Talk:Gospel of Thomas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mar Toma collection

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

Proposed link

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

Two additional references that could be added?

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

Why a link to a bible study group?

Jesus Seminar? Why is that in the article? I will not edit the main page myself but if I did I would flag the reference to the J Seminar as a plug for an agenda driven organization. If that group shows up here should then every other bible study group that ever was show up on every other wiki page concerning Christianity? It seems to me that the J Seminar link was inserted to draw people to the other page where J Seminar has their article on their own view of the 'real' history. If that link is retained does the G of Tom. page now need links to other pages that present other traditional or non-traditional views of 'true' Jesus?

To me such pages on the arguments between 'historians' and 'religious scholars' should be separate from an article explaining the existence of specific texts. Such discussions of the conflicts between various interpretations of artifact and manuscript can become battles between competing agendas and ideologies. These kinds of 'battles' deserve their own pages. Given the caustic nature that bible 'discussions' can take when skeptics just choose to confuse, and the offense that faithful may have concerning the pronouncements of groups claiming to know 'true history', and that Christians have been subject to pogroms for their beliefs by politically Atheistic organizations which employ playful dialectical imperialism: any claim to 'true historical' Jesus by a group seems as an activity to proselytize Atheism. Such discussions do not belong on a page about an historic text without a balance of opposing views. A separate page, a different article, could be created. That would be the link here (instead of a link to the very narrow J seminar page). The new page would have the link to the J seminar page, and any other group of bible studiers. Then you would also link in arguments from various other organizations such as Christian Theologians of all stripes. You might even include a page that contains an historical discussion of the suppression of Christianity within various societies and political cultures. Or how about a page on the psychology of Atheism and the views of Christians concerning Atheists?

Galatians 2

The Galatians two article mentioned under one of the subsections really doesn't seem to have anything to do with proving James rather than Peter to be the head of the Church as is mentioned in the Gospel of Thomas. If it's a quote, it should be quoted. As is it is just the writer's opinion.

"Sexism and 114"

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)

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.

---

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)

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

---

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)

The canonical "Twelve"

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

Flowery language, (put politely)

"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.

The modern title

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)

Parable of the lost sheep

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.

GoT as "Gnostic"

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.

"Transliteration"

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)

Uninformed POV

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)

Cornerstone/Keystone

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)

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.

verse 114

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.

"authoritativeness"

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. [1][2][3] Also, some scholars see the Gospel of Thomas being very unlike the others Gospels and cite its lack of a resurrection of Jesus. [4]

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)

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.

Marcion

"::::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.

Coloring-book "History"?

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)

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)

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.

Mary, rather than Mary-Magdalena

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Synoptic Gospels

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)

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

Deletion of geocities link

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)

Use of CE

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)

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)

Comparison of The Gospel of Thomas to the New Testament

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)

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

Gnosticism template

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)

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.

Early/late camp unattributed bit

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)

geocities advaita vedanta

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)

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

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)

cleanup tag

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

NPOV issues

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

Scholars and Fundies

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)

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)

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)

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.

Unsubstansiated comments

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.

Uhh, what?

"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.

Starting some in-text notes

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)

"Apostles" vs. "Disciples"

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)

No, Gospel according to Thomas is the ancient title

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)

"Citation Needed"

...Apparently at some recent time a Christian priest came through and littered this article with roughly fourteen billion "citation needed" tags. This seems excessive. 128.2.247.61 06:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, I could have deleted about half the article, as being unsourced original research (or in many cases, simply as gratuitous assertions), but I thought before doing so it was only fair to give those who put those unsourced assertions an opportunity to source them first. If you have a problem with any given example in which I have identified an unsourced assertion of fact, then please lay them on the table. Frjohnwhiteford 11:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations not forthcoming

I think enough time has passed, and since much of the claims in this article remain unsourced, they should be deleted as original research. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added citations to some of the material. I have also changed some things that were inaccurate. I wish I had more time and resources to really do this article justice, and I apologize that these have been tagged for so long and still I hadn't worked on it earlier. Hopefully my recent edits have improved the article.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Significance of dated material secondary to philosophical underpinnings of the Church

