The Lost Gospel of Thomas

[crab cruton]

Hey guys and gals.  In the movie "Stigmata", the movie is based upon the finding of the lost gospel of Jesus.  In the movie it was said to be written by "Thomas".  I was in Borders today, and I bought a book entitled "The Gospel of Thomas".  This book is claimed to be the translation of a lost gospel written by Jesus' brother, Judas Thomas.  It is supposed to be the actuall words of Christ, not a recount of his life.  The introduction says it was a dictation of Jesus' words to his brother Thomas so be written down. 

I was just wondering if anyone has any comments about this or know something that could help me figure out how I should look at this book when I read it.  If anyone can help me figure out the validity of "The Gospel of Thomas", I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[kern]

No Christian church that I am aware of has ever recognized the Gospel of Thomas as canonical scripture.

I know that some Biblical scholars believe the Gospel of Thomas does contain some real sayings of Jesus (there are a few that are the same as things he says in the Gospels), but I don't really know much about this topic.

-Chris

 

[JesusServant]

Kern is right. It is deemed a fake/fraud. It does contain a few things from the other Gospels so it is believed to be a very good fake because the person knew about the original Gospels. However, if you simply read the last several scriptures in the book, you will see clearly that it could not be Jesus saying it. You'll see

 

[superdave]

It's part of Gnostic Gospels.... The Gnostics were a Christian Sect in the First Century. 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation are some of the books to attack the Gnostic Beliefs. Gnostic Gospels are completly false- and not true. People were pretending to be these people when they really werent. This was a work of Satan to confuse the Church and create a "false gospel". Read it, but don't accept it as holy scripture. The books themselves are very interesting- and some do teach some history...but nothing more.

 

[crab cruton]

Thanks guys. I wasn't sure what to think about it. I wasn't planning on interpreting it as holy scripture, but I just wasn't sure of the validity of the claim it was the "real" words of Jesus.

 

[kern]

I don't think it's impossible to imagine that *some* of the things in the Gospel of Thomas are genuine sayings of Jesus -- the holy Bible might be inspired, but that doesn't mean that non-inspired authors couldn't attempt to write something about Jesus. The book should not be taken as canonical and should not be used as a tool for learning Christian faith, but it might have some nuggets of truth in it.

-Chris

 

[Vorkosigan]

The Gospel of Thomas is a very interesting document that will repay close study. It seems to be closely related to the canonical synoptic gospels and may well be earlier then them, and also has overlapping material with John. Of course, its relationship to those gospels is hotly disputed. The relative dates of all of these documents are controversial and you should do the research and reading that will help you decide on your own what you believe.

The Gospel of Thomas homepage with 00s of links is here:
http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html

Be sure to check out the Stevan Davies book offered online there for nothing, as he is one of the leading Thomas scholars. There are many wonderful links to check out.

In general, an absolutely fabulous reference site to check out on all writings about Jesus and early Christianity is Peter Kirby's monumental site:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com
which is composed of short descriptions and links to just about everything written before the 4th century on Christianity. The 30-40 gospels written about Jesus are all presented there.

Kern is right. It is deemed a fake/fraud. It does contain a few things from the other Gospels so it is believed to be a very good fake because the person knew about the original Gospels.

Thomas is not a "fraud" or a "fake" anymore than Luke or Matthew are frauds or fakes because they copied Mark and Q (or each other, depending on which theory you hew to), or Luke is a fake because he borrowed quotes and scenes from Euripedes, Thucydides and other classical writers, or Mark is a fake because there are many references to the OT writings in his gospel. I would say that the majority of scholars regard many of the sayings in Thomas as authentic sayings of the Jesus tradition, although they disagree on which ones are authentic!

The "canon" of Christianity emerged through a long process of political and theological negotiation, and the fact that something is not in the canon does not mean that it contains no authentic material, nor does the fact that something is in the canon mean that it contains authentic material. After all, six letters of Paul in the canon were forged later in his name. They might be theologically "authentic," but no scholar uses them as historical data for the life of Paul. On the other hand, there are many sayings of Jesus cited by the Patristic fathers that do not appear in the canonical materials. Do you reject all of those?

Hope this helps.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

 

[I can eat 50 eggs]

The Gospel of Thomas was universally dismissed as spurious and heretical by the early church fathers, specifically Origin and Eusibius. Most others didn't even comment on it because they thought it so obviously false.

