The Gospel Of Thomas

[consiglieri]

I was taking a look at the coptic Gospel of Thomas the other day in preparing for my Sunday school class, and thought that I would like to ask the members of the board for their perspectives on this unusual and important book from early Christianity.

The first thing I note is that it is often considered to be a Gnostic book. On the other hand, about half of the 114-sayings of Jesus it contains can be found in the New Testament gospels, or at least appear to be variants on New Testament logia.

I managed to work into the class discussion on apostasy one of the non-canonical logia from the Gospel of Thomas. (That was fun!)

As we discussed a wee bit about early Gnostic Christians (which came up because of Paul's warnings in 1 Timothy which appear to be directed at the Gnostics), a class member brought up that Gnostics and Mormons seem to have in common the view that secret knowledge exists for the initiated which is necessary to salvation.

I also pointed out the numerous distinct dissimilarities between Gnostic and Mormon thought.

I am interested in hearing from board members of all religious points of view.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Doctor Steuss]

I hope Jesus doesn't turn women into men.

That's my thought on the Gospel of Thomas.

[consiglieri]

I hope Jesus doesn't turn women into men.

That's my thought on the Gospel of Thomas.

Ah, yes, saying 114:

Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Well, if Jesus can turn water into wine . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[jwhitlock]

As we discussed a wee bit about early Gnostic Christians (which came up because of Paul's warnings in 1 Timothy which appear to be directed at the Gnostics), a class member brought up that Gnostics and Mormons seem to have in common the view that secret knowledge exists for the initiated which is necessary to salvation.

This appears to have been one of the main appeals of Gnosticism - the claim that the Gnostics possessed mysteries that had been lost since the death of the apostles. Quite a number of Christians seemed to have bought into this claim, according to a number of historians. Hence the orthodox concentration on attacking Gnosticism in the first few centuries.

While we as LDS reject Gnosticism in general, in this case (as sometimes happens), the claim of "secret mysteries" has at least some of its basis in fact. When Christ appeared and taught (Acts 1) after His resurrection, what was taught was not recorded and disseminated to the general membership. Early Christians appeared to place great emphasis on these "secret / sacred" teachings - of which we have no real record today, as they were lost with the apostles. The Gnostic claim was based, in part at least, on having access to what Christ taught after His resurrection.

The early Saints had just as much of a propensity for speculation and knowledge as Latter-day Saints do today. Whenever an LDS author comes out with an analysis of the second coming, of mysteries taught by Joseph Smith, of hidden meanings in scriptures dealing with the last days, etc., they usually find a fairly receptive audience among the membership of the Church. I suspect that the early Saints had the same kind of enthusiasm for various writings that cropped up after the apostles died, claiming to "reveal" truths and knowledge that had been lost.

[Uncle Dale]

I was taking a look at the coptic Gospel of Thomas the other day in preparing for my Sunday school class, and thought that I would like to ask the members of the board for their perspectives on this unusual and important book from early Christianity.

The first thing I note is that it is often considered to be a Gnostic book. On the other hand, about half of the 114-sayings of Jesus it contains can be found in the New Testament gospels, or at least appear to be variants on New Testament logia.

I managed to work into the class discussion on apostasy one of the non-canonical logia from the Gospel of Thomas. (That was fun!)

As we discussed a wee bit about early Gnostic Christians (which came up because of Paul's warnings in 1 Timothy which appear to be directed at the Gnostics), a class member brought up that Gnostics and Mormons seem to have in common the view that secret knowledge exists for the initiated which is necessary to salvation.

I also pointed out the numerous distinct dissimilarities between Gnostic and Mormon thought.

I am interested in hearing from board members of all religious points of view.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

If you are goung to spend any serious time in such investigation, I suggest you get hold of a copy

of the Jesus Seminar's "Five Gospels," which cross-references Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Thomas.

You need not concur with those scholars' opinions on the "red letter" Jesus quotations in order to make

good use of the volume.