The issue of the date is really inconsequential in comparison to the teaching of the Gospel of Thomas which is in fundamental opposition to the apostolic teachings. It is much more of a theological argument that is broader than the erroneous philosophical assumption that the most precedent event is somehow the source of truth concerning written material. One can not take the precedence of God as the sole validity of His authority and/or especially make a false analogy between God as original source and original source document and subsequently ascribe theological validity to the source because of its place in time. There were plenty of religious writing before the Christian gospel but it would be erroneous to ascribe them as the predecessor to the Christian faith. The Gospel of Thomas is apocrypha because the Church fathers did not accept it in the cannon; it is a matter of apostolic authority not literary precedence. To avoid human authority on these matters, i.e. those selected via divine grace to pastor the faithful is to be in rebellion according to Catholic tradition. No literature can stand apart from the living. In many instances it is simply easier for Gnostics to deal with 'dead letters' rather than a living human authority placed over them namely the Catholic bishops. Obedience to authority is a fundamental trait of humility and piety found in many religions without which theological scholarship is vain. The significance here is to remind the reader of the necessity of staying cognizant of the philosophical comprehension of the Christen and Catholic position in regards to these matters. The Nicene Creed for instance which is still recited in every high Catholic Mass reads in part "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life , who proceeds from the Father and the Son, with the Father and the Son he is worship and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets." Subsequently to discredit the canon gospels is to go against God to ones own detriment. It was written to consolidate the Catholic teachings in response to Gnostic and other heretical positions. This is Catholicism, the Bible is the Churches Book, one cannot dictate to the Church what will be cannon and what will not. It is worthy on behalf of the enterprising student of Catholic teachings to keep in mind two very important points. One is that the Church is held accountable for the souls i.e. "lives" in their charge, thus heretical teachings that can lead souls astray are very dangerous. Second, many so called scholars of Catholic theology are dismissive of the Catholic or Christian faith due to a presumption of familiarity with faith which is prohibitive due the largeness of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.251.140 (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what is the purpose of this comment? Does it support the Catholic Church as the orthodox determiner of canon or not? I can't figure out what this comment is trying to say in reference to The Gospel of Thomas. In my view, what the Catholic Church says about The Gospel of Thomas is mostly irrelevant since it is all baised against Thomas.Gregory Wonderwheel (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A gnostic text; Brill trans. of saying 66

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)

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)

Please forgive me if this entry was made incorrectly. I have developed a strong desire to understand the differences between Orthodoxy (I am Protestant)and Gnosticism. In the process of studying, I have made Wikipedia a helpful source. While reading this particular article it seemed that; whether or not GoT was written before the Four is irrelevant, in as much as Orthodoxy and Gnoticism are completly opposite. It seems that the real issue is not necessarily when GoT was written (because there is much support that the Four were already extant and could make similar claims - see Pauline Letters which were dated 50-65) as much as whether GoT is Gnostic or not. By definition any writing which refers to Jesus Christ in a dualist light: Jesus was a human man and Christ was 'above' the material and a seperate entity, IS Gnostic. Whether Gnostics (see entry above - posted 15 July 2006)existed when doesn't matter. Using a corny play on words, "If it looks Gnostic, walks Gnostic, sounds Gnostic, then its Gnostic." ... I do ask if a kind soul can offer suggestions to further my learning please point me in the right direction. 97.89.168.81 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree because your argument is fallicious in the sense that you dispute the definition of Gnosticism on the criteria of whether there was a sect who actively believed the ideology rather than Gnosticism being an stand-alone ideology that is a priori. Both definitions are usable though one cannot interchange them. I believe that the latter of the two definitions I described is the one being used for this article; the GoT is a Gnostic text (containing concepts that are considered Gnostic and core to the ideology of Gnosticism). —Lehel 21:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to ascribe Gnosticiam to the GoT. Jesus was from a family that was a member of the Essene community of Nazareth near Mt. Carmal. The picture of Jesus that comes from even the cannonical gospels is that he was raised according to Essene community values of communal living, babtism, education in the scriptures as a child, and opposition to the Sadducies and Pharasees. Any oontact that Jesus had with the Hellenistic mystery schools prior to his period of active teaching does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that he joined or adopted any doctrine of those schools. It is fully plausible, and in my view more probable, that Jesus's enlightenment experience had nothing to do with gnostic tradition per se, but was well within the prophetic tradition of Judaism and expecially the Essene tradition within Judaism. Fasting and meditation are sufficient practices for awakening experiences as evidenced by the GoT. Jesus's entire period of public teaching shows the work of a reforming Essene who, while building upon the Essene foundation, wanted to take his insights out of the limiting context of the Essene community into the wider community of Juaism and the world. The GoT is a document of direct insight, often called mystical insight, and shows that Jesus was communicating his insight in a manner using the Jewish cultrual imagery of "Father", "Kingdom", "Heaven", etc., as well as the common metaphors of every day life such as vineyards, houses, suckling children, snakes, doves, etc. None of Jesus's insight as described in the GoT is dependent on either philosophical or institutional Gnosticism. The GoT contains as many or more concepts that are considered Zen as much Gnostic, but that does not make it a Zen text any more or less than is can be called a Gnostic text. True insight and its expression will share the mystic perspective of all insight, whether it is Gnostic, Sufi, or Zen, or as in the case of Jesus, coming from within the Essene context. Gregory Wonderwheel (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

