Talk:Gospel of Thomas: Difference between revisions

	Religious texts (defunct)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

The commentary on this doesn't sync up to the argument it's supposedly answering--if the apologist says that this section shows Jesus rejecting women and thus this does not match Jesus' character, all of the quotes from the Epistles (written decades after Jesus' ministry by different people) don't really apply at all. Also, the reference to Jesus 'calling a woman a dog' is pretty misleading--I would think you could say, at most, compared her to a dog. NPOV, encyclopediac accuracy, etc. 24.130.61.61 00:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section you refer to '(114) (1) Simon Peter said to them: "Let Mary go away from us, for women are not worthy of life." 2) Jesus said: "Look, I will draw her in so as to make her male,

so that she too may become a living male spirit, similar to you." (3) (But I say to you): "Every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.".

There is no reference to Jesus calling women dogs in GoT(see http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gth_pat_rob.htm).Not worthy of life really means not worthy to gain salvation or life after death. Its not the woman hood persay which the disciples object to, rather feminine characteristics such as lack of security or selfish desires. Indeed, all humans are caperble of becoming insecure if they become selfish, so its a bit off the disciples singling out women, perhaps they were jelous of Mary. Jesus says that he can make Mary more male, really he means that Mary is just as able as the other disciples to change her old ways to that of Christian one's. Indeed, Jesus operated in times of Sexism, so this is one way he could make his point without seeming to stray too far from Judaic belief.86.4.59.203 00:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Trinity.[reply]

The title of this section and the abiguity of its structure cleary violates the neutral content policy of Wikipedia and I would like to delete the entire section, if there are no objections. It does not pertain to the GoT text as a whole and see no need to display one specific verse and its interpretation as a focal point for understanding the facts of this text. Thomas Judas 00:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegation of Sexism and Verse 114 removed. TJ 03:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give some details about the NNPOV of the section you removed. I felt it was thoughtfully written and didn't see POV. Is it possible you could rewrite the section you removed in a way you think is more NPOV and put it back in? As for not pertaining to the GoT text as a whole, maybe not, but 114 is indeed of great interest. If you think it unbalances the article, why not put it back in and wait for more of this article to be written by someone(maybe by you?) about the other sayings? In that way 114 will no longer be the focal point.Rich 06:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that The Gospel of Thomas does not refer to Jesus as "Christ"' but goes on to say 'though it does mention Peter, James, Thomas, and Matthew as "disciples of Christ"'

Seems to be something wrong with this.

-Seabhcan 25/02/04

Seabhcan makes a good point, and I have revised the passage, removing those "Christ" references and now giving the disciples' names just as they appear in the text of GofT. Wetman 05:10, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Two points of correction. First, there's ample evidence that the "oral gospel" was still authoritative for many Christians well into the second century. Irenaeus' early writings rely on an oral gospel, for instance, while later he vigorously defends the four written canonical gospels.

Second, are there any Christian groups that take the Gospel of Thomas as authoritative? I don't know of any; if there aren't any, then "Many" can be changed to "No Christian groups accept it as authoritative." Wesley 17:44 Nov 13, 2002 (UTC)

I think Wesley is correct in this. Wetman 21:02, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Like Hugh McGregor Ross, I'd consider it "Jesus untouched by the Church", but then, I'm a Buddhist, not a Christian group. Evertype 12:25, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

There is a group of Christians called the Mar Thoma who look at the Apostle Thomas as their founder instead of Peter or Constantine. They are based in India,affiliated with the Syrian Orthodox Church and have a special status in the Catholic Church. Much like the Ethiopian Coptic Church, they were cut off from Western Christendom for several hundred years, and they have a different collection of religious texts in their cannon. In their version of the new testement, there is a version of the 'Gospel of Thomas'. see [1]or [2]

The GoT would have been widely used in India until the roman church homologized Indian Churches into its fold. Of course, the Holy sea did its best to prevent the teachings of non canonical texts post Council of Nicea. That would account for a lack of modern christians who use the gospel. I guess not many other christian sects survived into modern day especially after the inquisitions. Those you mention are the few surviving christian alternatives other than roman derived churches. Thats not to say that modern Christians can't change their views on the GoT! After all, people don't have to worry about inquisitions now, you can read what you want without fear of death.86.4.59.203 00:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.[reply]

I am sure that the preceding is incorrect. There's no evidence that the Christians of India used the Thomas Gospel, much less regarded it as canonical. You may be confusing it with the Acts of Thomas, an apocyphal book which is often said (also incorrectly) to be part of the canon of the Indian Christians. Tom129.93.17.195 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Grenfell and Hunt, the original editors of the Greek fragments of Thomas, dated them to c. 200, not c. 140 (which seems to be rather the common date of composition for the late camp). Stephen C. Carlson 02:26 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

The article now distinguishes between dates of manuscripts and dates of composition, as it must. Mr Carlson is well aware, though the average reader may not be, that Grenfell and Hunt were basing their dating on minute scraps found at Oxyrhyncus, before the discovery of the complete text, though in a later manuscript, of GofT. Grenfell and Hunt's dating was tentative.)Wetman 21:02, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

is there a public domain e-text of the GoT? (mhjb)

http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html has links to several translations. -- Zoe

Should be in External links. --Wetman 23:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

stephen patterson and stephen daivs dated to 50AD. By the end of the first century, pagans and Christians referred to Jesus as the Christ, and Josepheus may have referred to Jesus as the so-called Christ. GOT does not refer to Jesus as Christ, but all the gnospels do.

As noted in an edit summary, I'm concerned about this article. We have tons of stuff arguing for the early camp, but very little arguing for a 2nd Century date for the GoT (which, as far as I know, is still a very viable and supported proposition). I believe there is info out there that would balance this article, but don't possess it. As it stands, we seem to have contributions from anons who are fans of Elaine Pagels and those of her school of thought--legitimate scholars, certainly, but as Pagels has made a lot of money out of her advocacy for these apocryphal gospels, I would like it if we relied on other scholars as well? Can anyone provide advice/balance here? Jwrosenzweig 20:52, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think we also need to demonstrate the extent to which the Gospel of Thomas/Sayings of Jesus is free of gnostic ideas (or isn't). Since its authenticity is undoubted, perhaps we can stop worrying about the canon and just look at the actual text and the documents. Because whether it's accepted by modern churches or not is akin to whether we all "like" it or don't: revealing, but not history. Wetman 21:02, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by this as its authenticity as a 1st century text is highly disputed and therefore its authenticity as to Thomasine authorship. It is not canon because the early church decided to leave it out of canon, it isn't going to be reintroduced by the modern church. Rmhermen 21:20, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Attributions and dating are two separate questions I didn't touch. The text, whatever its date, is not a forgery. Not even an early forgery. Of course it's not acceptable as canon. How could it be, after so much historical development in other directions? Wetman 21:34, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is not a modern forgery. It may be part of a batch of texts of that era which claimed a more prestigious and generally earlier author which could mean it is considered an ancient forgery. Rmhermen 21:37, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

I've invited the anon who keeps posting material to this talk page: hopefully they will arrive. I think the question of ancient forgery is worthy of at least brief mention. Of course, we are certain of none of the gospels' original authors. My biggest interest is in presenting a legitimate response to the many charges of the early camp. It seems to me that most of the early camp's argument rests on the fact that GoT verses that look like NT verses prove they are from the same time period and source, and GoT verses that don't look like NT verses indicate they are even closer to the original source material than the NT. While this may be true, I think there is easily much to be said against this perspective: where the GoT follows the NT it may be derivative, and where it does not, it may be from later apocryphal sources or entirely fictional. The point is that all of the evidence the early camp marshals can be reinterpreted, but right now the article seems to have the early camp as the people with evidence, and the late camp as a thin response to the evidence. That's what I'm hoping to rectify. Jwrosenzweig 21:44, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

___ by this line of reasoning all gosples and many of the new testament material are forgeries.

to call matthew's gospel matthew is a forgery. to call timothy pauline is a forgery. hebrews was not written by paul, another forgery. john did not write both gospel of john and revelation, that is another forgery.