 

[Vorkosigan]

Yes, but they dismissed it because they didn't like its gnosticizing and doceticizing theology. But saying that a gospel is theologically unacceptable is not the same as saying that it is historically inauthentic. As I said, most scholars fit Thomas into the general sayings traditions. Reading the introduction at www.earlychristianwritings.com

From Patterson, a heavyweight Thomas scholar:

"If Thomas were dependent upon the synoptic gospels, it would be possible to detect in the case of every Thomas-synoptic parallel the same tradition-historical development behind both the Thomas version of the saying and one or more of the synoptic versions. That is, Thomas' author/editor, in taking up the synoptic version, would have inherited all of the accumulated tradition-historical baggage owned by the synoptic text, and then added to it his or her own redactional twist. In the following texts this is not the case. Rather than reflecting the same tradition-historical development that stands behind their synoptic counterparts, these Thomas sayings seem to be the product of a tradition-history which, though exhibiting the same tendencies operative within the synoptic tradition, is in its own specific details quite unique. This means, of course, that these sayings are not dependent upon their synoptic counterparts, but rather derive from a parallel and separate tradition."

Look at that last line:

• This means, of course, that these sayings are not dependent upon their synoptic counterparts, but rather derive from a parallel and separate tradition.

The traditions are parallel but separate. That is why many scholars consider Thomas to have the authentic voice of early Christianity. But you can read all that for yourself.

Vorkosigan

 

[kern]

Some of the things from Thomas line up with the synoptic gospels, although in slightly distorted or compressed form:

63 Jesus said, There was a rich person who had a great deal of money. He said, "I shall invest my money so that I may sow, reap, plant, and fill my storehouses with produce, that I may lack nothing." These were the things he was thinking in his heart, but that very night he died. Anyone here with two ears had better listen!

64 Jesus said, A person was receiving guests. When he had prepared the dinner, he sent his slave to invite the guests. The slave went to the first and said to that one, "My master invites you." That one said, "Some merchants owe me money; they are coming to me tonight. I have to go and give them instructions. Please excuse me from dinner." The slave went to another and said to that one, "My master has invited you." That one said to the slave, "I have bought a house, and I have been called away for a day. I shall have no time." The slave went to another and said to that one, "My master invites you." That one said to the slave, "My friend is to be married, and I am to arrange the banquet. I shall not be able to come. Please excuse me from dinner." The slave went to another and said to that one, "My master invites you." That one said to the slave, "I have bought an estate, and I am going to collect the rent. I shall not be able to come. Please excuse me." The slave returned and said to his master, "Those whom you invited to dinner have asked to be excused." The master said to his slave, "Go out on the streets and bring back whomever you find to have dinner."

65 He said, A [...] person owned a vineyard and rented it to some farmers, so they could work it and he could collect its crop from them. He sent his slave so the farmers would give him the vineyard's crop. They grabbed him, beat him, and almost killed him, and the slave returned and told his master. His master said, "Perhaps he didn't know them." He sent another slave, and the farmers beat that one as well. Then the master sent his son and said, "Perhaps they'll show my son some respect." Because the farmers knew that he was the heir to the vineyard, they grabbed him and killed him. Anyone here with two ears had better listen!

90 Jesus said, "Come to me, for my yoke is comfortable and my lordship is gentle, and you will find rest for yourselves."

93 "Don't give what is holy to dogs, for they might throw them upon the manure pile. Don't throw pearls [to] pigs, or they might ... it [...]."

100 They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to him, "The Roman emperor's people demand taxes from us."

He said to them, "Give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine."

104 They said to Jesus, "Come, let us pray today, and let us fast."

Jesus said, "What sin have I committed, or how have I been undone? Rather, when the groom leaves the bridal suite, then let people fast and pray."

(44) Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven."

(45) Jesus said, "Grapes are not harvested from thorns, nor are figs gathered from thistles, for they do not produce fruit. A good man brings forth good from his storehouse; an evil man brings forth evil things from his evil storehouse, which is in his heart, and says evil things. For out of the abundance of the heart he brings forth evil things."

(46) Jesus said, "Among those born of women, from Adam until John the Baptist, there is no one so superior to John the Baptist that his eyes should not be lowered (before him). Yet I have said, whichever one of you comes to be a child will be acquainted with the kingdom and will become superior to John."

