chapter 6 The Gospel of Thomas and the Platonists on Immutability and Indivisibility In this chapter, I deal with the Platonist background of Gos. Thom. 61, a short dialogue between Jesus and a certain woman by the name of Salome. Most scholars believe that the Coptic text of Gos.Thom. 61 is corrupt; therefore, along with interpreting the dialogue, I will also offer philological analyses of certain Coptic words and expressions present in the text. Below is the Coptic text of Gos. Thom. 61 and its English translation: 61:1 ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲓ阦 ⲟⲩⲛ̄ ⲥⲛⲁⲩ ⲛⲁⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲩ ϩⲓ ⲟⲩϭⲗⲟϭ ⲡⲟⲩⲁ ⲛⲁⲙⲟⲩ ⲡⲟⲩⲁⲛⲁ- ⲱⲛϩ 61:2 ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲥⲁⲗⲱⲙⲏ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲕ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ ϩⲱⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ̄ ⲟⲩⲁ ⲁⲕⲧⲉⲗⲟ ⲉϫⲙ̄ⲡⲁ- ϭⲗⲟϭ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲕⲟⲩⲱⲙ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ̄ ⲧⲁⲧⲣⲁⲡⲉⲍⲁ 61:3 ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲓ阦 ⲛⲁⲥ ϫⲉ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲉⲧϣⲏϣ ⲁⲩϯ ⲛⲁⲉⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ̄ ⲛⲁ ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ 61:4 ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲧⲉⲕⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ 61:5 ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲁⲉⲓ ϯϫⲱ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ϩⲟⲧⲁⲛ ⲉϥϣⲁϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉϥϣⲏ⟨ϣ⟩ ϥⲛⲁⲙⲟⲩϩ ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ϩⲟⲧⲁⲛ ⲇⲉ ⲉϥϣⲁϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉϥⲡⲏϣ ϥⲛⲁⲙⲟⲩϩ ⲛ̄ⲕⲁⲕⲉ 61:1 Jesus said: “Two will rest on a dining couch. One will die; the other will live.” 61:2 Salome said: “Who are you, man? As if you were from someone (important), you have gotten a place on my dining couch and you have eaten at my table.” 61:3 Jesus said to her: “I am the one who comes from the One who is equal (to himself). I was given some of that which is my Father’s.” 61:4 “I am your disciple!” 61:5 “Therefore, I say: If he is ⟨equal⟩ (to himself), he will become full of light. But if he is divided, he will become full of darkness.” I start with discussing the setting of the dialogue between Jesus and Salome. I then analyze the contents of the dialogue, primarily how the saying is influ- enced by the Middle Platonist philosophy. In the end, I address the integrity of the dialogue, since it has been questioned by a number of scholars. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004367296_007 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.Ivan Miroshnikov - 9789004367296 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 12:33:40AM via free access 164 chapter 6 The Setting of the Dialogue In what follows, I discuss the circumstances in which Jesus and Salome engage in their dialogue. First, I argue that the setting of Gos. Thom. 61:1–2 is that of a banquet. Then, I offer several arguments in support of Harold W. Attridge’s interpretation of Gos. Thom. 61:2 and a suggestion as to how Salome’s reply might be related to Jesus’ opening remark in Gos. Thom. 61:1. 1 Jesus on a Dining Couch The Coptic noun ϭⲗⲟϭ occurs in Gos. Thom. 61 twice. Even though the pri- mary meaning of ϭⲗⲟϭ is “bed,” in Gos. Thom. 61, it should be understood as “dining couch.” Most probably, the Coptic noun ϭⲗⲟϭ in Gos. Thom. 61 ren- ders the Greek noun κλίνη, since ϭⲗⲟϭ is the most frequent equivalent of κλίνη in the Sahidic New Testament1 and perhaps in other translated texts as well.2 Although it is theoretically possible that ϭⲗⲟϭ here renders κράβαττος,3 the par- allel text in Luke 17:34 seems to rule this option out. In turn, the Greek noun κλίνη means both “bed” and “dining couch,” but since, in Gos. Thom. 61:2, we encounter the Greek loan-word τράπεζα, there can be no doubt that the latter meaning was implied. The ancient practice of reclining on a dining couch (κλίνη) and eating from a table (τράπεζα) is well-known. The following two examples from classical literary sources describe the setting that is essentially similar to the one pre- supposed in Gos. Thom. 61:4 Then how should I feed these people, Glaucon? I asked. In the conventional way. If they aren’t to suffer hardship, they should recline on proper couches (ἐπί τε κλινῶν κατακεῖσθαι), dine at a table (ἀπὸ τραπεζῶν δειπνεῖν), and have the delicacies and desserts that people have nowadays.5 1 Draguet 1960, 114. 2 See Crum 1939, 815a. 3 See Wilmet 1957–1959, 3:1695–1696. 4 As for the early Jewish and early Christian literature, the same practice seems to be attested in Ezek 23:41 LXX: “you would sit on a covered couch (ἐπὶ κλίνης ἐστρωμένης), and a table adorned in front of it (τράπεζα κεκοσμημένη πρὸ προσώπου αὐτῆς)” (NETS). In the New Testament, κλίνη seems to mean “dining couch” in Mark 7:4 and Luke 17:34. 