What Shall We Do? The Community Rules 403 will set before you)”, come to light (55). The significance of inner purity in the NHC II, 2. 35: 24-35: 27 (56), is taken in the context of defiling a person who is not specifically identified. The Logion of Jesus, in relation to communicating with other people, warns the careful use of the “tapro (mouth)” (57). In other words, the text explains that food does not defile the consumer, but the thoughts of people need to be controlled before spitting them out. The mutual attitude of a “human relationship skill” is depicted in the judgmental saying of this Jewish formalism: “Do not be concerned from morning until evening … about what you will wear” (58). The Nag Hammadi text only mentions materialism in that clothes are for an outlook only, but the P. Oxy. 655. 1-17 details the agony of a person’s heart with the additional issue of “trofhv (food)”: “neither [about] your [food] and what [you will] eat, [nor] about [your clothing] and what you [will] wear” (59). Here, the oxyrhynchus word of encouragement reflects that the members of the community (or the readers of the text) should realise the issue of the material world is not solved by one’s outlook or the quality of food, but by the sophia of the Provider: “When you have no garment … Who might add to your stature? He it is who will give you your cloak”(60). The internal purity policy of Thomas is seen in another scenario of Jesus, in which the formal attitude of washing the outside of the cup is criticised as unnecessary behaviour: “why do you wash the outside of the cup?” (61). The second negative question of Jesus in the same saying is narrated as that the outside of the cup cannot be different from the inside, since “the cup-Maker’ is the same person as the (55) After the anti-saying of fasting, prayer, and almsgiving. Logion 14,4-5. (56) “For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but that which issues from your mouth — it is that which will defile you”. (57) Thomas followed Matthew twice in using the specific word ‘tapro (mouth): this is quoted by McArthus in terms of the dependence of Thomas on the Synoptic Gospels. But his view is quite irrelevant, rather, it is clearer that Thomas is close to Q, since many scriptures of Matthew are part of Q. H.K. MCARTHUR, “The Dependence of the Gospel of Thomas on the Synoptics”, ET 71 (1960) 286-287. (58) NHC II, 2. 39,24-27. (59) One could assume that the redactor of the Coptic text omitted some of the Greek phrase of Thomas whether this was done deliberately or not. For a brief authenticity of Thomas, see R.MC L. WILSON, “The Coptic ‘Gospel of Thomas’”, NTS 5 (1959) 273-276. (60) P. Oxy. 655. 13-17. (61) Logion 89.