You raise a legitimate point, and one I already pointed out. :) We should make sure our other articles are appropriately skeptical about authorship. But authorship isn't the main concern here--not for me, anyway. It's balance. Can you address that? What can we add for the late camp? Jwrosenzweig 21:52, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

most fundies already believe GOT is late so why bother? it's like trying to "balance" evolution versus creationism. since evolution is a fact, why add non-scientfic antievolution?

I think it should be obvious to you that we are dealing in different matters. No scientific principle is attempting to compel us to take an early or late look at the GoT. It is entirely a matter of interpretation (unless a fragment of the GoT carbon-datable to 50AD arrives....and even then I think we'd argue over carbon-dating), and therefore there are good arguments in both camps. What I've seen of the GoT (note: not a scholar of antiquities, but I do have grad work in religious history, which may mean my opinion is not entirely worthless) makes me fairly suspicious of the early camp: it reads too much like someone trying to make an authentic-looking document a century after the fact. I will say, though, that I can also understand easily the other camp--I'm not looking to remove the early camp's ideas! I'm just saying that in my limited experience and opinion, there is a lot more to be said for the late camp than the few sentences we have, half of which essentially try to push aside the late camp as "fundies", as you described them. I think that language ought to be considered, but honestly I think there's more to be said here, and I'll see what I can do about contributing it. Anyone have suggestions for where to start looking? Jwrosenzweig 16:52, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mainstream Christianity has a vested interest in discrediting the Gospel of Thomas as a text that predated the Gospels. TEAMS of scholars have shown that it is dated before the synoptics. The team of translatiors/scholars that wrote "The Nag Hammadi Library", the team that wrote "The Gnostic Bible", and many other authors-scholars. Elaine Pagels is not the only one, and every scholar that claims a late date is a CHRISTIAN scholar, a person who cannot accept the doctrine that the Gospel of Thomas puts forth. This is an inherent conflict of scholarly interest. Detached atheistic and jewish scholars consistently assert that the Gospel of Thomas is to be dated to before the synoptics.

i do not care for fundies, but any fundie website that discusses GOT will give "late" arguments, which may or may not be valid, along with arguments against evolution, islam, abortion rights, homosexuality, etc. in my experience the only people who care about GOT are fundies who want to discredit it as "worthless" to use one fundie phrase.

The above unsigned anonymous comments were stricken out because it is strictly against Wikipedia policy to express bigotry and attack people for what they choose to believe. Guess what, in most countries (maybe not yours) people have freedom to believe whatever they want, regardless of whether or not you approve. You have NO RIGHT to attack people's choice in belief system here, any more than they have to attack yours. You may wish to read up on Wikipedia policy, not making bigoted ugly comments like that is one of the cornerstone policies. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also next time you feel the need to make bigoted comments about other peoples' belief systems, either keep them to yourself or go somewhere else with them other than wikipedia. They are NOT WELCOME here!!! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a very good argument concerning dating. You all seem to be arguing about the date of the original GoT, yet nobody can possibly say when the first one was written as it was likely destroyed by the roman empire purge of heretical texts!!! The carbon dating of the surviving manuscripts only tells you the latest estimate of the date it could have been written, not the earliest. A lack of evidence does not mean a lack of common sense. You can't speculate on when the GoT was written, as all other copies were destroyed. The same can be said of the other Gospels and non canonical texts. Exactly when the scriptures were first written down is unknown and will never be found out. That is the view to promote, one of exepting ignorance on the matter.86.4.59.203 00:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.[reply]

I am sure that the preceding is incorrect. There's no evidence that the Christians of India used the Thomas Gospel, much less regarded it as canonical. You may be confusing it with the Acts of Thomas, an apocyphal book which is often said (also incorrectly) to be part of the canon of the Indian Christians. Tom129.93.17.195 03:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Twelve Disciples are not mentioned, although Peter, James, Thomas, and Matthew. Curiously, two women, Mary Magdalene and Salome, are listed as Jesus' women disciples. The New Testament emphatically denies Jesus had any female disciples...

This is actually a common confusion. 'The Twelve' are call 'Apostles'; the 'disciples' of Jesus was a much wider group, since disciple just means a follower. Several women are listed in the canonical New Testament as disciples of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene and Salome almost certainly were by implication. Does the Gospel of Thomas list these two as Apostles or disciples? DJ Clayworth 20:35, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Matthew 10:1 He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil[ 10:1 Greek unclean] spirits and to heal every disease and sickness. (Whole Chapter: Matthew 10 In context: Matthew 10:1-2)

Matthew 11:1 After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee.[ 11:1 Greek in their towns]

My apologies. You appear to be right. The Gospels do indeed refer to the twelve as disciples throughout. However Luke 6:13 says "he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles". And Acts (esp Acts 6) uses the term more inclusively. Possibly the term can be used to mean either group. Can the article say something like "The New Testament does not list any women among Jesus' inner core of disciples"? DJ Clayworth 22:26, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"apostles" is a GREEK term. i personally do not know if the historic Jesus, who spoke aramaic had an equaivalent aramaic term.

as far as late arguments if someone wants they can email jp holding at tektonics he is fanatical pro-fundamentalist and has an article "thomas tizzy" which he claims "proves" GOT is late. in light of the fact he denies evolution, Q, documentary hypothesis, late dating for daniel etc, i have no interest in contacting him myself or debating whether evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. it must be a full time job of his, as i do not have the time as he clearly does.

The issue of whether women were included in the inner core of disciples is one you can't solve by stating a negative. Just because you can't find a quote to support women in Jesus' inner circle, it does not mean that there were none. In fact, a negative is never proof of anything.86.4.59.203 00:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee[reply]

Luke and Acts refer to the Twelve as apostles. The other gospels don't; the other supposed reference to "apostles", in the English versions of one verse each of Matthew and Mark, comes after Jesus is said to have "sent" them; in those two isolated verses it means simply "the sent ones." Most of the references to the word "disciple" in the Gospels, and all of the references to the word "disciple" in Acts, use the word to mean any believer in (and/or follower of) Jesus. Paul uses the word "apostle" to include himself along with James the Bishop of Jerusalem and the other brothers of Jesus, plus at least two other Christian leaders, Andronicus and Junia (the latter, interestingly, being female). The most correct statement the article could make would be "The Gospels do not list any women among the Twelve."