5 Plato, Resp. 372d–e, trans. G.M.A. Grube and C.D.C. Reeve. Ivan Miroshnikov - 9789004367296 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 12:33:40AM via free access the gospel of thomas and the platonists on immutability 165 Exactly the same thing holds true also in reference to the kitchen: in any establishment where one and the same man arranges the dining couches (κλίνην στρώννυσι), lays the table (τράπεζαν κοσμεῖ), bakes the bread, pre- pares now one sort of dish and now another, he must necessarily have things go as they may.6 In Gos. Thom. 61:1, Jesus speaks of two individuals reclining on one couch; the saying thus reflects communal dining customs of the ancient world. I believe that Uwe-Karsten Plisch is accurate when he suggests that the setting of Gos. Thom. 61 is a banquet, where Salome is host and Jesus, one of the guests.7 Indeed, this seems to be the most natural way of interpreting the saying. While a couch in a typical Greek ἀνδρών usually measured 1.80–1.90×0.80–0.90m and could accommodate either one or two guests, a couch in a Roman triclinium was larger, measuring 2.20–2.40×1.20m and accommodating three persons.8 It is this latter piece of furniture that Thomasine ϭⲗⲟϭ designates. Since Salome is the host, she says that Jesus reclines on “her” couch and eats from “her” table. It seems unlikely that she and Jesus recline on the same couch:9 as Matthew B. Roller convincingly argues, a man and woman reclining together in Roman times “thereby announce a licit, proprietary sexual connec- tion.”10 To this must be added that a woman present at a banquet is not necessarily either an entertainer or a prostitute. While in Greece, according to Kather- ine Dunbabin, “reclining at dinner was a male prerogative,” in Roman times, respectable women “participated in banquets reclining together with men.”11 This phenomenon is attested by both literary and non-literary sources—for example, a mosaic panel from Capua (first or second century CE) depicts “women who to all appearances are portrayed in their dress and demeanour as respectable members of society, participating in the feast on equal terms with men.”12 6 Xenophon, Cyr. 8.2.6; trans. W. Miller. 7 Plisch 2008, 151. 8 See Dunbabin 2003, 38–40. 9 Pace Corley 1999, 86 and 88–89; Alikin 2010, 22–23; Gathercole 2014a, 443. 10 Roller 2006, 121. 11 Dunbabin 2003, 22–23. 12 Ibid., 68. Ivan Miroshnikov - 9789004367296 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 12:33:40AM via free access 166 chapter 6 2 Jesus Has Come from Someone Special Salome says that Jesus got a place (literally, “came up” or “climbed”) on her din- ing couch and ate from her table ϩⲱⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ̄ ⲟⲩⲁ (i.e., “as from one”). The majority of scholars believe that the text “is near to nonsense”13 and therefore has to be emended. If we cannot convincingly interpret the text as it stands, an emendation would certainly be in order. If this were the case, the best option would prob- ably be to accept H.J. Polotsky’s proposal that *ὡς ξένος of the Greek Vorlage was mistranslated as *ὡς ἐξ ἑνός.14 Indeed, the improved text fits nicely into the setting of the dialogue, as it was described above. While Salome is the host of this banquet, Jesus is lying on her dining couch and eating the food from her table as her guest.15 As insightful as Polotsky’s proposal is, it is every scholar’s duty to try to inter- pret the text as it stands, and propose emendations only after proving that the text as it stands is meaningless.16 Hence, I would like to discuss the proposals of Harold W. Attridge and Ismo Dunderberg, who both believe that the phrase in question “can be understood as it stands.”17 In his 1977 translation of the Gospel of Thomas, Lambdin rendered ϩⲱⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ̄ ⲟⲩⲁ “as though from the One.”18 According to Attridge, this transla- tion is inaccurate: “If ⲟⲩⲁ is indeed a translation of a Greek ἑνός, used in this metaphysical sense, we would certainly not expect it to be anarthrous in either language.”19 According to Attridge, ⲟⲩⲁ renders τὶς, which in this context means “someone special.”20 13 Plisch 2008, 150. 14 See Layton 1989, 1:74. 15 See LSJ, s.v. “ξένος,” I.2. 16 Another alternative is to suggest that the Coptic translator understood the interrogative pronoun τίς as the indefinite pronoun τὶς. See Petersen 1999, 198–199. As I point out below, the Coptic text makes good sense as it stands; therefore, there is no reason to think that the translator misunderstood the Greek expression. 17 Dunderberg 2006, 90. 18 Lambdin 1977, 125. 19 Attridge 1981, 31. It seems that Lambdin found Attridge’s argumentation convincing, since “the One” is not mentioned in subsequent editions of his translation. Thus, in Layton’s edition of the Gospel of Thomas, Lambdin notes that the passage is corrupt, leaving ϩⲱⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ̄ ⲟⲩⲁ untranslated (Lambdin 1989, 75); it is worth noting that, due to a misprint, the text is missing an ellipsis (cf.