(47) Jesus said, "It is impossible for a man to mount two horses or to stretch two bows. And it is impossible for a servant to serve two masters; otherwise, he will honor the one and treat the other contemptuously. No man drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine. And new wine is not put into old wineskins, lest they burst; nor is old wine put into a new wineskin, lest it spoil it. An old patch is not sewn onto a new garment, because a tear would result."

----

The important thing about this is that it shows us how the oral traditions of Jesus' teachings were incorporated into an uninspired account of Jesus' teachings.

-Chris

 

[the outlaw]

Vorkosigan, the Q is not an actual document...it is only a theory that has been around for about 150 years. Nothing "concrete" has been produced to suggest it is anything more than someone's attempt to explain why the gospels have so much in common.

Aside from the Gnostic movement helping to twist the Gospel of Thomas, I also have a problem with the time period the Gospel was written. It was from mid 2nd century. The original gospels were written in the 1st century. The Jesus it(Thomas) portrays may bear a resemblance to the one in the 4 gospels but that is simply because they borrowed Jesus' sayings to further pantheistic and antifeminist agendas. The canonical gospels are the gospels because they were already authentic. They didn't hold elections and have power struggles to decide Beethoven made good music. It was already good and everyone knew it.This is the same with the canonical gospels. When you look at these "secret" gospels, they often demonstrate similarities but interpolated with obvious incongruencies to the 4 gospels. (which is why they aren't in the Bible in the first place)

The early church used 3 criteria to determine what went in...
1)Apostolic Authority-Check on all 4
2)Conformity to the rule of Faith recognized as the norm-Check
3)Continuous acceptance and usage by the church at large-Check

Bruce Metzger and Gregory A. Boyd are both good reads on these subjects

 

[ikester7579]

15th February 2003 at 06:50 AM crab cruton said this in Post #1

Hey guys and gals.  In the movie "Stigmata", the movie is based upon the finding of the lost gospel of Jesus.  In the movie it was said to be written by "Thomas".  I was in Borders today, and I bought a book entitled "The Gospel of Thomas".  This book is claimed to be the translation of a lost gospel written by Jesus' brother, Judas Thomas.  It is supposed to be the actuall words of Christ, not a recount of his life.  The introduction says it was a dictation of Jesus' words to his brother Thomas so be written down. 

I was just wondering if anyone has any comments about this or know something that could help me figure out how I should look at this book when I read it.  If anyone can help me figure out the validity of "The Gospel of Thomas", I would greatly appreciate it.

There has been several things like this that come up. Like the mcabees. More lost books of the Bible. What is happening here is someone is trying to say that God who created everyting was to weak to keep his word intact. It falls on the same lines as: it was man who wrote the Bible so it's not the true word of God. It's the same game the Devil has been playing for a long time. He's just found a different way to do it.

The mcabees came about in the first translation of the kjv. There were some members in that group that had it in for God's word. But it was soon found out what they had done and the books were burned or the added pages were torn out. Then it was redone without the mcabees in them. I'm sure if you do a search on the web on this lost gospels, you will find that it's probably the samething.

Always remember, Some people will do just about anything to discredit God's word.

 

[TWells]

17th February 2003 at 11:34 AM Vorkosigan said this in Post #7
The Gospel of Thomas is a very interesting document that will repay close study. It seems to be closely related to the canonical synoptic gospels and may well be earlier then them

Earlier??...even using this as an appeal to authority doesnt make sense. The only person that ive heard give a eary date for Thomas is Crossan and his Seminar goobers. The earliest greek fragments (P. Oxy. 1) were written no later than 200 AD. The earliest reference to the document by name doesnt occur earlier than 222 AD amd Thomas seems to depend on the cannonical Gospels.

Richard Hayes a non evangelical at Duke wrote an article called "The Corrected Jesus" in response to the Seminars early dating and how they did not represent a cross section of modern non evangelical scholarship. Stating  "an extraordinarily early dating" and a "shaky element in their methodological foundation." 

www.earlychristianwritings.com is a good place to get non cannonical books online but be sure to chuck the commentary out the door.


 

 

[Never2Heavy]

I just wanted to say that this is one of the more interesting threads!

Regards,
Mike