The gospel of Thomas

[Waliz03]

Hello,

I was just wondering how many has read this amazing recording of some of the most inspiring and true words of Jesus? I think it's weird it is not included in the bible. There is a lot of different teachings about the inner. I don't think all christians interpret Jesus correctly, but i have faith in that i will know what Jesus is saying. Feel free to debate, i'm just a newbie christian

 

[hedrick]

I've read it. There are different theories about date and meaning. Some date it in the 1st Cent, some in the 2nd. The canonical gospels seem to have been accepted by the early 2nd Cent. If Thomas is 2nd Cent it's too late.

But many scholars think it's 1st Cent. It seems to have come from a different environment than the canonical gospels. My usual assumption is that each of them came from a different community, perhaps different areas. I tend to see Thomas as proto-Gnostic. I.e. not a product of full-blown Gnosticism, but an earlier representative of that approach. But I'm not an expert in the area, and I'm not sure that current scholarship really sees it that way

As far as I can tell there's not enough evidence to answer the question of why it isn't in the canon. Since we don't know where it's from, when it was written, or who used it, there's just no way to know. As far as I've been able to tell it isn't quoted in the early to mid 2nd Cent time period when early writers were quoting other gospels (though there's a possible exception in 2 Clement -- but its date isn't well established either, and the quotation could have come from another source).

I can think of two possibilities:

* It's late, and by the time it became well known the Church had settled on the list of Gospels
* It's early enough, but it came from a specific community and simply wasn't widely enough used by other communities.

Pagels' book on Thomas suggests that John and Thomas represent two different interpretations of Jesus from the next generation after the Synoptics, and that John's view generally won in the Church. The intrepretations are different enough that it's unlikely that the developing catholic community (whose canon we use) could have accepted both.

That's plausible enough, but I'm not convinced that we know enough about the history of Thomas to be sure.

Its accuracy is also hard for me to assess. At one point most people thought it was rehashed quotations from the canonical Gospels. Many (but not all) scholars will now tell you it's moderately independent. It might well have original sayings of Jesus not in the canonical Gospels. However it also seems to me that the writer / editor was not part of Palestinian Judaism. Thus it's likely that the sayings include interpretation that isn't from Jesus. Of course this is an issue with the canonical Gospels as well. Is Thomas any further from Jesus' original approach than John? My intuition says yes, but many scholars who know both would say no. That seems to be Pagels' view.

[Disclaimer. I'm Charles Hedrick. There is a Charles Hedrick who is an expert on Thomas. I'm not him.]

 

[Unix]

2 Clem is late and not an important source - it's rarely mentioned or translated into English:

As far as I've been able to tell it isn't quoted in the early to mid 2nd Cent time period when early writers were quoting other gospels (though there's a possible exception in 2 Clement -- but its date isn't well established either, and the quotation could have come from another source).

The Gospel of Thomas isn't mentioned even once in one of the latest books I've acquired: The making of Paul - Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity (2010). Richard I. Pervo. Fortress Press.

I would date it about 120-125 C.E., too late to be included in the core of the New Testament anywhere.

My theory is that Christians/"Gnostics" really needed a Bible by 95 C.E., so they included what they had at hand by that time, books that had been circulated for some time - and since papyrus scrolls was destroyed very quickly when in use and a whole lot of generations of copies already had been made, they thought that all these were old:
•Mark
•Romans
•1 Corinthians
•2 Corinthians
•Galatians
•Ephesians
•Philippians
•Colossians
•1 Thessalonians
•Philemon
•Hebrews
•James
•1 Peter
•1 John
•Jude

2 Thess and especially it's views (hyper-Paul) had been in use for a few decades but when 2 Thess was written ~80 C.E. the letter was anti-Paul, and therefore not accepted by this generation who favoured Paul.
I think other large Gospels like Mt and Lk didn't find their final form until ~9-11 years later - i.e. they were known but not canonized and were being edited, by whom is a separate question. Lk was canonized thanks to Marcion of Sinope and used unabridged after he died. Even so Lk is not too far from the time of Jesus because it had started to be written right after the Epistles of Eph and 1 Pt and had two ancient sources.
Jn was known but not yet in widespread use until 97 C.E. and onwards, that is my theory. My theory is that Jn became used much more because of revived interest in written accounts thanks to Christianity definitely becoming a documented religion a few years earlier.

It's no wonder that there was a need for more Gospels than Mk and that the other Gospels don't add too much.

Personally, I add only 4 Ezra and 1 Clem to the above canon of the New Testament. I read Lk, except chapters 1-2 and Jn except verses 7:53-8:11 (follow link to Accordance forums!) and chapter 21, as canonical sources. I don't read 2 Cor 10-13, Colossians and Hebrews 9:15-13:25.

