, Frances M., The Cambridge History Of Christianity:
Origins To Constantine, Cambridge, 2008
Most, Glenn W., The Judas Of The Gospels And The Gospel Of Judas, Brill, 2008
Neller, Kenneth V., The Gospel of Thomas and the earliest texts of the synoptic gospels,
http://hdl.handle.net/10023/4586
Nir, Rivka, Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist: A ChristianInterpolation?, Journal for the
Study of the Historical Jesus 10 (2012) 32–62
Nodet, Etienne, The Text Of 1-2 Kings Used By Josephus, The Books of Kings : Sources,
Composition, Historiography and Reception (ed. André Lemaire and Baruch Halpern ; Leiden-
Boston : Brill, 2010), p. 41-66
Oosterkamp, C., Ethical Teachings of the Gospel of Thomas, Master Thesis, 2013
Oporto, Santiago Guijarro, A investigação recente sobre os Evangelhos: consensos e novas
interrogações, Theologica, 1.ª Série, 53, 1 / 2 (2018) 137-149
Orsini, P. & Willy, Clarysse, Early new testament manuscripts and their dates: A critique of
theological palaeography, 88. 443-474 (2012), DOI: 10.2143/ETL.88.4.2957937
Owens, Lance S., The Gospel of Thomas and the Hermeneutics of Vision, Gnosis Archive
Books, 2002
Pagels, Elaine, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas, Random House, 2004
Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Gospels, Vintage, 1989

Pagels, Elaine, The Text of the Gospel of Thomas from the Scholars Version translation
published in The Complete Gospels, Harry Camp Memorial Lecturer, January 26-30, 2004
Pascual, Rafeal J., Three-Position Verses and the Metrical Practice of the Beowulf Poet, Selim
20 (2013–2014): 49–79
Paterson Brown, Thomas - https://www.freelyreceive.net/metalogos/files/th_interlin.html
Patterson et al., The Fifth Gospel, T&T Clark, 2011
Paynter, Stephen E., How the Synoptic Gospels Were Written, An Evangelical Introduction
to The Synoptic Problem, and to Source, Form, and Redaction Criticism, 2015
Peppard, Michael, Son of God in Gentile Contexts (That is, Almost Everywhere), 2019
Perrin, N. & Skinner, C. W., Recent Trends in Gospel of Thomas Research (1989–2011). Part II:
Genre, Theology and Relationship to the Gospel of John, 2012, DOI: 10.1177/1476993X12458067
Plisch, Uwe-Karsten, Das Thomas-Evangelium: Originaltext mit Kommentar, DB, Stuttgart
Plisch, Uwe-Karsten, Das Thomasevangelium, SS 09 ao. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Konrad Huber,
Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät Innsbruck, nicht autorisierte Hörermitschrift von Hannes M.
Braito (sic)
Puech, Henri-Charles, Une collection de Paroles de Jésus récemment retrouvée : l'Évangile
selon Thomas. In: Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres,
101? année, N. 2, 1957. pp. 146-167; DOI : 10.3406/crai.1957.10741
Quecke, H., Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften Aus Den Papyrus-Codices Von Nag-Hamadi,
Bijdragen, 21:3, 304-309, DOI: 10.1080/00062278.1960.10596538
Quispel, Gilles, Het Evangelie van Thomas, Pelikaan, 2004
Quispel, Gilles, The Original Doctrine of Valentinus the Gnostic, Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 50,
No. 4 (1996), pp. 327-352
Rasimus, Tuomas, Johannine Opponents, The Gospel of John, and Gnosticism, Nag
Hammadi à 70 ans/Nag Hammadi at 70 (BCNH Études 10, Peeters), 2019
Reed, Annette Y., The Afterlives of New Testament Apocrypha, JBL 133, no. 2 (2015): 401–425,
DOI: 10.15699/jbl.1342.2015.2916
Rescio, M & Walt, L, “There Is Nothing Unclean”: Jesus and Paul against the Politics of
Purity?, ASE 29/2(2012) 53-82
Robbins, Vernon K., Rhetorical Composition and Sources in the Gospel of Thomas, SBL 1997
Seminar Papers, pp. 86-114
Robinson, James M. & Heil, Christoph, The Lilies of the Field: Saying 36 of the Gospel of
Thomas and Secondary Accretions in Q 12.22b–31. New Testament Studies, 47 (2015), pp 1-25
DOI: 10.1017/S0028688501000017