However, there are discrepancies in the three synoptic gospels' listings of the tenth and eleventh of the Twelve, although the other ten are identical in all three. Number ten of the Twelve is called "Thaddeus" in Mark and in some manuscripts of Matthew, "Lebbeus" in some other manuscripts of Matthew, "Lebbeus called Thaddeus" in still other manuscripts of Matthew, and "Judas of James" in Luke; number eleven is called "Simon the Cananaean" in Matthew and Mark, and "Simon the Zealot" in Luke. Why the inconsistency? Was number ten originally Mary Magdalene? Was number eleven originally Salome the wife of Zebedee, who was also the mother of James and John? According to the Thomas Gospel, those two women were intimate disciples! Were those two female names scratched out of the three canonical gospels by women-hating patriarchalists and replaced haphazardly by male names? Shucks, "Salome of Zebedee" actually resembles "Simon the Zealot" in its sound. Tom129.93.17.195 01:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Gospel of Thomas is mystical— it emphasizes a direct and unmediated experience of the Divine. Jesus is presented as a mystagogue, a teacher of Divine mysteries, much as he is presented in the Gospel of John. While the emphasis in John is a balance between his miracles and his words, the emphasis here is exclusively the words of Jesus."

If the GT presents "exclusively the words of Jesus," how do we know that it "emphasizes a direct and unmediated experience of the Divine?" NPOV, being the divine dogma of deities here, if applied, would mean that the leap between 'plain words' and 'unmediated divine mystical experience' is a bit large. Me? I would, but Im busy. Stevertigo 02:26, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This speculation is a bit wild. Mysteries are only mysteries if you don't understand them. The author of the Gospel probably wrote down sayings as he/she heard them, and simply decided not to write a proper narative explaining the background to the parables or similies.86.4.59.203 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.[reply]

The revised introduction has lost the fact that the title "Gospel of Thomas" is modern: "A Coptic manuscript on papyrus discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi in Egypt has been given the title the Gospel of Thomas." (Important because this text is a logia not a gospel actually.) Wetman 14:16, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this has been rectified.

Ziusudra 14:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The preceeding is wrong. The last logion (114) is followed by the words "the gospel according to Thomas". Those words complete the manuscript, and seem to be a title. Tom129.93.17.195 02:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having four parables next to each other is interesting, but this part should have some commentary or be removed all together, IMO. What are we to understand about GOT from the much shorter and somewhat stronger phrasing of the parable? Thomas says "The kingdom is like a shepherd" but in John it says Jesus is the shepherd. What are we to conclude from this?

Any commentary should simply draw attention to the quoted texts, like a caption to a picture. What we are to conclude is up to us in a NPOV. I agree the format is clunky? Any editors? --Wetman 23:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can conclude that different authors interpreted the parables (heard things differently, or interpreted what they read and wrote their interpretations). Who know's which came first, the GoT or the Gospels in canon. One could have copied the other, or two seperate people could have heard the same thing and written it down differently.86.4.59.203 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.[reply]

The following text is not just inaccurate, it is actually untrue: " Proponents of the early theory are inevitably forced to piece apart Thomas and recreate the "real," earlier, and supposedly non-Gnostic version. This is a methologically subjective exercise that essentially creates a document that never existed, and can never be proven to have existed without substantial evidence (the "Q" document is a good example of a non-existent document that has been recreated from substantial evidence - but there is still much debate about its form, whether or not it was one or many documents, and other issues. See Synoptic problem)" The Coptic text is complete. Who has been "piecing apart" Thomas and recreating an earlier version? What "proponents"? This rhetorical device is called a "straw man": indeed it might be a "methologically subjective" exercise— if it were being done. I did enjoy "methologically" though and am sorry to see a word so full of the essence of these arguments leave this section of text ;) --Wetman 08:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where does one begin to make sense of material like this: "Still other scholars see evidence of increasingly gnostic redactions over time when they compare sayings in the New Testament with parallel sayings in the Greek versions of the Gospel of Thomas (ca. 200), and sayings in the Coptic version (ca. 340)." Note the use of "other scholars"; note the elaborate scheme setting up "increasingly gnostic redactions" that requires confusing dates of surviving manuscripts with texts, and proposterous datings? The Greek versions of GofT so resoundingly referred here to are those fragments from Oxyrhyncus: just what "parallel sayings" are in those tiny fragments? This isn't "POV" it's authoritative gibberish. Where is it coming from? What is this person reading to inspire this stuff? May we object to the level of incompetence here without being accused of personal attacks? --Wetman 05:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Second that. Seems like the author of said creation wants to shove his own views to discredit the GoT. Actually most speculation about documents that have never been found are complete imagination and speculation and entirely irrelevent.86.4.59.203 01:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.[reply]

The article incorrectly refers in a couple of places to "transliteration". If used correctly, this would refer merely to representing the orginal Greek (without translation) in the Roman (or some other) alphabet rather than the Greek alphabet, but this is clearly not what's intended. It ought to be corrected, but I'm at a loss to know what the writer actually had in mind. rossb 16:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good catch. The author appears to be incorrectly using "trasliterated" when he means "interpreted." --Goethean 17:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was about to post about this and I see it's been noticed—a long time ago! I was going to fix it, but it occurs to me that there's really nothing in that whole "different translations" section relevant to the larger article. An example from the Thomas is used to illustrate a broadly known fact about the translation process; this belongs in Translation, perhaps, or maybe an article about the pitfalls of scriptural translation. Right? /blahedo (t) 18:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this here: "The Gospel of Thomas and other secret gospels from the 2nd and 3rd century were regarded as the works of heretics by contemporary Christian writers who championed and preserved the apostolic tradition of earlier Church fathers and Christian writers.( It was for this reason a specific group of books constructing the Bible was canonized.)"

Nothing secret about the "lost" GoT; date might be checked by reading Wikipedia or anywhere; the development of the idea of heresy is worth reading about; the development of the canon likewise. No one knows how contemporary Christian writers "regarded" this text; the apostolic tradition was defined by the winners in 4th and 5th century disputes. This is raw POV. --Wetman 21:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A neat point about cornerstone/keystone translation for the stone rejected by builders and then used by them. But it occurs all over the place, such as Psalms 118:22 and then in Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:7. So it is hardly special for GoT. --Henrygb 00:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious as to the emphasis on "corner/key -stone". Many people are completely unaware of the dissimilarity between corner- and key- stones, and of the need to know the difference. Allowing for the idiosyncrasies of the English language, the big variance here is the change from "Show me..." to "Teach me concerning..." There is a huge difference between simply demonstrating and actually instructing. It is this difference IMHO which shows "how translation often differs subtly in its proper transliteration." -- Gordon, 15 April 2006 @12:10 UTC.

Good point. I will endeavour to read over this section and rewrite it more appropriately. The phrases "show me" and "teach me" are both absolutely correct English renderings of the Coptic. "Teaching" carries a connotation of demonstration or revealing in Coptic. The same word is also used for informative displays.

