Did Thomas write Thomas?

[Keith P]

Taken from: http://egina.blogspot.com/

"When you know yourselves, you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father."

I've been re-reading Jeremy Puma's extraordinary manuscript, The Face of Heaven and Earth, which is slated to go to press in May. Of course any discussion of a Gnostic Gospel is topical these days, with an irritatingly disproportionate attention paid to the dating of such texts. The reasoning goes, if it wasn't written in the first century then it can't have been written by the person who claims to be the author, and therefore is unreliable. All that matters, the thinking goes, is authorship, not content, and authorship is entirely authenticated by date.

[We'll have to set aside the illogic of this insistence, at least for the time being, as yet another instance of psychic literalists putting all their eggs in one basket (at their peril).]

Dr. Elaine Pagels, currently in the crosshairs of an ad hominem attack by modern-day Iranaeuses, suggests that Thomas may have influenced John, and we know John was around in 130 because we have one. But Pagels may be wrong; she readily admits this is conjecture (let's not get dragged into this belittling of her scholarship and play into the hands of the New Inquisitors, okay?).

We should bear in mind the following;

1) The basic story of the canonical Gospels predates the biblical scenarios by millennia

2) The words attributed to Jesus in the NT are mostly paraphrasing of the Old Testament, and in numerous instances, quotes of Socrates


Because we're firmly in the realm of myth here, repetition of themes is to be expected. It's okay. The origins of the material in no way make it less spiritually resonant. It is what it is.

So did Thomas write Thomas? Was there really a series of secret conversations between John the Apostle and Jesus resulting in The Gospel of Thomas?

No.

Judas didn't write Judas either. These texts authors weren't trying to fool anybody; they were using a literary technique common in the ancient world of employing known characters to convey wisdom tradition. It's not history, it wasn't meant to be history, and the first audiences of this material were smart enough to realize that.

The first audiences of Mark were probably smart enough to realize it, too.

As I said, any discussion of these texts is met with the refutation that the Gnostic Gospels are too late to accurately describe their events as history (assuming that they were meant to do so, which they weren't), and that the canonical Gospels are first-century eyewitness accounts. I accept that this is accepted by the majority of biblical scholars. I also accept that it's based on... absolutely nothing.

We don't have any first century canonical Gospels. We don't have any first century mention of any first century Gospels. We have Paul, and evidence of first-century oral transmission. And that's it.

There are two writers who at first glance appear to be potentially useful for determining which (canonical) gospels were in circulation by the early second century. First, it appears possible that Ignatius of Antioch was familiar with Matthew when he wrote his letters around 110 C.E. In various passages, Ignatius seems to allude to the gospel, although he does not mention it explicitly. Most of these passages, however, are vague references at best and could easily be the result of oral tradition. Also, careful examination of the Matthew-Ignatius parallels reveals an interesting trend. Ignatius has an overwhelming preference for material found in Matthew, but not the other synoptics. This excessive familiarity with special M material has suggested to some that Ignatius may have known a source of Matthew rather than the gospel itself.

Second, Papias of Hierapolis mentioned writings by Matthew and Mark in his five volume Oracles of the Lord Explained around 130 C.E. ... Thus, it is not certain that Papias was describing either canonical Matthew or Mark...

Three gospels must have been written after 70 C.E.; how long after is anybody’s guess. Two gospels must have been written before the end of the first half of the second century C.E.; how long before is anybody’s guess.

[Keith P]

The arguments for ignoring the evidence and dating all the canonical gospels in the first century are as follows:

1) Everbody else does.

2) Ummm... shut up.


A defense of the orthodox take is here, but every argument made can be countered with a Q. If late-first-century Christians over here agree with late-first-century Christians over there, it does not prove that they all found Gideons in their hotel rooms; rather it suggests access to a common source (or sources) of oral material.

The Gnostic Gospels don't matter because they're contemporary with the canonical Gospels (which they are), they matter because they're beautiful. Because they speak to the imagination and our nascent recognition of the indwelling Divine. Not because they happened (they didn't), but because they are Real.

[/\/{Jubyl}\/\]

Originally Posted by Keith P

Taken from: http://egina.blogspot.com/

We should bear in mind the following;

1) The basic story of the canonical Gospels predates the biblical scenarios by millennia

2) The words attributed to Jesus in the NT are mostly paraphrasing of the Old Testament, and in numerous instances, quotes of Socrates

OK. I think I see and understand where you're coming from about the Gnostics, and for the most part agree. And most scholars of any school or faith would probably agree with #2 above. But I'm not sure what #1 is trying to claim and what basis it would take to make it. Any further thoughts? Have you read the Gnostic gospels yourself?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Keith P

The arguments for ignoring the evidence and dating all the canonical gospels in the first century are as follows:

1) Everbody else does.