The basis for Thomas and for parts of Matthew and Luke are the "Q sayings of Jesus." In Thomas we

have these sayings preserved in a gnostic matrix -- in the latter two gospels we have them preserved

in a Pauline/Petrine matrix. Matthew and Luke present their message as a narration of events that

reads much like a story and a little like a history. But only short segments of Thomas are set in such

narrative format. Thomas was not meant to serve as a witness and a tool for evangelism as the synoptic

gospels were. Thomas is something else -- a road-map to inner spiritual discovery.

Although their two messages are nearly antithetical, Thomas resembles the gospel of John in its intent;

in its possible effect upon the reader, when taken even in very short passages.

The main problem the modern reader faces is trying to separate the "Q sayings" of Thomas from the

gnostic overlay. Jesus was not a gnostic (in the classical sense of the term) -- and the text of Thomas

tends to distort the underlying Jesus teachings for unorthodox purposes. In those cases where we can

remove most of the gnosticism, and get down to the oral tradition, I think we often can encounter the

actual voice of Jesus, apart from the theologizing and evangelizing of later generations.

For me, at least, it has been a wonderful experience.

UD

.

[structurecop]

I hope Jesus doesn't turn women into men.

That's my thought on the Gospel of Thomas.

That would be a disappointing eternity, wouldn't it?

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]Jesus Seminar's [...]

I found the Jesus Seminarâ??s work to have utilized a little too much in the way of forcing preconceived notions without applying any form of meaningful methodology or scholarship.

Perhaps I need to go back and look again(?)

[consiglieri]

I hope Jesus doesn't turn women into men.

That's my thought on the Gospel of Thomas.

This brings up another interesting point, which is the extra-canonical saying by Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas which is in response to a question from his disciples as to when Jesus will come again, to which he responds, "When the two shall be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male with the female, neither male or female."

This saying seems to have a connection with the saying that you reference, gut Herr Doktor.

What I find so interesting about this is that although this saying seems to have gnostic associations, yet the author of 2 Clement accepted it as a bona fide saying of Jesus and then went so far as to attempt to give it a more orthodox interpretation:

2Clem 12:1

Let us therefore await the kingdom of God betimes in love and

righteousness, since we know not the day of God's appearing.

2Clem 12:2

For the Lord Himself, being asked by a certain person when his

kingdom would come, said, When the two shall be one, and the

outside as the inside, and the male with the female, neither male

or female.

2Clem 12:3

Now the two are one, when we speak truth among ourselves, and

in two bodies there shall be one soul without dissimulation.

2Clem 12:4

And by the outside as the inside He meaneth this: by the inside he

meaneth the soul and by the outside the body. Therefore in like

manner as thy body appeareth, so also let thy soul be manifest by

its good works.

2Clem 12:5

And by the male with the female, neither male nor female, he

meaneth this; that a brother seeing a sister should have no thought

of her as a female, and that a sister seeing a brother should not

have any thought of him as a male.

2Clem 12:6

These things if ye do, saith He, the kingdom of my father shall come.

2 Clement was a hugely influential letter in early Christianity and almost made it into the New Testament, appearing as it did, if memory serves, in the Codex Alexandrinus.

It appears, then, that the early Christian church may not only have looked at this (ultimately non-canonical) saying of Jesus as being authentic, but also that they ascribed to it an orthodox and non-gnostic interpretation.

What say you?

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

If you are goung to spend any serious time in such investigation, I suggest you get hold of a copy

of the Jesus Seminar's "Five Gospels," which cross-references Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Thomas.

For me, at least, it has been a wonderful experience.

UD

.

Thanks for the heads-up, Uncle.

I also liked what Elaine Pagels had to say in her book, "Beyond Belief," relating to the gospel of John compared with the gospel of Thomas, suggesting, as I recall, that there may have been some back and forth between these two authors, which may account for why it is only the gospel of John that singles out Thomas for a special shellacking as doubting the report of the resurrection; while at the same time it is the gospel of Thomas that singles out Thomas for special knowledge.

