Gospel of Thomas

[Nada]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, my original reply to you was to clarify that the quotes you posted, wherein the child Jesus kills people, do not originate from the Gospel of Thomas. Does my post make sense now?

It always did.Thanks WN,Thanks dude.......

 

[outhouse]

There's no doubt that "mystery" and esotericism are important to the "gnostic" tradition, but "mystery" is also a staple of Paul's writing, and also appears in the gospels. Cf. Strong's Greek: 3466. μυστήριον (mustérion) -- a mystery or secret doctrine

These are products of the time.

Gnostic belief could have evolved in its origins right along side what would become orthodox belief. No reason to think it did not. BUT I still find origins lying in popular pieces of the time which did become orthodox.

Mystery is also in Marks traditions as well, the other gospels plagiarized

 

[sojourner]

While that is true.

The text itself, however, continuously reflects Gnostic teachings by continuously referring to Jesus's sayings as "secret" and "mysterious", which were common gnostic phrases.

Some sayings in the canonical gospels do the same thing.

 

[outhouse]

These aren't "apologetic scholars." They're exegetical scholars. The date isn't substantiated -- like most other stuff about the gospels. Like Q, textual evidence points to the supposition I stated.

Far enough about apologetic scholars. But your early date is no more accepted then a late date

 

[outhouse]

Some sayings in the canonical gospels do the same thing.

Stated that just above your reply


Evidence points to it being gnostic yet not confirmed with certainty.

It was found n a gnostic collection is strong evidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And how did you come to know this to be true? So, for example ...

​

You seem to be making up your facts on the fly.

No, the text may be referred to, but that doesn't mean that the referent had the text in front of him

At some point moving the goalpost becomes indistinguishable from intellectual dishonesty. What you wrote was ...

Thomas was unknown at the time and place of canonization, ...

which has zero to do with whether or not "the referent had the text in front of him".

 

[lovemuffin]

And none specifically say anyone would become god or immortal if they understand the mystery, did they?

If I'm understanding you, I think the argument you're making is that the wording of the Gospel of Thomas would have been too closely associated with very specifically gnostic ideas about metaphysics, and about the nature of salvation and "knowledge", in order to be made orthodox. I think it's a valid point, but I guess what I'm saying is that this is something of a matter of interpretation, and it's not clear to me at all that the text, in and of itself, is impossible to read in a less explicitly "gnostic" way.

Outside of the context of establishing the canon of the N.T., I think the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius are a pretty good example of the idea I'm getting at. They are obviously heavily influenced by Neo-platonism, and it's not a great stretch to interpret parts of Pseudo-Dionysius in an explicitly Neoplatonic way that would have been at odds with Christian orthodoxy. Instead, his writings were interpreted into orthodoxy, as they were read and expounded upon by Maximus Confessor, John Scythopolis and other more orthodox sources who valued them and filed down the Neoplatonic edges, so to speak.

In a similar way, if we begin by assuming that the text of the Gospel of Thomas must be read with the gnostic understanding explicitly presupposed, then it's clear that you are right that it would be excluded on those grounds. But I think an appreciation of the history of interpretation of texts makes clear that it is by no means necessary, either logically or historically, to make those presuppositions. An enterprising orthodox theologian could quite easily give a different gloss to the text, and render "understanding the mystery" in an orthodox, and not gnostic, way. It would not be that different from a reading of 2 Peter 1:3-4, in which becoming "partakers of the divine nature" depends on promises granted "through the knowledge of Him who called to us."

Now, clearly it's no more necessary to interpret the Gospel of Thomas in a more orthodox way than it is to interpret it as explicitly gnostic, but my point was only that it didn't seem clear to me that it was literally impossible for Thomas to be given an orthodox gloss. As you yourself said, 1/2 of it is already in the canonical texts...

 

[outhouse]

Gospel of Thomas must be read with the gnostic understanding

I would never require a lens to look through on any early text, as the variations were to wide and diverse.

in and of itself, is impossible to read in a less explicitly "gnostic" way.

Agreed.

My only point is that the beginning header of this book states you can become immortal if you understand it.

That and it contradicts the kingdom of god more so then how the canonical text contradicts the kingdom.

 

[sojourner]

So,we can see that this book is not in harmony with the rest of the holy scriptures.It paints Jesus as a brat killer kid with powers.There are other books like this that are not part of the original canon.

There is no "original canon."

 

[sojourner]

How would you substantiate that bud?

1) The canon was settled by the mid-400s c.e. Thomas wasn't discovered until the 20th century.

 

[sojourner]

Far enough about apologetic scholars. But your early date is no more accepted then a late date

Neither is it less accepted. As I always say with regard to biblical exegesis: "Ya gotta pick a camp." I'm in the "early" camp.

 

[sojourner]

It was found n a gnostic collection is strong evidence.

But not conclusive.

 

[outhouse]

1) The canon was settled by the mid-400s c.e. Thomas wasn't discovered until the 20th century.

That does not substantiate your claim brother.

"""""""""Thomas was unknown at the time and place of canonization"""""""""""

 

[sojourner]

At some point moving the goalpost becomes indistinguishable from intellectual dishonesty. What you wrote was ...

​

which has zero to do with whether or not "the referent had the text in front of him".

<Sigh...> If they didn't have the text, they couldn't include it.

 

[outhouse]

Ya gotta pick a camp

Nope

I can deal with the uncertainty.

 

[sojourner]

That does not substantiate your claim brother.

"""""""""Thomas was unknown at the time and place of canonization"""""""""""

Of course it does. If it wasn't discovered until the 20th century, it follows that it wasn't known -- that is, "in hand" -- in the 400s. It fits the criteria for canonization otherwise, with its supposed apostolic origin.

 

[sojourner]

Nope

I can deal with the uncertainty.

Maybe you can, but more serious professional scholars don't. While recognizing "other camps" as more or less valid, they pick a camp from which to formulate their suppositions and conclusions.

 

[outhouse]

it follows that it wasn't known

Only to us.

Evidence points to it being known and that there is no reason for it to be canonized due to its gnostic nature

 

[sojourner]

Only to us.

Evidence points to it being known and that there is no reason for it to be canonized due to its gnostic nature

Other evidence points to it being known only by reputation -- they didn't have it in hand.

 

[outhouse]

Maybe you can, but more serious professional scholars don't

Unsubstantiated.


No one is saying ONLY early or ONLY a late date.


How do you explain the variants resulting from the circulation of more than one Greek edition of Gos. Thom. in antiquity???