2) Ummm... shut up.


A defense of the orthodox take is here, but every argument made can be countered with a Q. If late-first-century Christians over here agree with late-first-century Christians over there, it does not prove that they all found Gideons in their hotel rooms; rather it suggests access to a common source (or sources) of oral material.

The Gnostic Gospels don't matter because they're contemporary with the canonical Gospels (which they are), they matter because they're beautiful. Because they speak to the imagination and our nascent recognition of the indwelling Divine. Not because they happened (they didn't), but because they are Real.

The gnostic gospels don't matter as documents of faith because they are not documents of faith - denying the divinity of Christ denies what Christians believe

They are very interesting, fascinating in parts but they are rightly excluded from the Christian cannon because they deny the primary presumption of the faith.

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by xian

The gnostic gospels don't matter as documents of faith because they are not documents of faith - denying the divinity of Christ denies what Christians believe

They are very interesting, fascinating in parts but they are rightly excluded from the Christian cannon because they deny the primary presumption of the faith.

I can't disagree with you on those points actually. I feel that Neo-Gnosticism should rightfully reclaim its pagan/Greek etc. origins and leave the post-Nicean world w/ their definition of Christianity.

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by /\/{Jubyl}\/\

OK. I think I see and understand where you're coming from about the Gnostics, and for the most part agree. And most scholars of any school or faith would probably agree with #2 above. But I'm not sure what #1 is trying to claim and what basis it would take to make it. Any further thoughts? Have you read the Gnostic gospels yourself?

The first point I've posted about alot.

This has to do w/ the fact that Christian themes were already present in the Horus myth/Egyptian religion, Roman mythology/Greek mythology, Zoastrianism, and the mystery cults.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Keith P

I can't disagree with you on those points actually. I feel that Neo-Gnosticism should rightfully reclaim its pagan/Greek etc. origins and leave the post-Nicean world w/ their definition of Christianity.

I think you hit the fundamental split there Keith.

The gnostic gospels have great value - it is in placing them in the right place that seems to create the problem.

clean your PMs

[/\/{Jubyl}\/\]

Originally Posted by Keith P

The first point I've posted about alot.

This has to do w/ the fact that Christian themes were already present in the Horus myth/Egyptian religion, Roman mythology/Greek mythology, Zoastrianism, and the mystery cults.

what would that be? the golden rule? If that's the case, you forgot Hammurabi.

What is a Christian theme?
[not being sarcastic, just wondering what your take is]

[Hey Bubu]

Originally Posted by /\/{Jubyl}\/\

What is a Christian theme?
[not being sarcastic, just wondering what your take is]

You are born with sin
only through the sacrifice of christ can you be saved

There's an old man in the sky angry at you and he will send you to hell if you don't believe in him and his triad.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Keith P

The first point I've posted about alot.

This has to do w/ the fact that Christian themes were already present in the Horus myth/Egyptian religion, Roman mythology/Greek mythology, Zoastrianism, and the mystery cults.

should it surprise that different religions whether they have direct contact, indirect or none should arrive at a common set of principals that are useful to direct an oderly and moral society?

[Hey Bubu]

Originally Posted by xian

should it surprise that different religions whether they have direct contact, indirect or none should arrive at a common set of principals that are useful to direct an oderly and moral society?

But is the intent for these religions to only direct an orderly and moral society?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by TypeH

But is the intent for these religions to only direct an orderly and moral society?

don't know = however it does appear to work that way whatever their intent may have been

[Hey Bubu]

Originally Posted by xian

don't know = however it does appear to work that way whatever their intent may have been

fair enough

[Hey Bubu]

Originally Posted by xian

The gnostic gospels don't matter as documents of faith because they are not documents of faith - denying the divinity of Christ denies what Christians believe

They are very interesting, fascinating in parts but they are rightly excluded from the Christian cannon because they deny the primary presumption of the faith.

Translation: They do not fit within the model of the people who thought up the rules and intent of religion, LONG after Jesus died.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by TypeH

Translation: They do not fit within the model of the people who thought up the rules and intent of religion, LONG after Jesus died.

I wouldn't translate ot that way.

Are we discussing why the Gnostic Gospels are in the bible?