---

• 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)

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)

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.

Your assertion regarding interpretation of the GOT is basically correct, however incomplete. There are Christian sects that don't believe in "original sin" or your concept of "eden" etc. While you're correct in a fundamentally "Roman"-derived manner, your statement ignores the broader spectrum of overall Christianity. I know that Mormons in particular, as well as many other "Restorationist" sects, would have a very different interpretation of those select verses than either the accepted Gnostic view or your stated interpretations. I just want to make sure we're keeping a well-rounded perspective on this article. Our goals are the same, I'm just hpoing to clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.104.144.250 (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Pharisee, you are correct that we interpret the GoT in accordance with our perspecrtive. But there is also the importance of using the text as the standard of interpretation. For example, there is nothing about "Eden", "God" or "original sin" in the GoT text. Those are all additions of interpretation supplied by an orthodox Christian perspective having nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus as revealed in the text itself. For instance, the word for "god" or "gods" (Coptic: "noute") occurs twice in GoT, in Sayings 30 and 100, and in both instances it is very ambiguous in what sense Jesus is using the word. It is as likely as not that the word "god" is being used in the pagan sense rather than in the Hebrew sense. Jesus invariably uses the term "Father" (Coptic: "eiwt`") rather than "God" ("noute") when stating his own teaching, so any interpretation of the GoT must provide a reasonable explanation of why Jesus didn't use "God" and instead used "Father" for teaching his insights to others. I submit that the place to start is in recognizing that doctrines or dogmas such as "God" or "original sin" held absolutely no interest at all for Jesus. In the GoT there is no God dolling out "mercy" or any other decisions about us humans. Jesus teaches that it is our insight that gives us entry to the Kingdom. As Saying 3 instructs, it is by knowing ourselves that we realize we are children of a living Father, not by belief in dogma or doctrine. Gregory Wonderwheel (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Unverified claims, and opinioins disguised as facts

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)

It would help when making comments like this to indicate specifically what you think is an "opinion" masquerading as an "assertion of fact." Otherwise I don't know if your assertion itself is a fact or an opinion. Gregory Wonderwheel (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Ecumenical Coptic Project's Metalogos Home Page a reliable source?

I am not seeing anything on this web site that would indicate that this is a reliable source. Unless someone can show how it conforms to Wikipedia:Verifiability, these references, and the claims based on them should be removed. Even the name of the web site is suspect, given the contents. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Christ"

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 [5]or [6]

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.

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 highly doubt that evolution is "fact" as there is no concrete evidence to prove such a statement. It is appropriately named a theory. It appears very suspicious that the majority of the texts which were found with the GofT were all dated around the 200-300 AD. There are older references to these texts but there are not many manuscripts. Whereas many of the gospels in the cannon have many manuscripts, some dating earlier than 200 AD. It is a genuine document form around the 200 AD but it seems highly doubtful that it originated by Thomas or during his lifetime. 23/03/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.38.153 (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

The internal evidence of the Coptic manuscript is that it is a translation of a pre-existing Semitic language text. I don't remember if I got this from Grondin's notes on the text or where but the lack of a conjunction in the first line of Saying 6 is called an “asyndeton” and is characteristic of Semitic languages and indicates a Semitic text as the source material since the conjunction occurs in Greek and Coptic languages. I do not think that there is any possible way to determine the date of the Semitic text since it no longer exists. But I would not go so far as to say one can't speculate when the original text was written. I view the lack of reference to Jesus as "the Christ" as providing internal evidence that the original text was written down prior to the "christization" of Jesus. Also, I view the opening sentence as a claim that the Coptic copyist accepted that the Semitic text was written by Thomas. That allows for speculation, but of course not certainty. Just because we can't be certain doesn't mean we can't have a best guestimate. Gregory Wonderwheel (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Removing article-wide OR tag