To the disciples: "If I tell you one of the [three] things he (Jesus) told me (Thomas), you would take up stones and throw at me."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

What say you?

--Consiglieri

I say that you should probably stop trying to elicit a meaningful contribution from me.

Or perhaps that the usage of â??maleâ? within the context of saying 114 is more-so along the lines of a partaker of the priesthood and/or some form of priesthood ordinance that requires the bonding of a woman and man so that there essentially ceases to be a woman (although there also essentially ceases to be a man as well) and they are joined through G-dâ??s power in such a way that they are no longer twain.

Or maybe Iâ??m just trying to get my post count up after my hiatus.

[Uncle Dale]

I found the Jesus Seminarâ??s work to have utilized a little too much in the way of forcing preconceived notions without applying any form of meaningful methodology or scholarship.

Perhaps I need to go back and look again(?)

What would be better, is if a less-opinionated group of scholars would go back and

compile those same five texts in a new cross-referenced volume, with commentary

of the same quality as exists in the Anchor Bible series.

Until then, the "Five Gospels" is at least a handy reference book you can purchase

at the local shopping mall in a cheap edition. It is not the best resource around on

Thomas -- but it supplies some of the needs of the new student in that regard.

There are some Thomas web-sites -- including one that helps us move from Coptic

back to the probable original Greek. Check them out.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

To the disciples: "If I tell you one of the [three] things he (Jesus) told me (Thomas), you would take up stones and throw at me."

....

You have cited one of the most mysterious and compelling passages in the text. And it occurs

in close context to an endorsement of James the Just as being Jesus' successor.

Clearly un-orthodox stuff ---- and yet, possibly it takes us closer to the original Jesus tradition

than do the parallel "who do men say tham I am" pericopes in Mark and Matthew.

The Thomas tradition here presents one of the few passages which actually reads like a narrative.

It is unusual and the compilers of the text meant it to have a special importance.

The net result?

That Jesus' teachings, apart from their usual paraphrasing within the context of Judaism, were

something remarkable and seemingly blasphemous to most of his contemporaries.

If the gnostics are right at all, then those suppressed Jesus teachings provide a way for us to

discover and encounter the Divinity that God has placed inside of us ---- not a precept that would

have been welcome in late second temple Judaism, apart from a few proto-Kabbalists, perhaps.

Not LDS godly progression -- not classical gnosticism --- not Greek theosis -- but something else.

UD

[Severian]

I hope Jesus doesn't turn women into men.

I am pretty sure he was referring to women burping, making cat-calls, using after-shave and watching the Las Vegas and Poinsettia Bowls. They would by necessity still attend Relief Society.

[Uncle Dale]

I am pretty sure he was referring to women burping, making cat-calls, using after-shave and

watching the Las Vegas and Poinsettia Bowls. They would by necessity still attend Relief Society.

The gnostic references are obscure to us, but they were understandable to the people in that religion.

Not only were women seen among them as men's equals, but the ultimate expression of our existence

was professed as transcending sexuality -- not asexual -- not bisexual -- not unisexual, but something

else. This viewpoint is part of the reason that Christian gnostics professed Mary Magdalane to be one of

the Apostles of Jesus.

The precept is not unique to gnosticism -- see also the Hermetic trans-sexuality of Mercury Trismegistus

and the wholistic spiritual entity that emerges from the union of male and female in Hindu and Buddhist

Tantra. This is not human sexuality (so the mods need not close this thread) -- it is a union that takes

us back to the fertilized ovum, which is neither male nor female, but can become either.

It is a spiritual precept so foreign to Mormonism, that I do not expect even 1% of the members of this

MB will be able to grasp its meaning.

Too bad about that, Tsuzuki -- sometimes there really are benefits to being Reorganized LDS.

Uncle Dale

.

[cinepro]

With our open canon and continuing revelation, I'm sure Church members and leaders will be open to adding authentically lost books back into the New Testament. I expect the Gospel of Thomas to come up for a vote no later than the Spring '09 conference.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Too bad about that, Tsuzuki -- sometimes there really are benefits to being Reorganized LDS.

