The Gospel of Thomas

[Yoder777]

If you'd like to see how the Gospel of Thomas can be read alongside the canonical Gospels to build a comprehensive whole, I recommend this book:

Book Review
By Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat


The Wisdom Jesus
Transforming Heart and Mind — A New Perspective on Christ and His Message
Cynthia Bourgeault
Shambhala 08/08 Paperback $16.95
ISBN: 9781590305805


Cynthia Bourgeault is an Episcopal priest, teacher, retreat and conference leader. She is the author of many books, including The Wisdom Way of Knowing. Bourgeault is a Living Spiritual Teacher on our website. She believes that "the great cultural monolith that we call Christianity" is breaking into pieces as denominations lose membership and communities are being split by differing views of homosexual unions, women's ordinations, and abortion rights.

It is a propitious time to ask some hard questions about the Christian way and the radical ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. Bourgeault is convinced that we should now see this agitator first and foremost as a wisdom teacher of the inner transformation of the whole human being. He stood in the tradition of Hebrew teachers such as Ecclesiastes, Job, and Proverbs with his pithy sayings and personalized questions. Bourgeault quotes Lynn Bauman referring to Jesus's parables as "spiritual hand grenades" aimed at changing people's consciousness. Or they could also be seen as Buddhist koans conveying the many paradoxes of life.

Bourgeault discusses Jesus's ideas about the kingdom of God, the path of metanoia, the Beatitudes, and the "hard teachings" from the Gospel of Thomas. She concludes that Jesus is "the first truly integral teacher to appear on the planet." She also marvels at his path of self-emptying love and his Tantric mastery. In a section of the book titled "The Mysteries of Jesus," the author celebrates his life as a sacrament — a spiritual force in its own right. Here she covers the incarnation, the passion, the crucifixion and its aftermath, and the great Easter fast. Bourgeault rejoices in the mystical body of Christ present in our daily lives. She concludes the book with five Christian Wisdom Practices (Centering Prayer Meditation, Lectio Divina, Chanting and Psalmody, Welcoming, and Eucharist). These practices deepen our encounter with Jesus as the wisdom teacher and enable us to walk the talk of transformation, love, hospitality, and compassion.
Spirituality & Practice: Book Review: The Wisdom Jesus, by Cynthia Bourgeault

It ultimately doesn't matter whether the Gospel was actually written by Thomas or even whether it was written in the first century, though there's good reason to believe that it was. What matters is whether or not Thomas preserves a teaching tradition that goes back to Jesus himself. While many would prefer to give a late date to Thomas, is there reason to believe it was written after the first half of the first century?

 

[Goinheix]

Mainstream Christians are often dismissive of Thomas as a Gnostic Gospel, without really trying to understand the history that surrounds it.

Scholars make a distinction between the Gospel of Thomas and Gnosticism. While Thomas' focus is on restoring the nature of man as it was before the fall, Gnosticism is world-negating. Thomas is better seen in light of Jewish wisdom literature than Gnosticism.

Thomas was not universally rejected in the early church. For example, 2 Clement quotes from it. The Orthodox Christians of India and Mesopotamia trace their heritage to the Apostle Thomas. If he visited those regions, it could explain some of the Gospel's eastern tinge.

Thomas can be a valuable resource for our spiritual lives, since it illuminates and expands on passages found in the canonical Gospels. It also goes into the deeper spiritual meaning of Jesus' message, just as John does.

The Gospel of Thomas is a book. it is a book as millions books in the world. The different with the Gospel of Thomas is that is apocryphal. It is apocryphal not just because is not canonical, it is apocryphal because it claim to be written by a false person. It was not write for Thomas as the book claim.

What we have is a non canonical book talking about Jesus as millions books do. But not only that, is a book based on a false pretence. I shall said that the author not only do not have the authority of the NT, it has not moral authority at all.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

One could say the same things to the Protestant Reformers, or anyone who's attempted to either see the Christian faith in a new light or recover what the first Christians believed and practiced.

One of the key differences here, at least as far as the "Magisterial" Reformers are concerned, is that by and large they weren't intending to reinvent Christianity. While it can be argued that's what they were doing, they weren't primitivists. The Reformers were not interested in starting new churches, but reforming the established one, the point wasn't to abandon Rome, but foster conversation with Rome. Granted, things got out of control when both sides starting hurling anathemas at one another and it resulted in schism and fracturing of the Western Church.

