Deviled ham.

 Deviled ham.

from Farah See’s commentary on The Gospel of Thomas and Other Sayings of Jesus (in the Incoherent series, published by Rantrage Press, 2012, p. 197 - from the section “Late”) –

L3, the third of four fragments found near Siena, 1956 and since lost.

dixit,Cui simile est Eius medicus hominem misit ad . . . si potuerit curare Si daemones possintne ex homine ejieci Misit illum ad adiutorem eum qui intellexit linguae alicuius daimonis sed non omnium.Sed unum potuit intelligere affirmavit loqui pro omnibus.Dixit qui aures habet,audiat.

He said, “Is it like this?

     “His healer sent a man to a tester to see if he could be healed. Could the man’s demons be cast out? The tester gave the man to his assistant, who understood the language of some of the demons but not of all of them. But one he could understand claimed to speak for all.”

     He said, “Who has ears to hear, let her hear.”

Commentary

Of the four fragments in the same hand discovered together, this, L3, is the most complete though some have argued that it is not complete at all. All agree that the saying has its introduction - “He said, ‘Is it like this?’” All agree it has its conclusion - “He said, ‘Who has ears, let her hear.’” But is all the middle there? Does the story make sense? That depends, I argue, on what sort of sense the teller intended it should make. It does not depend on the sense the reader might wish it made.

     Those that argue (Simeone and Oxlade-Chamberlain, for instance) that the story is incomplete take (with variations) the following line: It begins with a doctor sending his (demon-possessed) patient to a specialist to run tests and report back. Is this a case that can be treated or not? The specialist asks a resident to conduct a preliminary exam. The resident begins and seems to reach a conclusion but one based on what kind of evidence? The story is broken off there. We don’t hear of his report to the specialist or the specialist’s to the physician. The story works its way from beginning to middle in four steps, interactions between patient and doctor, doctor and specialist, specialist and resident, and resident and patient (or patient’s demons). There is no middle to end. (Four steps in; there should be four steps out.)

     But need there be a middle to an end (four steps out to match the four in)? Jesus’ stories - and though he is not named here, the story is clearly attributed to Jesus, named in another of the fragments¹ - do not always have beginnings, middles, and ends. See, for example, the parables of the mustard seed, the leaven, and the pearl of great price.

Facsimile of L3, enhanced. The fragment was discovered in 1956.
It was photographed some time later. It was lost by 1961.

      Moreover, I would argue (in agreement with Klopp, and Morata & Savič) that the story comes to precisely the end (the point not the conclusion) that whoever created or preserved it intended. He (or she) understands Jesus’ interactions with demons this way: they are cast out not by understanding but by, well, casting them out, sending them on their way. (See when he comes down from the Mount of Configuration or the story of the Gerasene demoniac.) To try to understand them, to converse with them as if they had something to say, is damned foolishness. Scatter them to the winds and hope they blow them back where they came from, probably into pigs and thence pork products, Smithfield hams, deviled ham, rinds, and pickled feet.

_______________

 ¹ L2, in which the saying is effaced except for the word ager, field. The first two words of the fragment are legible, however: Dixit Iesus, Jesus said. As is the last word: dixit, he said.

03.19.20

For links to other excerpts from both this and other Rantrage Press commentaries (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Revelation, et al.), click here.