The Gospel of Thomas

[ebia]

It's surely the much more popular position.

Popular and fashionable are not the same thing

 

[Yoder777]

Yoder wants to say that he likes Thomas for what it tells us about Jesus, but this cannot be his real reason for liking it because it does not give insight into who Jesus was.

That it doesn't provide insight into the real Jesus is one interpretation and there are scholarly reasons to believe otherwise.

 

[ebia]

With that, I must disagree. In Thomas, what you find is the same Jesus, even though it emphasizes more of the mystical dimension to his teachings.

If you think that then you seem to be radically misunderstanding the Synoptics. Or bringing your synoptic understanding to Thomas and not really reading it as the product of an independent tradition at all.

 

[Kaitlin08]

Let us look to the canonical gospels to see what they do with Hellenism, and let Hellenism here stand in for Thomas. They do not reject the Hellenistic idea of immortality, as the opposite of the timeliness of Judaism, but they actually impress immortality upon timeliness like the stamp of a signet on a letter. This is the secret of an embodied Jesus who can find himself passing through solid matter. The signet, of course, belongs to the king who does not recognize the artificial, the constructed conflict. And so the dispute is beside the point, and the character of the king who decides is everything.

The canonical gospels are remarkable for taking this difficult step.

 

[Yoder777]

Gnosticism is a system of thought which sees the material world as evil and seeks to escape this world through secret knowledge. Thomas, on the other hand, is not world-negating. Its purpose is to restore the individual to who man was before the fall. While Gnosticism seeks to escape this world in favor of a purely spiritual world "up there," Thomas tells us to seek the Kingdom of God "right here," as a presence within all things that we just need to realize is here. Trying to argue Thomas with people who are set in seeing it as Gnostic won't go very far.

 

[ebia]

That it doesn't provide insight into the real Jesus is one interpretation and there are scholarly reasons to believe otherwise.

The canonical texts portray a Jesus who is primarily doing something, and who proclaims and explains what he doing, and ultimately they are evangellions - proclamations of a new lord transforming the world. Thomas portrays Jesus a teacher of timeless truths about oneself. Those are diametrically opposed portraits.

 

[Yoder777]

The canonical texts portray a Jesus who is primarily doing something, and who proclaims and explains what he doing, and ultimately they are evangellions - proclamations of a new lord transforming the world. Thomas portrays Jesus a teacher of timeless truths about oneself. Those are diametrically opposed portraits.

If you compare the content of the sayings in Thomas to the content of the sayings in the canonical Gospels, there are definite similarities.

Here is one example:

I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all returns. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there. - Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas (Compare to Luke 17:21, 1 Cor. 15:28)

When you look at sayings in Thomas without parallel in the New Testament, the question then should be asked of whether it's conveying an important truth that we'd miss out on without Thomas.

 

[ebia]

You have not answered my implied question (because you cant without acknowledging the problem?) Are you reading Thomas as an independent tradition or as a complementary text to the Synoptics?

 

[Yoder777]

You have not answered my implied question (because you cant without acknowledging the problem?) Are you reading Thomas as an independent tradition or as a complementary text to the Synoptics?

I see Thomas, like John, as both independent and complimentary to the Synoptics.

 

[OzSpen]

Yoder777,

The earliest mention we have of the Gospel of Thomas is from Hippolytus of Rome who was a martyr who died ca. 236. It is in, “The Refutation of all heresies. Book V”. It states:

And concerning this (nature) they hand down an explicit passage, occurring in the Gospel inscribed according to Thomas, expressing themselves thus: "He who seeks me, will find, me in children from seven years old; for there concealed, I shall in the fourteenth age be made manifest." This, however, is not (the teaching) of Christ, but of Hippocrates, who uses these words: "A child of seven years is half of a father." And so it is that these (heretics), placing the originative nature of the universe in causative seed, (and) having ascertained the (aphorism) of Hippocrates, that a child of seven years old is half of a father, say that in fourteen years, according to Thomas, he is manifested.

Hippolytus of Rome is said to have been a disciple of Irenaeus.


Oz

 

[ebia]

If you compare the content of the sayings in Thomas to the content of the sayings in the canonical Gospels, there are definite similarities.

Here is one example:

I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all returns. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there. - Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas (Compare to Luke 17:21, 1 Cor. 15:28)

When you look at sayings in Thomas without parallel in the New Testament, the question then should be asked of whether it's conveying an important truth that we'd miss out on without Thomas.

You're not speaking to the problem that has been pointed out (at least twice I think) with that logic already.

The similar sayings take on a very different meaning in Thomas to the Synoptics because they are decontextualised. What Jesus says in the canonical gospels is pretty much always either proclamation or explanation of what he is doing; in Thomas they become timeless truths. So similar sayings have very different meanings. So when we take a saying from Thomas not paralleled in the synoptics not only do we not know whether it is authentic (and given the highly dubious nature of some we must be suspicious about the others - and there is more to be said about that), but even if it is authentic we still don't know what it would have meant when Jesus said it. If you can't reconstruct the canonical/authentic meaning of a parallel text from Thomas alone you certainly can't reconstruct the authentic meaning from a non-paralleled text.

 

[OzSpen]

Yoder,

I see Thomas, like John, as both independent and complimentary to the Synoptics.

So are you supportive of the content of Gospel of Thomas 114 as complementary to the Synoptics?

(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."

Oz

 

[ebia]

I see Thomas, like John, as both independent and complimentary to the Synoptics.