Since 1985, anyway.

With our open canon and continuing revelation, I'm sure Church members and leaders will be open to adding authentically lost books back into the New Testament. I expect the Gospel of Thomas to come up for a vote no later than the Spring '09 conference.

If only we could get more membership to read what we already have.

[Uncle Dale]

Since 1985, anyway.

...

As my Pappy always used to say: "You've gotta know when to fold 'em," and

"magna est veritas et praevalebit."

Uncle "don't even get me going on what Mammy used to say" Dale

[Tsuzuki]

It is a spiritual precept so foreign to Mormonism, that I do not expect even 1% of the members of this

MB will be able to grasp its meaning.

It's not so foreign if you read a little bit into the concept of sealing.

Too bad about that, Tsuzuki -- sometimes there really are benefits to being Reorganized LDS.

Nothing that beats the benefits to being a paradigm pirate.

[Aquilifer]

We could read through the Gospel of Thomas the Contender and discover why Thomas was also known as Thomas Didymus! That might really touch some some debate!

[cinepro]

If only we could get more membership to read what we already have.

That never seemed to stop God in the past.

[RAIDERJO76]

I was taking a look at the coptic Gospel of Thomas the other day in preparing for my Sunday school class, and thought that I would like to ask the members of the board for their perspectives on this unusual and important book from early Christianity.

The first thing I note is that it is often considered to be a Gnostic book. On the other hand, about half of the 114-sayings of Jesus it contains can be found in the New Testament gospels, or at least appear to be variants on New Testament logia.

I managed to work into the class discussion on apostasy one of the non-canonical logia from the Gospel of Thomas. (That was fun!)

As we discussed a wee bit about early Gnostic Christians (which came up because of Paul's warnings in 1 Timothy which appear to be directed at the Gnostics), a class member brought up that Gnostics and Mormons seem to have in common the view that secret knowledge exists for the initiated which is necessary to salvation.

I also pointed out the numerous distinct dissimilarities between Gnostic and Mormon thought.

I am interested in hearing from board members of all religious points of view.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I have personally never read the Gospel of Thomas. However, I've done some research on it and it doesn't seem to have any historical value.

This is largely because of the dating of this document. The Gospel of Thomas refers of over half of the New Testament writings. It shows familiarity with fourteen or fifteen of the twenty-seven New Testament writings. As far as I know, we don't have a single Christian writing prior to A.D. 150 that includes half of the New Testament. Not only this, but the "Gospel" doesn't have any pre-Synoptic material, and it includes Johnine material. And most biblical scholars don't date the Gospel of John any earlier than the 90's!

Also, many Syrian forms show up in the Gospel of Thomas. For example, it is familiar with the Diatessaron, which was written in A.D. 175. Therefore, the Gospel of Thomas had to be written no earlier than A.D. 175. This "Gospel" contains many Syrian ideas, such as calling Thomas "Judas Thomas." Only the Syrian Church referred to Thomas as Judas Thomas. Other Syrian ideas include elitism and mysticism, as well as being into ascetics. Also, when read in Syrian, the way the 114 sayings are set up appears to be used as a memorization aid.

Also, if "Thomas Christians" existed in the first century, why don't any first century writers refer to them (as far as I know)?

The Gospel of Thomas also teaches several things contrary to what Christianity teaches. First of all, the Bible teaches that salvation is by grace, and is received through faith. It teaches that our salvation rests completely on Christ. The Gospel of Thomas, on the other hand, teaches us that we receive salvation through knowledge, and of ourselves. Second of all, the Bible teaches that Jesus died for our sins. The Gospel of Thomas teaches that He died to give us knowledge.

These are the main reasons that I have concluded that the Gospel of Thomas doesn't have any spiritual or historical value or authority.

Also, I have a question. Do you, as a Mormon, believe that a secret knowledge is necessary for salvation? If so, what is this knowledge? Thanks, God bless.

