www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Gospel of Thomas

I don't know if anyone has ever ruled on it. I certainly think there is a lot of stuff in it that is heretical on its face--not the least the belief that there are degrees of "gnosis" which one must possess, together with its implicit cosmic dualism. I only know that it didn't make the cut, and unlike other apocryphal acts, gospels and apocalypses, it was never, ever considered to be divinely inspired by anyone--until the 20th century, and then only by people who don't really believe in God.

Alex,

We can discuss the Gospel of Thomas. What do you think of it? Is it really a Gospel? Where is its passion narrative? What do you think of saying #114?

Dear Mar Stuart,

To what would you ascribe the contemporary interest in the Gospel of Thomas and related writings?

Alex

Beloved Cantor in Christ!

You are asking me about my knowledge of Scripture?

Now who's baiting who?

I've read commentaries on it and it has always been one of the most interesting topics in my Saturday religion classes.

For me, it is a medium by which the early gnostic heretics attempted to spread their views using the name(s) and authority of the Apostles.

The text isn't smoothly flowing, even though there is a lot there that is borrowed from the canonical Gospels and saying that would be deemed to be Orthodox.

The heretical gnostic sayings are interspersed throughout that break up the sense of the text.

I don't know what the gnostic sayings are getting at, perhaps one needed to be a member of the gnostic sect to understand their meaning.

I've come across people today who are self-styled experts on the Gospel of Thomas and who can't believe you if you: a) don't accept it - what is there to accept? b) say you don't understand it.

I've always said, in my unabatable manner , that I am open to an explanation of the gnostic sayings in Thomas.

No one seems to have a consistent understanding of what they say, there are no ancient commentaries on it, only what modern enthusiasts say.

My former employer was very New Age and accepted the Gospel of Thomas. He believes in many gods etc. and always tried to provoke me into a discussion about it - I would never enter into "de-bait."

It would seem that there are some for whom "mysticism" involves promoting "mystical texts" that they themselves don't understand.

When I confronted one Gospel of Thomas fellow and asked him what the heck he thought the interspersed gnostic texts meant, he said, "It's obvious, isn't it?"

He said I'm too limited by Western understandings of meaning etc.

The deterocanonical New Testament and Old Testament texts continued to be read and used liturgically in the East especially.

The modern fascination with "mysticism" is perhaps a reaction against the rationalism of the West, even that of western Christian liturgical forms etc. (?)

It is like a fad where you are "cool" if you buy into it and "not cool" if you don't.

Alex

I am given to understand, through an "Ask Father" type column in a Catholic publication, that the Gospel of Thomas was that which was passed off as the "secret Gospel the Catholic Church is hiding from the faithful" in the movie "Stigmata" that caused as stir a couple years ago. "The Catholic Church - i.e., the Vatican - is deliberately keeping the faithful in the dark!!" was the buzz among the youth. "Father" (I don't have the column at hand at present) said that the cause of the whole frenzy was bogus, that there is nothing secret about the gospel, and that it was rejected by the early Church because at the very end of it Peter said to Christ that Mary Magdalene could not be saved because she was a female, and Christ did not disagree. Does *any* of this ring a bell with anyone?

For those of you who haven't read the Gospel of Thomas, here's the infamous saying #114 that Cantor Joe referred to and that durak just mentioned:

One can easily see a) the Gnostic elements and b) why the Church rejected it. I really don't know how ANYONE could accept such a Gospel with Peter saying such a thing and Christ seemingly agreeing with him. Mind boggling...

In Christ,
mikey.

Since way back when when I was exposed to early gnostic "tradition" in the course of academic studies, a thought was planted from an authoritative source that the gnostics were more infuenced by Christian thought than vice-versa. A most interesting proposition!

Well, that does it for me. The Gospel of Thomas is a nonsense and fraudulent document. In fact, it is blasphemous and beyond insult.

What changes everything regarding saying #114 is that it is considered a "late addition" to the 113 Jesus sayings.

Added by whom, when and for what reason? Who advances this idea that it is a "late addition' and what evidence do they provide?

Alex, thank you for bringing this up. I was recently wondering about this gospel myself because while I had always studiously ignored it, figuring it was not valid -- and what little I had read in quotes simply seemed like really poor and questionable poetry to me -- I noticed that in a newly published book comparing Sufi and Eastern Christiian approaches to "Prayer of the Heart," Bishop Kallistos Ware does quote very briefly from this gospel to make a point - I think it is the line that says 'look under every rock and I am there,' something like that, a saying attributed to Jesus. I was surprised he quoted from it, of all the things he could've quoted from -- but, I guess he must like at least some of the poetry, then ... on another note, he begins his talk quoting from Merton's Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander, the famous passage where Merton had written in his journal about his experience of "awakening" to people and to life at a corner intersection ... he said that this book was one of the formative experiences of his life.

Dear Communion,

It is so nice to finally get a compliment on this thread .

The reason I brought this up is that I wrote two articles on the Gospel of Thomas for a site I worked with (before coming here) and I STILL get e-mails from people who have strong opinions on the matter - the most recent, this morning.

God bless,

Alex

The desire on the part of a small coterie of New Testament scholars to reinvent Jesus in their own image.

Dear Mar Stuart,

I agree that this is a small group.

But then why is there such popular interest in it?

Alex

Kyr Kallistos does admire the spirituality of Sufism--" Rumi, you know, 'ol chap."--and he does lecture to Sufis, but never without presenting the Christian kerygma. That is very Pauline...John Pauline.

Abdur

Filthy Infidel