There are plenty of things that I admire in various denominations, for example, the historic peace churches--I believe--hit the nail on the head as far as separation of Church and State and nonviolence are concerned (as it so happens I own a copy of Yoder's "Politics of Jesus" which you have as your avatar, and have benefited from it); however I regard the Anabaptist rejection of the traditional Christian understanding of the Sacraments to be out of line, it was a radical innovation--though no less radical than Zwingli's Memorialism. I can admire the Stone-Campbell Movement for desiring a unified Christianity, even though it has more-or-less just created a new set of denominations.

What I don't regard as admirable is this idea that Christianity can be or even that it needs to be "restored". It's not broken. Christianity certainly isn't, and certainly never has been, perfect. But it's not broken.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Yoder777]

The Gospel of Thomas is a book. it is a book as millions books in the world. The different with the Gospel of Thomas is that is apocryphal. It is apocryphal not just because is not canonical, it is apocryphal because it claim to be written by a false person. It was not write for Thomas as the book claim.

No one knows for certain whether the canonical Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Most scholars are content in saying that the Gospels go back to oral traditions that began with Jesus. Why isn't that also possible for Thomas?

 

[Yoder777]

What I don't regard as admirable is this idea that Christianity can be or even that it needs to be "restored". It's not broken. Christianity certainly isn't, and certainly never has been, perfect. But it's not broken.

I agree with the view that the church is reformed and always reforming, always re-examining itself in light of Christ. Semper Reformanda!

 

[Yoder777]

This is interesting:

The "Gospel of Thomas".

It is worth reading the "St. Thomas' Gospel" too, whether it was written by Thomas**) - the disciple of Jesus and his (half)brother - himself or not. It is not a Gospel, but an apocryphal collection of sayings of Jesus in 114 verses. This text was also accepted by spiritual Christians in Egypt and elsewhere.

A version existed which was criticized by some authors of the early Church as "heretic". It is not known to what extent that text was similar to the version found in the 20th century. Of course, there were various opinions among the early Christians. The Disciples had already quarrelled and their tasks were independent from each other. The opinion of others was not binding for them. So the early criticism is not valid as a final judgement for today.

Especially not for such an ancient book, which has so many passages in common with the Bible - e.g. Thomas 82 must have even been the earliest version - and even helps us to understand some of the passages in the Bible. In the Gospel of St. Thomas, Jesus is the Christ who came in flesh, risen from the dead and so classical research has had to admit that this text cannot simply be classified, for instance, as old Gnostic teachings.

There were attempts to interpret it (56 or 80) as Gnostic: "Jesus said: Whoever has come to understand the world has found a corpse"; but there are many similar biblical statements, for example from St. Paul *** and one should think about the other part, "but he who has found the body is superior to the world" (80). Such wordings had other purposes too, which were not known: so the people noticed that they were not capable of understanding fully. Not the contents, but the method is similar to a "Koan", a paradox of Zen-Buddhism, which is thought about and meditated on until a deeper understanding beyond the intellect is reached.

The network which collected these scrolls, was not an organized church or sect and this fact alone would be typical for some independent "traditions of St. Thomas" ****. But it is not necessary to look at each sentence as authentic and binding. The base may stem from St. Thomas, but it may have been worked out by others later.
The Gospel of Thomas

 

[ebia]

No one knows for certain whether the canonical Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

That's absolutely true. "There is no evidence of association with Thomas" is only a relevant statement because of posts suggesting it does or might carry Thomist authority.

Most scholars are content in saying that the Gospels go back to oral traditions that began with Jesus. Why isn't that also possible for Thomas?[/quote]
Most of the sayings do go back to Jesus because we find many of them in the synoptics as well. It may be that some of the sayings unique to Thomas are also authentic to Jesus - we don't know. The issue is the presentation. By presenting the sayings decontextualised they are being used to do something very different to the function they have in the synoptics. In the synoptiics Jesus life, actions and words function together - they are intricately interwoven so that each can only be understood alongside the other. By ripping the sayings out of context they come to mean something completely different in Thomas; that's where the incompatibility lies. Either the synoptics are authentic to Jesus or Thomas is, but both can't be. Since Thomas ends up being a much more hellenistic book than the synoptics its hardly plausible that the hardly plausible that a more hellenistic tradition would then become massively more Jewish by the addition of narrative than the other way around.

Like many scholars I'm forced to conclude that, because it is not a gospel and has no narrative context Thomas is (a) later than the synoptics, (b) is incompatible in its theology to the synoptics and (c) is much less radical than the synoptics.

It only looks radical in the 20th century because it challenges established Christianity, not because its more radical in its challenge to the whole world. In fact its challenge to established Christianity is only more obvious, not greater, but we live in an age that likes the superficial and distrusts the establishment.