[Drewm777]

I managed to work into the class discussion on apostasy one of the non-canonical logia from the Gospel of Thomas. (That was fun!)

Not to throw off the topic at hand, but I'd love to know which one it was and how you used it.

PS Why can't I have a cool sunday school teacher? sheesh.

[structurecop]

I have personally never read the Gospel of Thomas. However, I've done some research on it and it doesn't seem to have any historical value.

This is largely because of the dating of this document. The Gospel of Thomas refers of over half of the New Testament writings. It shows familiarity with fourteen or fifteen of the twenty-seven New Testament writings. As far as I know, we don't have a single Christian writing prior to A.D. 150 that includes half of the New Testament. Not only this, but the "Gospel" doesn't have any pre-Synoptic material, and it includes Johnine material. And most biblical scholars don't date the Gospel of John any earlier than the 90's!

Also, many Syrian forms show up in the Gospel of Thomas. For example, it is familiar with the Diatessaron, which was written in A.D. 175. Therefore, the Gospel of Thomas had to be written no earlier than A.D. 175. This "Gospel" contains many Syrian ideas, such as calling Thomas "Judas Thomas." Only the Syrian Church referred to Thomas as Judas Thomas. Other Syrian ideas include elitism and mysticism, as well as being into ascetics. Also, when read in Syrian, the way the 114 sayings are set up appears to be used as a memorization aid.

You learned all this without reading it? How do you know if it's correct?

Also, I have a question. Do you, as a Mormon, believe that a secret knowledge is necessary for salvation? If so, what is this knowledge? Thanks, God bless.

Not only do I believe it, I believe Jesus taught it.

[consiglieri]

We could read through the Gospel of Thomas the Contender and discover why Thomas was also known as Thomas Didymus! That might really touch some some debate!

You mean that part about Thomas being twins with Jesus?

Yes, that is interesting.

And perhaps even more interesting is that it didn't seem to cause a problem among many early Christians!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Also, I have a question. Do you, as a Mormon, believe that a secret knowledge is necessary for salvation? If so, what is this knowledge? Thanks, God bless.

A. Yes, I do.

B. Sorry, it's secret.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You learned all this without reading it? How do you know if it's correct?

At least it is not only the Book of Mormon that suffers in this regard.

[Uncle Dale]

Also, I have a question. Do you, as a Mormon, believe that a secret knowledge is necessary for salvation?

If so, what is this knowledge? Thanks, God bless.

I cannot answer for the Mormons -- but can make a statement as a 6th generation Latter Day Saint.

My profession is that there is no extra knowledge nor doctrine necessary for acceptance by God our

Father, which is not already made clear in the biblical scriptures.

There are, however, different pathways for different people and I believe that some of Jesus' inner

group of disciples were made aware of a reality not commonly perceived by most people. Such an

experience on their part did not make them any better, nor any more accepted than are other followers

of Jesus and his gospel --- that knoweldge/experience DID, however, provide them with special callings,

responsibilities, and perhaps was a part of why the early apostles laid claim to extraordinary spiritual

gifts. Do I believe that the Gospel of Thomas provides the path by which we today obtain that same

extraordinary position in the Kingdom of God? In a word, no.

The book is a relatively late compilation, which overlays a preserved oral Jesus tradition. However,

as I said previously in this thread, that gnostic overlay has warped the original Jesus message to such

an extent as to render the net results heterodox -- unreliable for doctrine.

There are numerous gems of spiritual wisdom preserved within the text -- but separating them from

their later gnostic setting is a difficult and problematic task. The truly useful parts of the text are

already canonized in their parallel passages, as given in Matthew and Luke. What little remains, beyond

that canonized portion, which is original Jesus material, is fragmentary and unnecessary for any

supplement to modern Christianity.

Readers like myself, however, find clues in Thomas which assist us in making sense of certain parts

of the Jesus story told in the canonical gospels. For that sort of use, Thomas is a priceless resource.

Uncle Dale

.