Hello,

I have no idea if this has been added later or not, I never read of this before, perhaps it was there since the beginning.

But I can see why people would find that it is not fitting in there. It is not easy to interpret these esoteric texts while very easy to misunderstand what is written due to mind and due to how we look at these teachings with present day terms and mindset.

Perhaps if you read The First Apocalypse of James, you may get a hint as to what is implied in this last line. It may take a lot of time and many readings, plus experience to come to find out what they convey.

From The First Apocalypse of James:
“Yet [another thing] I ask of you: who are the [seven] women who have [been] your disciples? And behold, all women bless you. I am also amazed how [powerless] vessels have become strong by a perception which is within them.”
…
“The perishable has [gone up] to the imperishable and the female element has attained to this male element.”

Manpreet

Ahoy!

Quachie, perhaps the following online lecture may help in better understanding of the Gospel of Thomas:

[link removed in accordance with terms of use]

May the Force be with you.

Yes thanks for your advice.

My way of thinking is as follows:

Somebody who is able to translate a text like this somehow judged 114 to not really form part of the whole.

If he had main options to judge 114 to be added at a later time then these are some of his options:

Objective options:

• The interpreter knows something I don't.
• There is a very old copy that does not have verse 114 included.
• There is a very old copy that has a different handwriting in verse 114.
•  The style is noticeabale out of sync with the rest, like identical words elsewere use different forms and styles

Subjective options:

• The interpreter thinks he knows somethingI don't.
• The interpreter does not like what it says
• The interpreter thinks that Jesus cannot have said this.

I have problems with somebody putting in a "destructive" statement in such a text without further explanation, leaving the reader with doubt.

I for myself am quite sure that it actually comes from the mouth of Jesus resurrected.

Yeah, I don't like it either when interpreters add those kind of remarks without giving any reasons even. I always feel, "I can make up my own mind, thank you very much."

I don't know about this one specifically, but I would tend to assume the reasons have to do with linguistics, not bias on the part of the translator (though that's a possibility of course, as always). Linguists that specialise in these areas will be able to pick up on subtle differences in style or tone, and probably have their reasons to suspect it might not all have been written by the same author, so they put in a comment about it so people have at least heard it.

If you're interested in the details of why they commented on this case in particular it's possible you might find an academic explanation for it somewhere that explains their reasoning.

Liz

Yeshua: “Behold, I shall lure her so that I make her male, in order that she herself shall become a living spirit like you males. For every female who becomes male shall enter the Sovereignty of the Heavens.”

Jesus is seen here (Thomas 114) revealing metaphorically a secret of the path. One’s Being is masculine, and if one works on themselves using gnosis for long enough they’ll incarnate him. Ergo, even females will be made male… from a certain point of view. There’s no physical change, of course, nor was Jesus talking down to womankind in any way, he simply took what was asked of him and used it in a clever way to reveal this secret.