Ivan Miroshnikov THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS AND PLATO: A STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF PLATONISM ON THE “FIFTH GOSPEL” Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by due permission of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Helsinki in the Main Building, Lecture Hall 13 on 14 October 2016 at 12 p.m. Preliminary examiners André Gagné Associate Professor of Theological Studies Concordia University Harold W. Attridge Sterling Professor of Divinity Yale University Opponent Harold W. Attridge Sterling Professor of Divinity Yale University Cover illustration: Plato and other Greek sages from the depiction of the Tree of Jesse (c. 1600) at Sucevița Monastery, Romania. Photo courtesy of Ekaterina Levicheva. ISBN 978-951-51-2507-1 (paperback) ISBN 978-951-51-2508-8 (PDF) Unigrafia Helsinki 2016 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation was written under the supervision of two exceptional scholars, Risto Uro and Antti Marjanen. Risto has been a strong supporter of this project from the very beginning; without him, it would never have come to the completion. Antti was the strictest and most attentive reader of my text; I am endlessly grateful to him for his critical comments and helpful suggestions. The third exceptional scholar who must be mentioned here is Ismo Dunderberg. Though not an official supervisor, Ismo has always been genuinely interested in my work and generously shared with me his countless insights and observations. When I became a doctoral student at the Faculty of Theology at the University of Helsinki in September 2011, I soon realized how lucky I was. Surrounded by bright and warm-hearted people, I found myself in a healthy and stimulating research environment. Today, five years down the line, I would like to thank all the faculty members for this amazing period of my life. Several organizations provided me with financial support during my doctoral studies: the Centre for International Mobility, the Finnish Doctoral Programme of Theology, and the Centre of Excellence “Reason and Religious Recognition.” I am equally grateful to each of them. Since the beginning of my doctoral studies, I have presented portions of this dissertation at various academic conferences, both in Finland and overseas. At the Faculty of Theology, I presented several papers at the New Testament Seminar and the “Gnostic” Seminar. I would like to thank everybody who commented on my work at these seminars, especially Vilja Alanko, Risto Auvinen, Minna Heimola, Jussi Ikkala, Outi Lehtipuu, Ulla Tervahauta, and Päivi Vähäkangas. I am grateful to all my colleagues from all over the world who have shared with me their thoughts about my project. Above all, I wish to thank the official reviewers of this work, Harold Attridge and André Gagné. I am very grateful to Stephen Patterson, whose work was the main source of inspiration for this project; in fact, the very title of this dissertation is my attempt to pay homage to Stephen’s seminal monograph The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus. I also wish to thank Armen Alexanyan, Dmitry Bratkin, and Alexey Somov, with whom I discussed my work on countless occasions and who provided me invaluable feedback. At the Faculty of Theology, I have had the pleasure of participating in regular meetings of the Greek and Coptic reading groups, which was tremendously helpful in my work. I am grateful to all my fellow Greek and Coptic enthusiasts, especially Tuukka Kauhanen, Helena Panczová, Elina Perttilä, Andreas Sirengos, Timo Tekoniemi, and Anna-Liisa Tolonen. Twice, in 2014 and 2016, I took part in the informal “Coptic Camp,” organized by John Turner at his home in Lincoln, Nebraska. At these very informal gatherings, John, Tilde Bak, Christian Bull, Lance Jenott, Nanna Olsen, and I read various Coptic “Gnostic” texts every day, from dusk till dawn. This was an unforgettable experience, for which I am grateful to all my fellow “campers.” I wish to thank Eugenia Smagina, who taught me Coptic and with whom I read the Nag Hammadi text of the Gospel of Thomas for the first time; Kenneth Lai, for the masterly proofreading of the English text; and Ekaterina Levicheva, who kindly permitted me to use her photograph of a depiction of Plato and his tomb (Sucevița Monastery) for the cover of this dissertation. This dissertation was a labor of love. Yet it was very important to take my mind off of it from time to time and to immerse myself into something unrelated to Platonism and the Nag Hammadi codices. I am thus very grateful to all my colleagues at the Centre for Egyptological Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and especially to Galina Belova, Sergey Ivanov, and Elena iii Tolmacheva, together with whom I spent several unforgettable archaeological