This section appears to be original research. Please provide references for a source that specifically contrasts these two translations of this passage. Otherwise I suggest this entire section be deleted under WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. Grover cleveland 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could the debate about the 'corner stone vs the key stone' be thought of in terms of final meaning of the parable. The keystone in an arch is not a particularly important stone, because all stones within an arch are required for the arch to function therefore equally important. Builders would not reject stones that might be usefull for an arch. So the Keystone interpretation (whilst being cute and literal) to me doesn't make theological sense. The corner stone in a building is the first stone layed and its position is vital for the foundation of the building (as all other stones are laid in relation to it). Indeed it represents the whole foundation of any building. Maybe the meaning of the parable is that, 'the builders' in the parable represent the majority of the general public of atheists. The cornerstone is the foundation of religion (represented by the teachings of Jesus). The people in general reject the foundation of religion because of a fundamental desire to serve themselves (rather than serving God). If one lays oneself in relation to the corner stone, one functions as part of the building (as a part of God, or an extension of his will). If one rejects the corner stone one is seeking one's own position (like Eve and Adam, eating the apple), thereby condemning one'self to suffer for one's sinfull actions.

For me, if this interpretation is excepted, showing and teaching carry the similar meaning. However, it seems to me there is a quatifyable difference between knowledge and wisdom, and also between wisdom and action. Ergo seeing the corner stone is not enough in my opinion. One should endevour to relate to it. I can show you 'me playing the piano', but for you to play, I must teach you/show you- how to learn to play. To this extent, the foundations of anything must be learned through actions as opposed to being an armchair warrior. 86.4.59.203 21:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.[reply]

I'm curious as to why verse 114:

114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us,

for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look,

I will guide her to make her male, so that she too

may become a living spirit resembling you males.

For every female who makes herself male will enter

the kingdom of Heaven."

is dismissed as unoriginal by many. Is there an actual reason for believing this verse was added at a later date or is it simply to objectionable to accept? I'm sure I'm not the only person who'd like to see information on this, and I ask that someone knowledgable add this verse and a discussion of it to the article.

Its not so much dismissed as considered to be later. The Gospel of Thomas is often considered as a work which was built up over a long period of time - much like Q, and this particular element is considered a later layer. It exhibits a certain breed of gnostic theology, concerning how femininity represented carnal desire, and hence was evil, thus needing to be made male, i.e. become an aesthetic. From extensive studies of the development of gnostic theology, this idea arose at a later time than some of the "wisdom" in other passages, and hence it is seen as late.

The last saying of the GoT reflects a PoV that seems contrary to the more egalitarian theme of the remainder of the GoT and Gnostic texts cosidered "close" to it in theme and theology. Also, linguistic clues hint that the saying is later than the others. Recently it has been popular among scholars to see it as a reformulation of an earlier saying. Taken in the context of Platonic philosophy (popular through the region), it fits well with the other "mystery" teachings of the GoT.

--budulinek 02:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Look at verse 22 for an explanation.

One of the big differences between the Jewish sects of the Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots compared to the Jewish Essene (Zadokite) sects (from which the Nazarene sect of John and Jesus arose out of) concerns views about controlling the senses. The original sin (genesis) is where living beings first decided to serve themselves by disobeying God. Eve bought the logic that by eating the apple, she might obtain the entirety of Gods knowledge (know all ‘that God knows’ becoming as powerful as God). Instead of this happening, Adam and Eve are sent out of Gods world (Eden) to the material world. Like a child is sent to his room for bad behaviour, fallen souls became entrapped in mortal bodies that live and die. Whilst the soul is immortal, the concept of time arose because souls would transmigrate from body to body until they became satified that they should not serve themselves but instead lovingly serve God (salvation). when their old body decayed. The material world is a world in which the living being can satisfy its desires as it wishes (rather than to serve God). God in his mercy allowed the rebellious fallen souls a place in which they could be illusioned into thinking they could control things as a God. To allow those who serve penance for the original sin to return back to be with God, God sent the scriptures to teach those who would repent and serve penance. In Essene/Nazarene devout tradition, allowing the body (and mind) to dictate the actions of the soul was frowned upon. The body is seen as a vehicle for the soul. If one is devoted to God, one's soul can control the body and direct it to lovingly serve God. If one is devoted selfishly to one's own bodily desires for sensual gratification, one is not able to serve God unswervingly. Essene/Nazarene ethos is that one should satisfy the senses as much as was required to sustain life, and no more. Excess eating, sex for fun (instead of just for procreation), excess exercise (for vanity of self image) or excess anything that would stimulate your senses for the enjoyment of the body was against their religious ethos. Instead the Essene's sought to purify their desires to serve God rather than to serve self. That’s why part of initiation to the Nazarene cult involved 40 days/nights living in the desert without any comforts, food or water (as is mentioned in the Gospels). It was seen as a proving ground to show that the initiate could control his desires (so making him suitable for serving God). Debate among the Essenes even ranged as far as whether it was right or wrong to take a wife. The larger Essene community may have been split upon this issue, with the more devout initiated allowing the less devout to have a wife (to discourage polygamy occuring in the larger community). Many Essenes lived devout lives without sexual contact. Women were seen as more susceptible to being controlled by the desires of the body than the men folk, so contact between men and women was tightly regulated to prevent women from corrupting the men. It seems from verse 114 that Peter was asking why Jesus allowed Mary to commune with them. Jesus shows an interesting shift from Essene belief, suggesting that with time he believed Mary (and hence all women) could learn to control her bodily desires with similar ability as could the men folk could. In Nazarene lingo, a living spirit is one which has control of the body and functions to carry out Gods work, where as daemon is a spirit that has become controlled by the bodies need for sense stimulation (and hence has no interest in serving God). The Nazarenes believed that the mind was part of the Body, and so thoughts of enjoying sensual stimulation of any kind were seen as the soul wishing to enjoy for itself, rather than serving God. Salvation for an individual was seen as the soul realising that it is only a working part of God, and not caperble of becoming a God in itself.

The main problem with the GoT is that key background information (the foundation to Christian teachings) is not presented within the verses, so quotes tend to be misunderstood and taken out of context. As time passed, and the Nazarene culture was disbanded (and the Essene culture wiped out by the Romans in 70AD). Christian gentile sects lost all reference to Nazarene Judaism and started to question certain Christian scriptures that did not seem to fit their conceptions. Hence splits formed between the Roman Christians and the more Jewish Ebionites and Arabic Gnostics. Interpreting the GoT requires a broad knowledge of the Nazarene/Essene community. Essentially the GoT is a list of sayings and recorded teachings from Jesus to his disciples. The teachings were not meant for complete beginners to the Nazarene faith. The other Gospels do give some of the foundations of Nazarene beliefs to a certain perspective (tinged with Roman misconceptions about Jesus). When Jesus says in the GoT (verse 14) to Mathew, Simon Peter and Thomas that fasting, and giving alms and preying brings sin upon one's self, Jesus is referring to doing those actions openly to bring attention upon one's piety (like popstars do when they give to charities, in a vain way to promote themselves). Yet that part of the teaching is missing. The GoT gives a shortened version saying what is wrong but not why. At the beginning of the GoT it says ‘’’“Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death”’’’. Yet to understand the sayings one has to know more than what is written in the GoT. 86.4.59.203 12:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Right hand.[reply]