 

[hedrick]

I wouldn't depend too much upon whether one book mentions it or not. There are equally good scholars who take the early and late view.

 

[ebedmelech]

The Gospel of Thomas is gnostic plagerism of the gospel. They simply wanted to justify their beliefs.

Just as the Mormons plagerized the scriptures with their books...JW's simply changed what they didn't like of the scriptures into their New World Translation.

 

[TannarDarr]

Hello,

I was just wondering how many has read this amazing recording of some of the most inspiring and true words of Jesus? I think it's weird it is not included in the bible. There is a lot of different teachings about the inner. I don't think all christians interpret Jesus correctly, but i have faith in that i will know what Jesus is saying. Feel free to debate, i'm just a newbie christian

:-| really? It's literally written hundreds of years AFTER Thomas lived. So you think it's a fair accounting?

It literally contradicts the Apostles, so you think THIS one is the real one, and the ones we KNOW were present at the time of the Apostles are the ones that are flawed?

 

[Keachian]

I would actually argue that for it to be authored by the Apostle Thomas, we'd see translation artefacts from Indian dialects as well as the Greek ones seen in the Coptic

 

[Gospel Guy]

I think it's weird it is not included in the bible.

God Himself decided that He did not want it in His authorized Book... nothin weird about that.

 

[ebedmelech]

Actually, when you consider how the canon was formed, it makes perfect sense why it's not included. Here's a good and insightful link on why it's not part of the canon:

Does the Gospel of Thomas Belong Alongside the New Testament Gospels? | Bible Gateway Blog

 

[pshun2404]

This second century gnostic distortion was immediately rejected by the earliest fathers...so should we...mixing truth with lies does not make something good, useful, or true. The devil quoted scripture but distorted it as does this mixture. Does Jesus ever teach that the male must become female and the female must become male? This false Thomas forger, who wrote this long after Thomas was dead, does teach this...the writings and traditions have Thomas as only having a Hebrew Aramaic version of Matthew...

 

[SG9]

I have read Thomas and others and don't have any problem with it. reason it is not in the present bible is because it's not so easy to understand, I suppose and it presents conflicts. there are too many bibles to compare to and yet none of our presently used bibles have it or the others in question. I believe it's man's choice and not God's to omit them, reason is there are other gospels also left out and they all cannot be left out for the same reason or what?

 

[TannarDarr]

This second century gnostic distortion was immediately rejected by the earliest fathers...so should we...mixing truth with lies does not make something good, useful, or true. The devil quoted scripture but distorted it as does this mixture. Does Jesus ever teach that the male must become female and the female must become male? This false Thomas forger, who wrote this long after Thomas was dead, does teach this...the writings and traditions have Thomas as only having a Hebrew Aramaic version of Matthew...

You would think with all of it's grandiose, and somewhat contradictory claims, that at least ONE earlier work would have had something parallel, if not quoting it....

right?

 

[TannarDarr]

I have read Thomas and others and don't have any problem with it. reason it is not in the present bible is because it's not so easy to understand, I suppose and it presents conflicts. there are too many bibles to compare to and yet none of our presently used bibles have it or the others in question. I believe it's man's choice and not God's to omit them, reason is there are other gospels also left out and they all cannot be left out for the same reason or what?

Do you put as much faith in a history book written TODAY, discussing what George Washington thought behind his decisions? Or would you put more credence in a person who was an eye witness, or repeated stories they heard directly from an eye witness?

 

[SG9]

Do you put as much faith in a history book written TODAY, discussing what George Washington thought behind his decisions? Or would you put more credence in a person who was an eye witness, or repeated stories they heard directly from an eye witness?

I don't know how to compare a history book about a persident to the old gospels. I don't know how I can possibly answer you accurately, sorry. but thanks for asking.

 

[ebia]

Hello, I was just wondering how many has read this amazing recording of some of the most inspiring and true words of Jesus? I think it's weird it is not included in the bible. There is a lot of different teachings about the inner. I don't think all christians interpret Jesus correctly, but i have faith in that i will know what Jesus is saying. Feel free to debate, i'm just a newbie christian

there are some questions that one needs to think about to decide how to treat "Thomas"

Firstly and most obviously, it's not a gospel at all. That is, it doesn't proclaim an event. It cannot - it isn't a narrative. And that in itself makes it less Jewish and more Greek.
Secondly, the sayings themselves. Many are identical or near identical to ones in the synoptics, but a few are not. The former are divorced from any narrative and therefore take a different character. The later have a somewhat more greek gnostic flavour.

In so far as Thomas teaches anything the synoptics do not it is at odds with the both the NT canonical texts and the Old Testament story.