Much of the article now has reasonably good citations. I would suggest that anyone concerned about OR remaining in the article apply the tag to individual sections or sentences. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar

It doesn't make any sense to include the evaluation of the Jesus seminar of the text in this article. That properly belongs under an article for the Jesus seminar itself. It would be sensible to put this information in the article for the Jesus Seminar and note that the Jesus seminar had some thoughts and provide a link to that page. As it is provides undue emphasis to a particular group of scholars, and thus is essentially POV.Ekwos (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've looked at the article, at this talk page and the archived talk page. There is one entry in the archive about NPOV. Nothing else in talkpage that appears to justify the tag on the article. No doubt some scholars and experts might want to add some content or revise other bits, but at the very least, the NPOV tag should be removed from the start of the article and placed before any sections someone has concern about. I am coming at this just as a reader of the article. I think whomever put the NPOV tag on should explain why, move it to the appropriate section, or it should be removed. Let's give it a few days and see. Fremte (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Theology of Gospel of Thomas

I am a little concerned about this section, which seems to have no citations. I had difficulty drawing the writer's conclusions about GoT's theology from my own copy of the gospel. I'm new to Wikipedia editing and haven't yet found out how to enter the "citation needed" tag, so I apologise for just making this comment and not editing the actual text.--Guanche Lady (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Later - I have discovered how to request citations and have done so in the section that concerns me. However, I continue to be concerned that this section may be personal opinion of the editor.--Guanche Lady (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Many editors have struggled over this article for many months, as the page history will show you. It is not yet perfect. It is discourteous to pepper a section you disapprove of with demands for citations. Why not contribute a sentence or two summarizing a published article of which you do approve, with citations? It would show that you have a collegial side as well. --Wetman (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am so sorry that my requests for citations came across as demanding and discourteous. I am not a Gospel of Thomas scholar and was referring to this article in order to discover something more about it. It was as someone consulting the encyclopedia that I expressed my concern. --Guanche Lady (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the problem of proper citations, this section contains much speculative information. All of it is based on the assumption that the Gospel of Thomas as a Gnostic text, which is disputed. Looking at the text itself, there is nothing to indicate that it is in fact a Gnostic text in terms of its theology or its metaphysics; these are assumptions made by scholars who were too quick to label it a gnostic text. This section needs revision to take into account other perspectives; otherwise, it is entirely inadequate and outdated in its scholarship. --Rabble Rouser —Preceding undated comment added 06:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC).

More than that, this section reads like an essay for an undergrad theology class, peppered with opinion and speculation and with entirely inadequate citation. The fact that it includes a rudimentary bibliography at the end makes me think that it in fact was someone's essay. Thelatinist (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Early vs. Late Camp

Which camp is larger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.202.208 (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The late camp dominates - in both conservative and liberal circles. However, this is not the impression the article (or most peoples internet polemics) echoes.--Ari89 (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The late camp dominated early, but Thiessen and Merz survey scholars in the field, present both sides, and show the early camp to have the preponderance of evidence. Leadwind (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Gnostic tag?

The Gospel of Thomas is not generally acknowledged by scholars as a Gnostic text. A number of scholars have made this assumption. Critics from within Christianity have labelled it a Gnostic gospel, but this charge may have been merely an attempt to discredit it and label it as a heresy. It is very possible that the Gospel of Thomas is a gospel that has a claim on par with that of the canonical gospels to being an accurate representation of the words of Jesus. The text may have been rejected not because it was not accurate but rather because competing groups within Christianity sought to ensure that their perspective on Jesus would be the official one. The Gospel of Thomas does not present Jesus as an immaculately-conceived, miracle-performing, death-defying incarnation of God, but rather as a wise teacher who sought to show his disciples their own inner divinity. --Rabble Rouser —Preceding undated comment added 06:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC).