The lack of "authoritativeness" is not in dispute by anyone. Is there any new mainstream opinion or factual material that needs more careful reporting in the following recently added assertions?:

"In addtion, scholars who reject the Gospel of Thomas being authoritative believe the date the Gospel of Thomas as late as 150 A.D., see gnostic influences it, cite the lack of any definitive support that any church fathers quoted it, and believe it suffers from a paucity of manuscripts. [3][4][5] Also, some scholars see the Gospel of Thomas being very unlike the others Gospels and cite its lack of a resurrection of Jesus. [6]

There are 114 sayings: in which is Gnostic influence traced, by whom? Unidentified scholars "believing" in a date of 150 AD is not useful information. The "footnotes" are not directly relevant. "Suffers" from a paucity of manuscripts is disingenuous. --Wetman 21:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnostic attribution of the GoT is largely dependant on its inclusion with other Gnostic documents at NH. Additionally, the PoV of the GoT which emphesizes religious mysteries and an imminent Kingdom of God are seen as proof of the text's "Gnosticism". This is echoed in early Christian history by the near-exclusion of the two "John" writings (The Gospel according to St John and the Revelations of John at Patmos) due to their mystical content. There is a strong trend throughout the history of Christianity (including modern scholarship) to lump mystical writings with known "heresies". It is worth nothing that the attribution of the Gospel according to Didymos Judas Thomas as "Gnostic" is somewhat misleading. While the Gospel of Thomas is a mystic text, it displays no theological connection with historical Gnostism. (It does not differentiate between the demiurge and a "true" God. It contradicts the Gnostic position that the material world is evil. [It does so by emphasizing the almost pantheistic doctrine of imminence, similar to the Muslim Sufi.)

From a scientific perspective, Carbon dating on old fragments of scriputure (such as the GoT) only tells you how old that copy of the GoT is. So it is wild speculation to say that carbon dating can give us a clear idea of which Gospels came first. The original GoT document may have been written during Jesus' ministry but could have been destroyed or lost to antiquity. All the speculation about the age of the Gospels is pure speculation and therefore not very usefull. Yes we can date old fragments of scriptures, but we have no idea whether the fragments we do have are the original master copy or just copies of that. For instance it would be un-truthfull to say things like "Carbon dating of the scriptures clearly shows that the GoT was written AD 150". All carbon dating tells you is that copy was written then. Also note to the above author, the GoT does not comment on Gnostic stories, nor does it comment on the material world.86.4.59.203 12:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)icnivad.[reply]

"::::This debate about Marcion has nothing to do whatsoever with the Gospel of Thomas. Its place is somewhere else.86.4.59.203 12:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Yoda.[reply]

Can we get a more sophisticated assessment on why the Gospel of Thomas was not included in the canon? Or can we delete this coloring-book blurb?

had it actually been written by the apostle Thomas, they argue, it would have been at least seriously considered by those in the century immediately following Jesus' death.

This is too naive for Wikipedia. Its author has no conception of how the New testament was arrived at. --Wetman 16:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with including the views of clueless fundamentalists, as long as the views are clearly charcterized as such. — goethean ॐ 16:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "they", it looks like a passage written by a fundamentalist expressing their own views/original "research". --User talk:FDuffy 13:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in talk. A sophisticated assesment could probably have its own article. Perhaps there should be a page on wiki devoted to the compilation of the NT and the politic surrounding it.86.4.59.203 13:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.[reply]

The article identifies "Mary" as named by Thomas with "Mary-Magdalena". Problem: "Mary-Magdalena" is not a well-identified person, rather it is a composite figure from different women from the 4 standard gospels (an unnamed prostitute, the sister of Myriam, and the woman at the tumb). There is no reason to pursue this unsupported "reunification" of Mary-Magdalena any further, Thomas's Mary should be named "Mary" in the text (i'm doing the change right now). --FvdP 20:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The illiterate edits have been reverted. Statements like "Matthew takes the fishermen to represent God and its angels, while Thomas' fishermen are more akin to ordinary people like the hearers." are simply unsupported in texts, though they may reflect the user's bible stuidies group and personal imagination. --FvdP's personal identification of "Mary" with the Virgin Mary might be discussed in its own paragraph, preferably as a report of published opinion. The connection of the "unnamed prostitute" and Mary Magdalene is part of the Roman tradition, not part of the texts: starting from the interpretation and working backward to the texts, though all too common, is not the accepted practice in secular cultural history, and is certainly not the Wikipedia approach. A scan of the Wikipedia article Mary Magdalene would provide a start on understanding the development of these ideas about Mary Magdalene. Wikipedians should not be intimidated by this behavior. I recommend that this user apply a "disputed POV" label to the article: it would be in keeping. --Wetman 08:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. --FvdP's personal identification of "Mary" with the Virgin Mary. I never meant Thomas's Mary is the Virgin Mary. I never wrote that. That comes from your imagination. I even kept the link from Thomas's Mary to M Magdalene. Wetman, who among us is the one who can't read ? (On this very point, at least).
2. What texts would support your identification of Mary with Mary Magdalene ? Are "Mary Magdalene" and the Virgin the only disciples of Jesus with "Mary" in their names ? One cannot prove that. Hence, it seems, that identification should not go as an undisputed statement in Wikipedia. I have read serious people (more knowledgeable than me) defend ideas on MM similar to mine. That Wikipedia's article understates (in its 1st section) as a fact that "MM" is a unique character may just point to shortcomings of that Wikipedia's article.
3. "Matthew takes the fishermen to represent God and its angels, Thomas' fishermen are more akin to ordinary people like the hearers." are simply unsupported in texts,": yet it seemed obvious from my reading of the citations. Matt 49-50 on angels (not God himself, I agree.) In Thomas "The person is like..." contrasts with these angels: only christian-oriented readings will readily identify "the person" with God (or his angels). And the difference I'm pointing here out, is much more significant (to me, perhaps) than (say) the number of fishes that the fishermen keep (this detail only weights if we accept Matthew's apocalyptic interpretation); that's why I tried to insist on it.
4. "Wikipedians should not be intimidated by this behavior. " : should I be intimated by yours ? (I *may* be intimidated by your scholarity though, but only to a point.)
5. Now I agree I'm not a scholar. But I believe I'm litterate enough to have some decently reasonable ideas about this. If they're not scholar enough to play level here, so be it. OTOH, so far, I'm not convinced I'm that wrong.

--FvdP 21:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Gnosticism viewed Mary Magdelane as highly valued, unlike the other Maries. I.e. if there were a Mary as a protagonist in any gnostic text 99% of the time it would be Mary Magdelane. Elementary research into gnosticism should tell you as much, and I am surprised you are unaware of this if you think your stance backed up by scholarship.
2. "seemed obvious from my reading of the citations" is "my reading", i.e ORIGINAL RESEARCH. This is banned throughout wikipedia. Don't do it.
3. Wetman is a very well respected editor for his use of highly scholarly resources and work, you should think very carefully before contesting his statements and should always back up such contesting with very strong academic references. Yourself is NOT a suitable reference.
4. You agree you are not a scholar, well that is irrelevant. Original research is banned.
5. You have some ideas about this? Keep them to yourself. This is not a place to put your ideas. This is an encyclopedia, we record OTHER, NOTABLE, people's stances on the matter, universals, and the blatently obvious (e.g. "orange is, amongst other things, a colour"), NOT our own ideas.