Robinson, James M., The Nag Hammadi Story, Brill, 2014

Roig Lanzillotta, L., Between Text and Text : The Hermeneutics of Intertextuality in Ancient
Cultures and Their Afterlife in Medieval and Modern Times. Bauks, M. & Horowitz, W. (eds.),
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, p. 116-132, 2013
Scholer, David M., Nag Hammadi Bibliography 1995–2006, Brill, 2009
Schröter, Jens, Thomas unter den Evangelisten (Gospels and Gospel Traditions in the Second
Century), De Gruyter, 2019
Service, Steven R., The Lost and Forgotten Gospel of the Kingdom, A First Century Hebraic
Perspective, 2015 2nd edition
Skinner, Christopher W., What are they saying about the Gospel of Thomas?, Paulist, 2012
Slavenburg, J., Het Thomas-evangelie: tekst en toelichting, Ankh-Hermes, 2001
Sloan, David B., What If the Gospel according to the Hebrews Was Q,
http://reconstructingq.com/gospel-of-the-hebrews.pdf
Smith, Andrew Phillip, A dictionary of Gnosticism, Quest, 2009
Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels: a study of origin, Macmillian, 1930
Strickland, Michael, Revising the Ancient Faith: Primitivism, the Gospel of Thomas, and
Christian Beginnings
Stroumsa, Guy G., Hidden Wisdom: Esoteric Traditions and the Roots of Christian Mysticism,
Brill, 2005
Stuart, Daniel M., Becoming Animal: Karma and the Animal Realm Envisioned through an
Early Yogacara Lens, Religions 2019, 10, 363; DOI: 10.3390/rel10060363
The Coptic version of the New testament in the Northern Dialect, digital scan by Moheb S.
Mekhaiel, 1987
Till, Walter C., New Sayings Of Jesus In The Recently Discovered Coptic "Gospel Of Thomas",
paper read to the Manchester University Egyptian and Oriental Society on the 1st of December
1958
Tiwald, Markus (ed.), Q in Context I, The Separation between the Just and the Unjust in
Early Judaism and in the Sayings Source, Bonn University Press, 2015
Trobisch, David, "The Gospel According to John in the Light of Marcion's Gospelbook,", Das
Neue Testament und sein Text im 2.Jahrhundert, Editor(s): Jan Heilmann, Matthias
Klinghardt, TANZ 61 (Tübingen: Francke, 2018) 171-181.
Uebersax, John S., Psychological Allegorical Interpretation of the Bible, El Camino Real, 2012
Uro, Risto, Seeking the Historical Context of the Gospel of Thomas, T&T Clark, 2003

Vanhoutte, K., 2019, ‘A heretical tale about heresy or when words do matter’, HTS Teologiese
Studies/Theological Studies 75(3), a5023. DOI: 10.4102/hts.v75i3.5023
Villani, Andrea, Homer in the Debate Between Celsus and Origen, evue d’études
augustiniennes etpatristiques, 58 (2012), 113-139
Vukomanovic, Milan, An Inquiry Into The Origin And Transmission Of The Gospel Of
Thomas, University of Pittsburgh, 1993
Watson, Francis B., ’Q as hypothesis : a study in methodology.’, New Testament Studies., 55
(4). pp. 397-415
Witzel, Michael, Textual criticism in Indology and in European philology during the 19 th and
20 th centuries, Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies (EJVS), Vol. 21, 2014 Issue 3, p. 9-90
Zinner, Samuel, The Gospel of Thomas In the Light of Early Jewish, Christian and Islamic
Esoteric Trajectories, Draft Of Proposed Revised And Corrected 2nd Edition, 2016
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

Absolute Thomasine Priority The Synoptic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Absolute Thomasine Priority The Synoptic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Absolute Thomasine priority - the

Synoptic Problem solved in the most

Absolute Thomasine priority, part I

Martijn Linssen 22-10-2019

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 1

The Synoptic Problem

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 2

Material shared between gospels

• A significant amount of material is common to all three gospels, in most of which

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 3

A picture2 says more than a couple of words:

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 4

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 5

Major theories for priority

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 6

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 7

The meaning and purpose of Thomas

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 8

The themes of Thomas

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 9

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 10

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 11

The date and time of Thomas

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 12

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 13

The gospel of Mark and its side-effects

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 14

The Thomasine priority series

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 15

1. The perfectly sensible, (chrono)logically ordered Jesus parables of Thomas - 'Literal

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 16

The impact of Thomas

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 17

The Synoptic Solution?

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 18

From Adam until Zedekiah: the creation of John the Immerser

John the Immerser, or John the Baptist or Baptizer, is a legendary figure.

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 19

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 20

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 21

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 22

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 23

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 24

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 25

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 26

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 27

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 28

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 29

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 30

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 31

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 32

A requirement, possibly some kind of pre-ceremony, shows up as well:

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 33

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 34

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 35

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 36

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 37

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 38

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 39

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 40

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 41

Zedekiah the Immerser

Martijn Linssen 22/10/2019 Page 42