Cool pictures of the Gospel of Thomas Codex (crucify, gnostic)

[angellous_evangellous]

Another cool little tidbit is there are no crucifixion stories in Thomas, but we have the cross.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

A "starogram"? Googled it and found nothing.

I'm sorry, dopp. I misspelled it. Try "staurogram."

THE STAUROGRAM IN EARLY CHRISTIAN MANUSCRIPTS: THE EARLIEST VISUAL REFERENCE TO THE CRUCIFIED JESUS? Larry W. Hurtado

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Another cool little tidbit is there are no crucifixion stories in Thomas, but we have the cross.

Well, that's why I'm curious, because the ankh might have had meaningful associations to early Christians even without a crucifixion account. And the fact is, that's not a "cross" - it's something people see as "cross-like." The cross doesn't have a loop on the top. So it could be an example of people seeing what they want to see.

What's intriguing is this: if "John" as we have it is a revision of an early Egyptian Gnostic work, then it would not be surprising to find the author working an ankh into the story, by using the tau-rho combination in Greek to merge the two (ankh and crux) in a clever way. The Greek letters are used to create a stylized ankh and the crucifixion at that point is now a part of the story so it has an additional meaning. It's use in Thomas, where there is no crucifixion account, could indicate that its reference was not originally to the "cross" of the crucifixion, but to the "life" aspects of the ankh. Of course, it might not have originally been in Thomas either, but included in the later Coptic translations after it had already become a stylized symbol used in Christian writing.

Since all we have are later Coptic translation of Thomas, we may never know.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I'm sorry, dopp. I misspelled it. Try "staurogram."

THE STAUROGRAM IN EARLY CHRISTIAN MANUSCRIPTS: THE EARLIEST VISUAL REFERENCE TO THE CRUCIFIED JESUS? Larry W. Hurtado

Yes. I figured that out.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Well, that's why I'm curious, because the ankh might have had meaningful associations to early Christians even without a crucifixion account. And the fact is, that's not a "cross" - it's something people see as "cross-like." The cross doesn't have a loop on the top. So it could be an example of people seeing what they want to see.

What's intriguing is this: if "John" as we have it is a revision of an early Egyptian Gnostic work, then it would not be surprising to find the author working an ankh into the story, by using the tau-rho combination in Greek to merge the two. The Greek letters are used to create a stylized ankh and the crucifixion at that point is now a part of the story so it has an additional meaning. It's use in Thomas, where there is no crucifixion account, could indicate that its reference was not originally to the "cross" of the crucifixion, but to the "life" aspects of the ankh. Of course, it might not have originally been in Thomas either, but included in the later Coptic translations after it had already become a stylized symbol used in Christian writing.

Exactly. The connection between the symbol and the cross comes from its usage in the word "cross." I don't think that it's even remotely possible that it carries with it any concept of "life" in Thomas due to its context in the saying.

My point is simply that the community that accepted Thomas and John shared a common symbol used in the same way. After all, some people still try to seperate Thomas from the NT canon, when "Christian" and "Gnostic" groups knew of no such division. What it means beyond that is anybody's guess (though we may know more certainly what it's not). With the other symbols and decorations I'd say that the similarity is remarkable.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

My point is simply that the community that accepted Thomas and John shared a common symbol used in the same way. What it means beyond that is anybody's guess (though we may know more certainly what it's not). With the other symbols and decorations I'd say that the similarity is remarkable.

Except that it could simply mean that whoever wrote the Coptic translation we have of Thomas was aware of a tradition of using that symbol in Christian writings. So whether that had anything to do with the original text is a mystery.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

What's intriguing is this: if "John" as we have it is a revision of an early Egyptian Gnostic work, then it would not be surprising to find the author working an ankh into the story, by using the tau-rho combination in Greek to merge the two (ankh and crux) in a clever way. The Greek letters are used to create a stylized ankh and the crucifixion at that point is now a part of the story so it has an additional meaning. It's use in Thomas, where there is no crucifixion account, could indicate that its reference was not originally to the "cross" of the crucifixion, but to the "life" aspects of the ankh. Of course, it might not have originally been in Thomas either, but included in the later Coptic translations after it had already become a stylized symbol used in Christian writing.

hmmmm