--User talk:FDuffy 15:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyone should please calm the heck down. There's no need to be nasty; we can have perfectly reasonable disagreements without calling each other "illiterate" and otherwise being generally rude. Graft 18:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graft: thank you, sincerely. --FvdP

FDuffy: on your pts 2 to 5, I overall agree. On pt 1: this holds only if one consider Thomas's Gospel as gnostic. According to this very article, this looks disputed. --FvdP 18:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on your definition of "gnostic", obviously. Gnostic Christians themselves would probably have been much more inclusive in defining themselves than the likes of Irenaeus, who was a prejudiced outsider explicitly interested in defaming them. We can all agree that Thomas certainly has a lot in line with gnostic texts, and so we should reasonably conclude that the Mary in Thomas is probably the Mary who is the favorite of so many gnostic texts, Mary Magdalene. This is obviously open to debate, however, so I think it best to simply leave the issue open and unaddressed, or perhaps qualified, as FvdP suggested in his/her edit.

As to the other stuff on fishermen, I agree with Wetman's reversion of that; probably not appropriate. Graft 20:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name given in the GoT is Maryam (or Mary english translated). Given that it says nothing else, we cannot conclude the identity of the woman. Besides, I don't think it really matters to verse 114 which Mary is being refered to. The issue for Simon Peter is that she is a woman and should not be sat with them during Jesus' teachings. I certainly don't see the point of using the GoT talk page for arguing about Gnosticism. The GoT has no connection to the indescrimate label of 'Gnosticism'. Some Gnostics may hold to Christian teachings, but the Gnostic myth written in some non canonical scripture is not included in the GoT. Not all non canonical scriputure was chucked from the NT for being Gnostic.86.4.59.203 13:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.[reply]

The article refers to "the four synoptic Gospels." Are there not only three synoptic Gospels, including Matthew, Mark, and Luke (with the absense of John)? In some places, the article, I believe, should read "the three synoptic Gospels," such as when mentioning the Diatessaron, which did not include the Gospel of John. In others, perhaps the article should read "the four canonical Gospels? "Aiden 01:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, correct. I fixed the sole remaining instance of this. Graft 08:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the link to the Gthomas gets deleted by minds set in stone regularly. Please explain this is not prejudice. in detail.

If we kept every home page link that was inserted, Wikipedia would contain more links than content. The fact that you added your link to many articles made it much more likely that the links would be deleted. — goethean ॐ 22:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a christian subject. Hence the use of the CE notation is probably not appropriate. Furthermore, the original date notation in this article was AD. At some point the AD notation was removed. Now someone is trying to sneek in the CE notation a bit at a time (no mention in the edit summaries of a controversial amendment). Any comments? Arcturus 19:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common Era is the standard notion. Adopting the Christian notion because it is an article about Christian history is unacceptable bias.

Amen to this! Problem with "CE" is that it _will_ move with time -- for example, when is its baseline? The BC/AD notation has the distinct advantage that we have a 6-year window AT MOST, probably only a 4-year window to deal with. In physical terms, a point source. Gordon, 16 April 2006 @04:17 UTC

You obviously have no idea what CE is about. Common Era is fixed. It does not move. In the Year of Our Lord would move if based on the known birth date of Jesus.

Read the Wikipedia style guides (no link handy – you can find it). The use of either BC/AD or BCE/CE are acceptable in Wikipedia articles, so long as either one or the other is used consistently throughout the article – no issue of "unacceptable bias". IMHO it's not worth fighting over. I do purposefully try to use (B)CE in articles about other religions out of respect. I don't know that it's especially "appropriate" to use BC/AD in an article on Christianity, but it's certainly not inappropriate and not worth fighting over with those who think that it should be used. --Kbh3^rdtalk 01:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I don't believe that the verses in Matthew and Thomas refer to the same thing. Thomas' quotation is more akin to that about the discovery of the kingdom of heaven by someone. Analogous verses are previous to this, in Matthew 13 44-46. Could someone replace it? Homagetocatalonia 11:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why under the phil. does it say that Thomas uses meatphors but (indirectly) state that John doesn't. the oppisite is true. "I am the bread of life" is a metaphor, while "The Kingdom of God (Heaven?) is like wise man" is a simile.

Gospel of John is packed with metaphor, simile, and other such gramatical jigery pokery. GoT is also quite similar in style, although there seems to be less structure in the GoT. The GoT is a collection of sayings by Jesus which one is left to interpret one'self. It is almost like someone's notes from a lecture. Anyway, as you seem to be able to spot errors, why not go ahead and change the thing.86.4.59.203 23:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Trinity[reply]

Isn't the gnosticism template a little obtrusive, given that many scholars don't consider the GoT to be gnostic at all? — goethean ॐ 14:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The gospel of Thomas is not persay a gnostic scripture, although it does present one the fundermental principle of Gnostiticism. In the first paragraph it states that "Whoever finds the meaning of these words will not taste death". The roman church of the empire did not like this inference, because the inference implied that salvation required knowledge (or gnosis if you use the greek). The roman church wished salvation to be based upon simple belief that you are awarded salvation by having the conviction that Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for all humanities sins. Apparently, the early roman church didn't like the fact that salvation in many christian sects required hard real sacrifice and change in life style, so they opted to suppress all texts that disagreed with their views. The only way we even know of these gnostic texts is because the roman empire wasn't able to destroy all the scriptures, some poping up in caves near Qumran and in Egypt. Other than that first paragraph, most of the sayings are found in other books. Some have suggested that the GoT was the template used to construct the other gospels because of the similarities.

The other minor problem some modern roman derived christians get hung up upon are quotes in the GoT concerning Jesus' view upon Charity, fasting, and praying. FOR INSTANCE: "Jesus said to them:

(1)‘If you fast, you will bring forth sin for yourselves.

(2) And if you pray, you will be condemned.

(3) And if you give alms, you will do harm to your spirits.

(4) And if you go into any land and wander from place to place, (and) if they take you in, (then) eat what they will set before you. Heal the sick among them!

(5) For what goes into your mouth will not defile you. Rather, what comes out of your mouth will defile you."

In the GoT Jesus says that giving alms (charity to the poor) will bring harm upon one's spirit, and that fasting and praying can also bring one into sin/condemnation. These quotes seem quite out of place with Christian ethos until one realises what is meant. Other scripture mentions Jesus saying do not give charity openly, but if you give alms with your right hand, do not let one's left hand see. One can say that Charity brings sin upon one'self when one gives charity only in order to promote one's self. It seems that all the quote lacked to become mainstream was explainations. Fasting can also bring sin upon oneself if done to extreams thus affecting one's appearence drawing attention to one'self. Jesus in the gospels said (concerning food) that its not important what comes into the mouth, as it is what comes out of the mouth. Again its about fasting being done infront of others as a show of piety, rather than for any usefull purpose. As for praying, Jesus taught the disciples to use only the lords prayer. Other prayer was discouraged as the lord was seen as omnipotent, so praying to him asking for something was unnecessary. Again, prayer for show is also bound to bring sin upon a disciple. It seems that the GoT prefers a metaphorical allergorical style of writting, which made it unpopular among scholars whom preposed that scripture was to be taken literally as words of God.