 

[Yoder777]

Either the synoptics are authentic to Jesus or Thomas is, but both can't be. Since Thomas ends up being a much more hellenistic book than the synoptics its hardly plausible that the hardly plausible that a more hellenistic tradition would then become massively more Jewish by the addition of narrative than the other way around.

Like many scholars I'm forced to conclude that, because it is not a gospel and has no narrative context Thomas is (a) later than the synoptics, (b) is incompatible in its theology to the synoptics and (c) is much less radical than the synoptics.

How is Thomas more hellenistic than the canonical Gospels, especially John, which explictly alludes to Greek philosophy in its first chapter? Thomas is within the stream of Jewish wisdom literature. The reason why Thomas doesn't have a passion narrative is because it presupposes Jesus' resurrection, referring to him as "the living Jesus." The very fact that Thomas, like Q, is a sayings Gospel suggests that it might be as early if not older than the canonical Gospels. Furthermore, since when are you a scholar?

 

[wayseer]

Mainstream Christians are often dismissive of Thomas as a Gnostic Gospel, without really trying to understand the history that surrounds it.

The GoT is nether gnostic nor a gospel. It is a list of sayings.

Scholars make a distinction between the Gospel of Thomas and Gnosticism. While Thomas' focus is on restoring the nature of man as it was before the fall, Gnosticism is world-negating. Thomas is better seen in light of Jewish wisdom literature than Gnosticism.

In what way?

Thomas was not universally rejected in the early church. For example, 2 Clement quotes from it. The Orthodox Christians of India and Mesopotamia trace their heritage to the Apostle Thomas. If he visited those regions, it could explain some of the Gospel's eastern tinge.

While there have been rumblings that such a text existed it was not until the discoveries of the NHL that the GoT was actually found to be a a real text.

Thomas can be a valuable resource for our spiritual lives, since it illuminates and expands on passages found in the canonical Gospels. It also goes into the deeper spiritual meaning of Jesus' message, just as John does.

There is really very little 'expansive' material of the GoT - it is nothing more than a list of sayings attributed to Jesus.

 

[wayseer]

The very fact that Thomas, like Q, is a sayings Gospel suggests that it might be as early if not older than the canonical Gospels. Furthermore, since when are you a scholar?

No necessarily. You cannot draw a conclusion based on another hypothesis.

The Q document is a hypothesis - it does not exist.

We now know the GoT does exists but that does not mean it was therefore written at the same time as the hypothetical Q. However enticing such a connection might appear, from a critical analysis you one cannot legitimate that connection.

And I doffs me hat to Ebia as a scholar and urge more Christian to follow suit.

 

[Yoder777]

The word "gospel" means "good news." Thomas is a Gospel if it proclaims the "good news" of Jesus Christ. There is evidence from the early church, like 2 Clement, that Thomas is early.

The Gospel Of Thomas

c. 70-150 C.E.
The Gospel of Thomas might well be the most informative discovery about Christian origins in modern history. The gospel was often mentioned in early Christian literature, but no copy was thought to have survived until the discovery of an extant Coptic manuscript at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945. Since then, part of the Oxyrynchus papyri have been identified as older Greek fragments of Thomas.
Thomas is a pure sayings gospel; that is, like the hypothetical gospel Q, it consists only of a collection of the sayings of Jesus without any extended narrative. While Thomas is not Q, its discovery proves the theory that such collections existed in the early days of Christianity.
While the Coptic MS dates from around the fourth century, there is much debate regarding the original time of composition. Most scholars believe it to be mid-second century, but some have argued for a date as early as mid-first century. The debate centers around whether Thomas is dependent upon the canonical gospels, or is derived from earlier independent traditions. Many of the passages in Thomas appear to be more authentic versions of the synoptic parables, yet it is difficult to account for many of the parallels to "special" Matthean or Lukan material (specific to those particular gospels), unless Thomas used the same sources as each of them.
The discovery of Thomas as part of a gnostic library has led many to believe it a gnostic creation; however, very little of it would have been considered unorthodox to the early church, and what little questionable material can be found is probably a later addition. Thomas does represent a Jewish "Wisdom" philosophy that was embraced by the gnostics—that the kingdom of God is not something we must await, but is in fact already here, if only we can become spiritual enough to see it.
The gospel was most likely composed in Syria, where tradition holds the church of Edessa to have been founded by Judas Thomas, "The Twin" (Didymos). The gospel may well be the earliest written tradition in the Syriac church.
Gospel of Thomas

 

[Kaitlin08]

The word "gospel" means "good news." Thomas is a Gospel if it proclaims the "good news" of Jesus Christ. There is evidence from the early church, like 2 Clement, that Thomas is early.

