Has anyone here read the Thomas Gospel??

[Joe for Clark]

I'd like to know what you thought. I only read parts of it on the internet, which were interesting.

Joe

[Critters2]

1. I've read it. It's not old enough to be authoritative, and parts seemed kind of silly. nt

[Danieljay]

3. not old enough to be authoritative? Interesting, just how old does it need to be?

If it speaks 'truth' that resonates with the reader.. is that not authoritative enough?

[Critters2]

6. Many people argue that the Gnostic Gospels should have been included

in the canon. They were written well after those which were included, too late for them to contain any firsthand knowledge of Jesus' life. The latest of the canonical gospels was written around 70 years after Jesus' death, and its inclusion was strongly debated. The Gnostics were written long after that. So, not authoritative.

As to your second question..._Mein Kampf_ resonates with some readers. If you consider that enough to make it authoritative, well, I'm glad you're not making these decisions. But that's me.

[greendog]

18. Don't many scholars belive that the Gospel of Thomas and...

...The Gospel of John were written around the same time?

I've read Elaine Pagel's book on the subject and she has the opinion that the author of John wrote with full knowledge of what was taught in the Thomas Gospel. She also points out that John's Gospel is the only one of the four with the "Doubting Thomas" story. She thinks that the author of John might have been deliberately trying to cast the character of Thomas in a bad light because of the influence that the Thomas Gospel (or it's contents) had with a segment of the early Christians.

Fascinating stuff.

[AliceWonderland]

20. There's a robust debate on dating Thomas

Some say in the 2nd century, some say it's much earlier. The fact that Thomas is a sayings gospel has made some wonder about its relation to Q. I think it's an interesting read, but I'm fascinated by Gnostic thought... if it's not a full blown Gnostic gospel (and even that's debated) parts of it certainly make more sense in light of Gnosticsm.

Bart Ehrman argues that the part about "woman making herself male to enter the kingdom of heaven" is misunderstood in the present day.

[greendog]

21. Which one of Bart Ehrman's books deal with this material?

I'm planning on reading "Misquoting Jesus" in the near future.

Edited to say that I'm aware of the discussion about "Q" and the debate about the dating of Thomas. I was just under the impression that a lot of scholars were leaning in the direction of an earlier date.

[AliceWonderland]

25. We definitely agree that it's a fascinating debate

I could be incorrect, but I thought the consensus still leaned towards the later date. That might be based on the first assessments after the Naj Hammadi discovery. There's a lot at stake with Thomas. If it could be definitively dated at the earlier approx. 50 CE period -- through some new archeological discovery, say -- that would have ramifications for NT scholarship, not to mention theology.

I'm pretty sure the Ehrman book that discusses women and the kingdom of God in TGOT is "Lost Christianities." The argument goes: we look at the issue through our current historical lens and we're shocked, but contemporary thought would have made this a theological advance for women. Women were not considered another kind of the same thing -- an equal but different sex of human -- but something lower on the typological totem pole. The idea being put forward in TGOT, according to this theory, is that women would be "elevated" to the status of men and actually have access to the kingdom. (That's the argument from memory, anyway!)

I'd have to look again, but I seem to remember that Erhman also advances some arguments for the earlier dating of Thomas in that book...?

[Danieljay]

19. I'm sure there is some kind of truth in there somewhere...

but its not ultimate truth. Nor is the bible for that matter.

Do you think the Bible is authoritative simply because it was written only 70 years after the death of Jesus and not 300? surely not. It contains some truth, but surely you wouldn't agree that its authoritative in the areas of lets just say perhaps... homosexuality?

Allen Watts once said: the problem with Christians is that they take the bible and suck it like a thumb, rather than use it as a finger which points beyond itself to understanding.

I truly believe that just about any writing can include a seed of truth, its those that claim it is the only truth and the single reference OF that truth that begin to create problems.

"I'm glad you're not making these decisions" Interesting conclusion based on so little knowledge of who I am. Ok.

[struggle4progress]

24. John is usually considered a gnostic gospel

[Critters2]

26. I don't know who you consider "usually", but Raymond Borwn considers John anti-gnostic.

I agree with him.

[struggle4progress]

27. I mean merely that the laity I encounter typically understand "the synoptic

gospels" as Matthew-Mark-Luke and the "gnostic gospel" as John.

Thanks for pointing out this interesting "anti-gnostic" interpretation. But on such an interpretation, perhaps one might still consider John as a "gospel to the gnostics," thus explaining the difference in emphasis between John and the synoptics

[soleft]

2. It contains my favorite quote -

which is also one of my core beliefs.

"If you bring out that which is inside you, that which is inside you will save you. If you do not bring out that which is inside you, that which is inside you will destroy you."

[waiting for hope]

5. This is one of my favorites:

Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.

Split a piece of wood; I am there.

Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

and of course:

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."

[Joe for Clark]

10. Thanks - it is a really good quote.

Joe

[WCGreen]

4. I enjoyed reading all the Gnostic Gospels....

[Joe for Clark]

7. I understand it was found in a gnostic library.

In 1945 and all that. But it isn't gnostic, as far as I can tell.

And I understand it is first person written by Thomas the doubter, the apostle.

It does seem to be a lot more "matter of fact" - and more mystic at the same time.

Kind of choppy to read, I think. But I think some of you guys read it a lot more than I have - which was only yesterday.

Tell me more.

Joe

[WCGreen]

8. It's all the sayings...

That spirituality can only come from searching within...

[Joe for Clark]

9. I think this has to be looked at seriously -

I didn't know too much about it before -I do a little now. Thank you History Channel.

Enough to take it pretty seriously.

I only read it thru once, and that is exactly what I got out of it so far - look within. Mystic.

Makes a lot of sense to me. You know, christianity is supposd to be a mystic religion.

Apparently, it at least dates to the time of Luke, John, Mark and Matthew - and probably predates.

I read thru the info yesterday after the History Channel show. Today I want to know. It is a busy time for me, my job - but I will absolutely take the time out to find out about this one.

I thank you for the info.

Joe

[kwassa]

11. Read Elaine Pagels, she is the expert on the Gospel of Thomas

and a good writer, too.

[Joe for Clark]

12. I saw read the interview she did -

I don't think she means to, be she does seem to take a slant.

I don't want any slant - I just want to know what it says - what people who have read it think.

I used to go to church when I was young and listen to sermons, and then go back and read what exactly was said and think - I don't think that is at all what he was saying.

Thank you for the info - I do appreciate it. If you read thru this new gospel - what do YOU think?

It appears to me to be a lot more "aggressive" than Matthew in an appreciation of the mystic - and a lot more "real" - like a stream of consciousness kind of writting - I think so far.

Joe

[saltpoint]

14. kwassa, you've got it. Pagels is terrific.

[saltpoint]

13. BEYOND BELIEF: the secret gospel of Thomas -- by Elaine Pagels --

is awfully good.

Strongly recommended. Pagels is a top-drawer scholar and obviously has enormous respect for this text.

[Joe for Clark]

15. I am older now - I spent a lot of time with the four gospels we

know.

But when I was growing up I always thought - I want to know what the most skeptical apostles thought.

Particularly Thomas (the doubter). Matthew (the tax collector) I can relate to now - but we know the gospel he authored. Thomas Judas - this is a BIG one to me. Appears similar to Matthew so far.

I did read some of it on the internet - it is choppy - harder to read. I can really understand why it would not have been included in the 3rd century. Maybe they didn't even know it existed. BUT---

This is the 21st century - and stream of consiousness formats are pretty common -

To me this really could be a big deal -

SO I am being careful. I just want to know what it says - without commentary.

To me, he is one of the apostles I really wanted to hear from - and if it is from Thomas - it is a VERY big deal to me.

Thanks for your help in this search.

Joe

[saltpoint]

16. Joe, I wish you all good turns in your search and in your considerations,

and for what it's worth, it sounds to me as if you are doing it exactly right.

Demonstrable authorship is impossible, but these texts are rich in possibilties.

If you are interested, here are 3 books that might cover some of this ground:

A. N. Wilson's JESUS: A LIFE;

A. N. Wilson's PAUL: THE MIND OF THE APOSTLE

and

Paul Park's THE GOSPEL OF CORAX (a novel).

But give Pagels' BEYOND BELIEF: THE SECRET GOSPEL OF THOMAS a try first.

I'm sure these titles can be tracked down in a public or university library, or ordered on-line from Amazon, etc.

Good luck to you.

[Joe for Clark]

17. Here is what I thought -

Actually - I did -

Look, I don't quite know what to make of this - if an apostle wrote an account I want to know!

I am catholic - some number of my family were priests and all that. And even if they were still alive - I want outside confirmation of this kind of thing. This is a big thing to me.

And I do NOT want any influence brought to bear.

There is a guy named Davis that transcribed the Greek 1945 found version. I will study this.
And I sent out feelers to reformation ministers I think highly of - I want that input.

This whole thing is kind of shocking to me - and I understand it may indeed be true. But I spent a lot of years accepting the Luke, John, Mark, Matthew gospels. And I wanted to see other takes. I will go carefully into this night - so to speak.

Joe

[saltpoint]

22. It has the sound to me of a very honest inquiry into something

you hold as very deeply personal.

My respect, and my good wishes.

[Joe for Clark]

23. I am trying my best to figure this out.

I have never tried harder - thanks Old Crusoe.

It is really important to me - especially lately. Given the circumstance.

I certainly have equal respect for you and equal good wishes.

Joe