In short the gospel of Thomas has hidden messages which could be misinterpreted by those who know no better. This made it a dangerous text to include in the canonate because it does not chime with roman views upon salvation and suggests that salvation requires knowledge. The gnostics believed that the knowledge was hidden and only those who had God's grace could understand it. Yet the Gospel of Thomas does not say that in as many words.86.4.59.203 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.[reply]

This was an interpolation into the late-camp argument:

It should be noted that the Gospel of John is replete with statements that involve a rejection of the physical world (see John 6:63), and all four gospels state "this world" belongs to the "devil".

I thought that it should have begun with something attributive, like, "Opponents of this view note..." or somesuch. However, I noted the reference to John 6:63 and thinking it over, pulled the whole thing to think about it some more.

"Rejection of the physical world" is a very Protestant/fundamentalist reading of this passage. The Orthodox and Catholic understanding of this passage is quite different. In these traditions, John 6:1 ff is very much an embrace of the sacramental goodness of the Created world, and the spiritually and physically nutritive value of the flesh and blood of Jesus.

Plus, I only find one reference to "this world" belonging to the "[Dd]evil" with a quick egrep of my RSV. Mark does not refer to the "devil" at all, though "Satan" is. The closest are two references in John to the "ruler of this world." Hardly all four gospels. So I think this yank stays on the Talk.

→ (AllanBz ✍) 08:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problematic source, and their claims dont necessarely represent Saint Thomas Christians; they call themselves Patriarchs of Jerusalem. check Talk:Church_of_the_East_&_Abroad since this site is mentioned as a site of that organisation. Also note that the site is said to be maintained by 'Rev. Fr. Archdeacon Marcus, in New Zealand.' ; Id expect Saint Thomas Christians to be from India.. Also, those churches separated like all the other oriental orthodox churches, at the council of chaledon, in 451AD and this is far too late for there to be an aditional gospel, cuz like this text explains, the sellection of the gospels in the orthodoxy crystallised much sooner, certanly by the late 2. century AD. In all, Id like to see some aditional support for this ancient tradition of this gospel as a part of the bible actually existing, precisely because such prospect is incredibly tantalising.. - User:Aryah

I renamed it, cuz i clicked on it thinking it was an eastern or oriental orthodox comment; its too ambigous. I would also object to saying for a prety specific view like advaita vedanta, that its simply 'eastern', as a practicing buddhist. Such comparative study may be an interesting endaveour, im certanly not sad to have found that site; still, I wonder about the wisdom if its unverified inclusion in an encyclopedia - anyone more knowlegabe about wiki policies know when links are to be included in an article? --Aryah 06:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's spam that an editor keeps re-adding to several articles and should be deleted. — goethean ॐ 14:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wouldt that be then some form of abuse of wikipedia? what can wiki do in its selfdefence then??--Aryah 19:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a cleanup tag on the article? — goethean ॐ 14:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the majority opinion is that the Gospel of Thomas is a gnostic text, though this is not pointed out in the article. For example:

A majority of scholars have concluded that Gos. Thom. is a gnostic gospel, though it cannot be assigned to a particular sect or school. As the text now stands, it surely seems to be gnostic, for Gos. Thom.'s members acknowledge in the first person plural their origin and identity in the realm of light (saying 50), and where they preexisted (saying 19.1) and are destined to return (sayings 18, 49). This gospel thus bears witness to that widespread esoteric movement in antiquity which regarded insight as the means of attaining liberation, the recognition of one's own identity with the divine. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), 6:539.

Also, the Brill translation of saying 66 is from an old edition.

(66) Jesus said, "Show me the stone which the builders have rejected. That one is the cornerstone." James McConkey Robinson et al., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (4th rev. ed.; Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1996), 134.

Opinions? —Wayward ^Talk 13:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its more a debate about whether the gnostics existed at the time - it cannot be a gnostic text if the gnostics were not around when it was written. If the gnostics did exist at the time, it gives greater weight to the position that gnosticism was the original form of Christianity (rather than emerging later), and hence is somewhat controversial. Clinkophonist 12:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

• An anonymous editor informs us "calling one translation correct over another violates the Wikipedia POV restrictions." Where would one begin to respond? --Wetman 06:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone or keystone - or even a measuring stone - what word (among many possibilities) should be used here? As I understand it, building a bridge involves the same architectural principles that building an arch does, and a uniformity of stones (in terms of width, length, and depth) is highly desirable.

If you were to build an archway in a wall (and not just build a flat, featureless wall), wouldn't you want to put aside (reserve) a stone you can use later on, at least as a basic unit of measurement, to cut by? that is, for reference sake? (Remember, even the pontifex was a bridge-builder before he became a specialized sort of augur bent on predicting things by casting things into the water, or watching birds dip in the water, these practices being a special kind of trial in water reminiscent of the Roman practice of building temples on hilltops to watch birds fly by from, but I digress greatly.) As I understand it, you build an arch by saving the angled stone (which is fortuitously already in a triangular, wedged or partly pointed shape) for the very middle of the arch, where it will sustain the greatest stress from the sides, which involve neighbors that are cut more regularly. The symbolism of the matter would not be lost on the housebuilders of the time: is there really that much difference from a wall and an arch? Couldn't the source languages allow an ambiguity here?

Then again, striving for too much precision tends always to ruin a translation, and almost always at the expense of legibility. There may have been an attempt to preserve the ambiguity found in the Greek original (?) by employing a comparably ambiguous word in Coptic. Which makes me wonder which word, exactly, was being used in the Coptic version for words like keystone and reject?

I edited the article slightly to point out that a majority of Thomas scholars favor an early date, while a majority of scholars at large favor a late date. It's very important that readers understand and appriciate this distinction, as well as the fact that the dating of GOT is extremely contraversial. -Magicbymccauley

I apologize if I upset someone by removing what I considered to be nonsense. It can easily be restored from the page history. I was not trying to censor anyone, however I honestly thought the post was nonsense. I would be glad to restore the content or discuss these matters further. It may help the IP editor to review some wikipedia basics at Help:Contents/Getting started. Hope this helps, and feel free to contact me personally for any concerns.--Andrew c 01:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had not intended to offend anyone with my "nonsense", so I guess I will have to admit I should have paid more attention to the canonical gospel admonition against casting pearls before swine.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.210.105.5 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 1 November 2006.