seasons in the Fayyūm. I am also grateful to Erja Salmenkivi, who introduced me to the joy of papyrus conservation, and Alin Suciu, who encouraged me to take a stab at editing unpublished Coptic manuscripts, which turned out to be a challenging but exciting affair. Finally and most importantly, I am infinitely grateful to Svetlana Mezina, my wife and the most precious human being in my life. Thanks to her, I was able to complete this work without running mad. iv A NOTE TO THE READER Throughout this dissertation, the Coptic text of the Gospel of Thomas (hereafter Thomas) is reproduced from the critical edition prepared by Bentley Layton.1 Unless otherwise stated, the English translation of the Coptic Thomas I cite is the one prepared by the Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch- gnostische Schriften and revised by Stephen J. Patterson and James M. Robinson.2 The Greek fragments of Thomas are cited as they were edited and translated by Harold W. Attridge, with occasional modifications.3 I refer to the subunits within the individual sayings of the Coptic version of Thomas according to the versification used by the Berliner Arbeitskreis.4 As for the Oxyrhynchus fragments, I follow the numeration of verses introduced in Q-Thomas Reader,5 with one exception: P.Oxy. 1.27–30 is numbered Thomas 30:3–4, not Thomas 77:2–3. My references to the Sahidic New Testament manuscripts follow the SMR (Schmitz-Mink- Richter) citation method. The other Coptic literary manuscripts are cited according to the sigla of the CMCL (Corpus dei Manoscritti Copti Letterari). With the exception of Thomas, all texts from the Nag Hammadi codices, Berlin codex, and codex Tchacos are quoted according to the page and line numbers. The abbreviations I use for these texts, as well as for the biblical texts, apostolic fathers, and the so-called Old Testament pseudepigrapha and New Testament apocrypha are the ones prescribed in the second edition (2014) of the SBL Handbook of Style. All other works in Latin and Greek are cited according to their Latin titles. The titles for the Greek texts are from the online version of the TLG Canon, with a few exceptions.6 Unless otherwise stated, quotations from the Greek works reproduce the texts of the editions utilized in the TLG digital library. My references to these texts follow the divisions employed in the TLG.7 Unless otherwise stated, all translations of the ancient sources quoted in this dissertation are mine. 1 See Layton 1989, 1:52–92. 2 See Patterson 2011b, 1–25. 3 See Attridge 1989a. 4 See Aland 1997, 519–46. 5 See Kloppenborg et al. 1990, 156–8. 6 For instance, for the sake of brevity, I cite Alcinous’ handbook as Didascalicus, not as Epitome doctrinae Platonicae sive Διδασκαλικός. 7 Again, with a few exceptions; e.g., I follow the common practice and cite Holl’s edition of Epiphanius’ Panarion according to the chapter, section, and subsection numbers, not the page and line numbers. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I. Setting the Scene ....................................................................................................................... 1 1. Preliminary Notes on Thomas ...................................................................................................... 3 Excursus I. The Greek Vorlage of Thomas 12:2 ........................................................................ 12 Excursus II. The Secondary Nature of Thomas 5:3 .................................................................... 16 2. Thomas and Philosophy: A History of Research........................................................................ 20 3. Middle Platonism: A Debated Concept ...................................................................................... 25 4. Recent Research on Early Christian Appropriation of Platonism .............................................. 34 4.1. Rom 7:7–25 ......................................................................................................................... 35 4.2. The Prologue of John ........................................................................................................... 38 4.2.1. The Contrast between Being and Becoming .............................................................. 38 4.2.2. The Notion of the Logos ............................................................................................ 39 4.2.3. Prepositional Metaphysics ......................................................................................... 41 4.2.4. The Notion of the True Light ..................................................................................... 43 4.3. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 44 Part II. Thomas and Platonism ..........................................................................................................