In terms of historical hypothesis you can't have it both ways - either Thomas was produced in complement and you have to explain it and how it would have been read that way, or it was produced independently and must be readable independently.

 

[OzSpen]

Yoder777,

That it doesn't provide insight into the real Jesus is one interpretation and there are scholarly reasons to believe otherwise.

It can't provide insight into 'the real Jesus' with some of this kind of irrational content in the Gospel of Thomas. These are examples:

(7) Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."
​

(11) Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. In the days when you consumed what is dead, you made it what is alive. When you come to dwell in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"

(13) Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like."
Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel."
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like."
Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out."
And he took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"
Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up."
​

(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."
​

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Yoder777,

That it doesn't provide insight into the real Jesus is one interpretation and there are scholarly reasons to believe otherwise.

The church father, Origen, lived ca. 185-254. These are his views concerning other gospels than the four canonical Gospels accepted by the church.
From Origen's Homily on Luke (1:1), an English version from the Latin translation of Jerome, we know that the Gospel of Thomas was not accepted by this early church father:

That there have been written down not only the four Gospels, but a whole series from which those that we possess have been chosen and handed down to the churches, is, let it be noted, what we may learn from Luke's preface, which runs thus: 'For as much as many have taken in hand to compose a narrative' . The expression 'they have taken in hand' involves a covert accusation of those who precipitately and without the grace of the Holy Ghost have set about the writing of the gospels.
Matthew to be sure and Mark and John as well as Luke did not 'take in hand' to write, but filled with the Holy Ghost have written the Gospels. 'Many have taken in hand to compose a narrative of the events which are quite definitely familiar among us' . The Church possesses four Gospels, heresy a great many, of which one is entitled 'The Gospel according to the Egyptians', and another 'The Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles'. Basilides also has presumed to write a gospel, and to call it by his own name. 'Many have taken in hand ' to write, but only four Gospels are recognized. From these the doctrines concerning the person of our Lord and Savior are to be derived. I know a certain gospel which is called 'The Gospel according to Thomas' and a 'Gospel according to Matthias', and many others have we read - lest we should in any way be considered ignorant because of those who imagine that they posses some knowledge if they are acquainted with these. Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the Church has recognized, which is that only the four Gospels should be accepte (emphasis added).

Early church historian, Eusebius, regards the Gospel of Thomas as heretical. And it's self-evident after reading some of the content of Thomas.

Oz

 

[ebia]

OzSpen correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't even Crossan have to hypothesise a proto-Thomas that contains only those sayings he wants it to contain in order to make his Thomist-priority work?

 

[wayseer]

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?

It probably was - what is your point?

 

[OzSpen]

ebia,

OzSpen correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't even Crossan have to hypothesise a proto-Thomas that contains only those sayings he wants it to contain in order to make his Thomist-priority work?

That is my understanding.

Nicholas Perrin's assessment of the Gospel of Thomas is in contrast to John Dominic Crossan’s associating the Gospel of Thomas with the authority of the apostle Thomas, known as “doubting Thomas”. Crossan wrote of Thomas, the apostle:

This is the figure her immortalized as Doubting Thomas. We know about his leadership and authority, and his competition with alternative figures such as Peter and Thomas, from the Gospel of Thomas 13 (Crossan 1994:188-189).

Crossan then quotes Thomas 13 (Crossan seems to have used his own translation):

13 Jesus said to his disciples, “Compare me to something and tell me what I am like.”
2Simon Peter said to him, “You are like a just angel.”
3 Matthew said to him, “You are like a wise philosopher.”
4Thomas said to him, “Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like.”
5 Jesus said, “I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended.”
6 And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him.
7When Thomas came back to his friends, they asked him, “What did Jesus say to you?”
8 Thomas said to them, “If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you.”
​

In contrast to Perrin, Crossan believes the Gospel of Thomas

‘may have been composed in two major steps’, the first stage being dated to ‘the 50s and 60s of the first century…. The second stage has many sayings special to itself, dates to the 70s and 80s of that first century’ (Crossan 1995:26-21).

How could it be that two scholars arrive at radically different conclusions concerning the writing of the Gospel of Thomas. For Crossan it is in the mid-late first century while for Perrin it is written in the latter part of the second century.

Could it have something to do with their presuppositions?


Based on the evidence from the early church (e.g. Origen & Eusebius), the Gospel of Thomas is to be regarded as an heretical document, another gospel.


I'm addressing Crossan's stratification of sources in my dissertation. Crossan needs an early date of Thomas to harmonise with his view of Thomas and its place in early sources.

References

Crossan, J D 1994. Jesus: A revolutionary biography. New York: HarperSanFrancisco.


Crossan, J D 1995. Who killed Jesus? Exposing the roots of anti-semitism in the gospel story of the death of Jesus. New York: HarperSanFrancisco.


Perrin, N 2007. Thomas, the other gospel. London: SPCK.

 

[Yoder777]

In terms of historical hypothesis you can't have it both ways - either Thomas was produced in complement and you have to explain it and how it would have been read that way, or it was produced independently and must be readable independently.

John was written interdependently from the Synoptics in the sense that it doesn't rely on them yet it also compliments them in focusing on things that weren't covered in the Synoptics yet without contradicting them.

 

[Yoder777]

Yoder,

So are you supportive of the content of Gospel of Thomas 114 as complementary to the Synoptics?



Oz

The idea behind it is that, to attain enlightenment, one must overcome the dichotomy of male and female and become a "living spirit." This is like Jesus in the canonical New Testament when he says there is no marriage in heaven because they will be like the angels.