The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings and teachings of Jesus. The sayings and teachings are not usually explained by the writter of the GoT. The sayings and teachings are mostly found in canonical Gospels with some that are not. A Gnostic may interpret the GoT in one way, and a Roman Catholic in another. But you can't say its a Gnositc book because the sayings do not belong to any one group. No Gnostic myth is expounded within the GoT, so there is no connection to those theories. The interpretation of verse 66 is that the odd shape of a keystone enables it to hold the pillars of an archway together. Hence a person who is like a keystone is one whom is able to support others, who is able to lead others to salvation. When builders build pillars (or walls for a church) the stones need to be square or rectangular. Builders therefore reject stones off odd shapes, but keepp them aside for the keystone to support the archways (or roofs for churches). The place of light mentioned in verse 60 is Eden (the spiritual world of God). All living souls were once living there, and because of Adam and Eve, souls now live on Earth. This is not a gnostic viewpoint, but one steming form Genesis in the old testament. Its Jewish. One who stands at the begining (verses 18 and 19) refers to one whom decides of his own volition to become subserviant to God again and renounce the original sin (to be as Adam and Eve were before they sinned). This again is Jesus' interpretation of the Old testament and is not Gnostic in origin. The great majority of humans (and all living creatures) wish to follow their own will and do what they wish (to have control over their own destinies). One whom alone is chosen(verse 49) is one whom (by Gods mercy) renounces the original sin and agreeing to serve penance by serving God, will recieve reward from God by being aloud to enter the kingdom of heaven. Those whom were lucky enough to be taught by Jesus recieved Gods mercy and were chosen to. That is the implication of that verse (that God is directly or indirectly responsible for everybodies fate). This is not only Gnostic, its a broadly Christian belief. Liberation and salvation mean the same thing in religious terms. Liberation turns into salvation when you die. You can be liberated and yet fall again into sin. The point to remember is that not all non canonical writings were disputed. Some were not included in the canon because other gospels were written better or were easier to understand. The roman church wanted to promote "Jesus' death on the cross as securing forgivness to all those who believe in Jesus from the original sin" as the criterior for salvation. They were opposed in that respect by the Ebionites, gnostics, Coptics and other smaller christian sects. So the GoT isn't just gnostic. If you consider yourself a Roman Christian, one wouldn't like any idea that salvation was dependent on works.86.4.59.203 13:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.[reply]

I have been instructed to post my website: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/thomas.html for review. Please, if any reader thinks it is worth to be posted, do so. The article presents strong arguments in order to explain why GThomas should be dated around 120. Bernard

Please explain these NPOV issues, per the guidelines for tagging pages.--Andrew c 21:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are:

1) 'The Gospel of Thomas' Richard Valantansis, Routledge, London and New York, 1997 ISBN 0-415-11621-X (hbk) ; ISBN 0-415-11622-8 (pbk) - (part of the 'New Testament Readings' series edited by John Court).

2) 'The Parables of Jesus' Joachim Jeremias, Prentice Hall; 2 edition, 1972. ISBN: 0023605103 (pbk) - I recall that an edition that I have seen had a table of correspondnce for the parables from Thomas and from the canonical gospels. (Or, perhaps, it was "Rediscovering the Parables" by the same author? i have neither to hand.)

Would any-one object to these being added? If not, where specifically?

Thanks

john courtneidge

Can I ask if anybody else finds this statement problematic?

"It should be noted that secular biblical scholars and Christian fundamentalists offer very different dates for key New Testament documents."

Seems like weasel-words and is really saying: "Clever people think like me - Stupid people think the other way - I of course am completely unbiased"

Or am I wrong?

83.217.181.236 20:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "secular" should be replaced. There are many non-secular religious scholars who are not conservatives and who side with the secular scholars on NT dating. — goethean ॐ 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this sentance is true, as Goethean mentions, it needs some tweaking. It would be more fair to say that traditionalists and modernists (or some similar distinction) disagree on the dating. Still, it's a hard statement to work with without a direct source. Vassyana 01:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should avoid NT dating issues like the plague. The dating estimates are based upon carbon dating old documents (of which we have no idea if the one's we date are the originals) or they are based upon unqualified opinion and heresay prevalent around 3rd century AD. Dating speculation is wild nonsense used to promote one book over another in importance. As such it is not NPOV.86.4.59.203 13:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.[reply]

The following statement in the article is vague. "However the church at large considers the Thomas gospel not as a reflection of "Christian diversity" but as an example of one of the early heresies that attacked the church". Firstly which Church is being refered to? Is it the Roman Church and its denominations, is it the Greek orthodox church, or the Church of the latter day saints etc? Secondly, the statement does not appear to be qualified with a reference. It would be better to show or reference comments from one of the Roman Church's council meetings to support the statement, if indeed heresy was the reason for its exclusion from the canon. As it is written, it sounds like a bit of original research/personal opinion which adds no value to the article. Also, heresy was only a percieved threat to the Roman Church. One should destinguish the historical Roman Church from modern views! For instance, what does the present Pope think of the GoT? Does the present Roman Catholic church fear diverse views?86.4.59.203 00:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.[reply]

"The historical and theological value of the Nag Hammadi library and its invaluable Gospel of Thomas cannot even begin to be evaluated. It should be realised that the contents of the texts are likely to challenge the very basis of Christianity"

Can somebody fix this? These sentences are a bit over the top. Sincerely, Wikipedia Walt.

The first sentence is correct. As a find, the Nag Hammandi library and the Qumran scrolls show modern historians and theologians a glimse of Christian documents from sects that the Roman Church believed to have been sucessfully wiped out. For the last approx 1650 years, Christian history and theology has been in the sole stuardship of the Holy See. History that was written by Emporer Constantine's Roman Church who brutally suppressed the views of other early Christian churches. Those whom continued to teach against the will of the Roman Church in the middle ages were also wiped out of history during the inquisitions. Now in a more enlightened time in history, we are lucky enough to have scriptures that survived brutal Roman suppression. They are therefore justifiably invaluable to historical perspective. Its a glimse of history as written by the meek.

The second sentence is a bit over optimistic. Those who are indoctrinated into one political view, generally defend their 'faith' like ants defend their nest(in a sense its party politics rather than open debate). It is unlikely that those whom work for denominations splintered off from the Roman Church will be swayed by alternative philosophies. However, for the historian and the objective neutral, the Qumran scrolls and the Nag Hamandi library scriptures highlight a difference in perspective of those schools of Christian thought in existence before 300AD. These scriptures allow a rational objective theist the ability to form a more balanced view about Jesus as now we have not only the Roman Church view but also the view of early Christian sects that were initially independent from Rome (such as those flurishing in 1st century India). The basis of Roman Christianity is the ethos that salvation is availible to anyone whom admits that Jesus died for the sins of humanity upon the cross. Whilst it is obvious that Jesus was prepared to suffer for his devotion to God, the Gospel of Thomas shows that Jesus clearly viewed salvation as attainable only by understanding his teachings and importantly, living one's life by them. The two philosophies both highlight different aspects of Jesus' life; the conviction that allowed him to risk martyrdom, and also the strong emphasis in his teachings that salvation is not easily obtained by simple belief. An alternative sentence might be: The contents of the Gospel of Thomas provide an alternative view to that of the 3rd century Roman Church view concerning the path to salvation.86.4.59.203 22:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.[reply]

I have not applied a lazy bumpersticker to this article, but I have started a Notes section. Statements that aren't simply axiomatic or familiar commonplaces need to have a source in a footnote, as elsewhere now in Wikipedia. The unnecessarily stultifying "late camp/early camp" dichotomy that's been a feature of this article from early versions, is not a source: "the late camp says..." etc. --Wetman 23:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be properly referenced, and many assertions of fact need to be identified as the opinions that they are. Frjohnwhiteford 23:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]