What you are talking about is the kerygma. The word gospel in its technical sense is a narrative of the life of Jesus, and for this reason it is misleading to call Thomas a gospel.

 

[wayseer]

The word "gospel" means "good news." Thomas is a Gospel if it proclaims the "good news" of Jesus Christ. There is evidence from the early church, like 2 Clement, that Thomas is early.

70 to 150 is a wide spread. Most recognized scholars seem to date GoT well into the 2nd century which falls within this time span.

If Matthew and Luke copied off Mark and something called Q it appears they did not have the GoT available at that time. It would therefore seem these authors, writing about 70 - 80 CE, were unaware of Thomas which seems to indicate a later rather than an early date.

 

[ebia]

The word "gospel" means "good news." Thomas is a Gospel if it proclaims the "good news" of Jesus Christ. There is evidence from the early church, like 2 Clement, that Thomas is early.

The word translated "gospel" connotes something more specific than "something good you ought to hear". It connotes the proclamation of a major event of good news - particularly the corination of a new king or emperor (Greco/Roman world) or the return of YHWH to rule (Isaiah). A gospel is inherently narrative and claims the world has changed, it is never simply the delivery of useful timeless wisdom - it is always something world-changing that has happened. Wisdom-literature/sayings-texts can never be a gospel or vice-versa, they are completely different genres. Likewise, Q, if it ever existed and looks anything like its supposed reconstructions is not and is never properly called a gospel.

 

[ebia]

How is Thomas more hellenistic than the canonical Gospels, especially John, which explictly alludes to Greek philosophy in its first chapter? Thomas is within the stream of Jewish wisdom literature.

Its the narratives that make the canonical gospels firmly Jewish. Take the sayings out of that narrative and they are not all very distinctively Jewish.

Thomas could have been produced by a Jewish or Greek community, either directly or from the canonical gospels, but no community could have produced the canonical gospels, with their highly Jewish narrative, from Thomas. (Which is also one of the major problems with the Q hypothesis.)

The reason why Thomas doesn't have a passion narrative is because it presupposes Jesus' resurrection, referring to him as "the living Jesus."

Without proclaiming the event of crucifixion and resurrection its not a gospel. Not being a gospel does not

The very fact that Thomas, like Q, is a sayings Gospel

Q is not properly called a gospel. Its hypothetical name is simply 'Q', not 'The Gospel of Q'.

 

[OzSpen]

DaLeKo,

So girls aren't in need all that grace and faith stuff to be saved, they just need to have an operation ..

114) Simon Peter said to Him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of Life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
​

You have beautifully illustrated by this quote why the Gospel of Thomas is 'another gospel'.

Nicholas Perrin in his assessment of The Gospel of Thomas, Thomas, the Other Gospel (London: SPCK, 2007), concludes that

The Gospel of Thomas invites us to imagine a Jesus who says, 'I am not your saviour, but the one who can put you in touch with your true self. Free yourself from your gender, your body, and any concerns you might have for the outside world. Work for it and self-realization, salvation, will be yours - in this life.' Imagine such a Jesus? One need hardly work very hard. This is precisely the Jesus we know too well, the existential Jesus, that so many western evangelical and liberal churches already preach (p. 139).

Oz

 

[Yoder777]

If Matthew and Luke copied off Mark and something called Q it appears they did not have the GoT available at that time. It would therefore seem these authors, writing about 70 - 80 CE, were unaware of Thomas which seems to indicate a later rather than an early date.

What if Thomas was available in a different geographical region, isolated from Matthew and Luke? What if, like John, Thomas was written independently of Matthew and Luke?

 

[Yoder777]

What you are talking about is the kerygma. The word gospel in its technical sense is a narrative of the life of Jesus, and for this reason it is misleading to call Thomas a gospel.

We can argue over semantics but what's important is whether or not Thomas contains actual sayings of Jesus not found in the canonical New Testament.

 

[Yoder777]

I think a major problem with trying to talk about the Gospel of Thomas with others is that many people are dead set on their views before they read scholarly sources in favor of Thomas with an open mind.

 

[ebia]

What if Thomas was available in a different geographical region, isolated from Matthew and Luke? What if, like John, Thomas was written independently of Matthew and Luke?

Then, assumming the written texts to be representative of the way the stories are told in those communities, you'd end up with what amounts to two different religions. One with a timeless wisdom approach that is more like hellenised Judaism or Greek philosophy in the Thomist community and one based on what God in Jesus did in the Lukan community.

Since we have no evidence for such a community and it doesnt explain anything that can't be explained more simply with a later date for Thomas it's speculation, not useful historical hypothesis.