About one third of the sayings are Gnostic, one third to a half parallel those found in the canonical gospels whilst the remainder are independent traditions that are not demonstrably unorthodox but could be read 'gnostically'. As it is generally seen by most people (in my opinion) as a gnostic gospel, and it exhibits gnosticism in what is probably a primitive form, I do not see an issue with the gnostic tag. With regard for your reason of rejection, it is a very weak hypothesis.--Ari89 (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

G of Thomas is close to gnosticism but isn't the full-fledged gnosticism of 2nd centuries writers. "Gnostic" isn't a "charge," it's a neutral, scholarly description. G of John is close to gnosticism, too, albeit in a different interpretation. Leadwind (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Gospel of Thomas Christians

Who were the Christians who looked to G. of Thomas as their record of Jesus' teachings? Gentiles, it would seem. If Gentiles, did they derive from Paul's Gentile mission? Or do they represent a Gentile branch of Christianity separate from Paul's missions? If they don't talk about Jesus being resurrected, they can hardly come from Paul's churches. But if they're separate, where did they even come from? Was there someone besides Paul who taught that you could join Jesus' church without converting to Judaism first? Leadwind (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Stigmata

The film Stigmata, which was seen by huge audiences world-wide, should be included in this article. Calling it "off topic" is simply arrogant. Most people in the world sadly know about the Gospel of Thomas only from this film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minutae (talk • contribs) 00:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Not those who read Wikipedia. Few reputable editors throw about the word "arrogant": vacuous name-calling helps nothing. The fact is, the reference is marginal in that it adds nothing to the authentically curious reader's understanding of the subject: that is the criterion of "relevance". The use made of the Gospel of Thomas in the film Stigmata might render its inclusion marginally useful, if it can be supported by a cited reference. --Wetman (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, you're own comment is so heavily packed with highfalutin phrases ("few REPUTABLE editors", "the AUTHENTICALLY curious reader", even claiming in God-like fashion to hold "THE criterion" of what is relevant), that you couldn't blame any man for using the term "arrogant" in response. But if we can get down to earth, please, Wikipedia is not a website for biblical scholars, it's also for normal people who have what you might term a normal background and a normal curiosity. Placing a subject within the scope of common experience is useful to most people, and certainly its place in popular culture should not simply be ignored. It you need a cited reference, a Google-search will yield several thousand to pick from, for instance http://www.happinessquest.com/stigmata.html. --Minutae (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

At Amazon.com, one review of The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus starts: "This book is still on my shelf after many years. My mother is Catholic and I asked her to read it .. what got me to read the book was the movie Stigmata." Not a singular example, as a Google-search will reveal. --Minutae (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that this is misplaced at the beginning of an article. Would it be better placed like this? Gnostic_gospels#References_in_popular_culture Plasmasphere (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Star of Bethlehem

” Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem , though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, “What is the answer to this riddle?”

Here is the answer to my question. The prophet Micah was an astrologer who lived in what is now Afghanistan. This prophecy, “among the thousands” refers to the stars in the heavens. Modern theologians throw out the baby with the bathwater, dismissing all the infancy stories as mythical.

The father of Astronomy, Johannes Kepler, in 1603, identified the Star of Bethlehem as a triple Conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces and said astrologers of that time would, in fact, would have interpreted that rare astrological phenomenon as signifying the birth of a very great king in the land of Israel. German archeologists in 1927 excavated the Magi astrology school at Sipper, near Babylon, and found the daily clay tablets that recorded their fascinated observation of that rare stellar event. The event occurred again, two thousand years later, October 12, 1940, as predicted by the astrologer, and Prophet Daniel, in this location. Dan 8:9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land

Johannes Kepler, proved the earth and planets circled the sun in elliptical paths and defied the false teaching of the Catholic Church, who claimed the earth was the center of the. Universe. Johannes set order to the universe and sailors could navigate by stars. They no longer sailed off the earth.

The Magi simply had to go to the land of Israel and inquire who was born at this time, in this place? As astrologers, They knew the longitude and latitude, or birth location.

They had seen the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces. Mars was also there. With the planets aligned they appeared as a large star that pointed to the birth site. Once found, they encountered a problem. Who was firstborn?

The Magi were surprised to find twins. Jesus was firstborn.

Mt 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

Christ Didymus Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.87.144 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

new edit proposal to lead

I've removed the following for further editing an discussion:

Although called a Gospel, this document is not part of the Bible and is not approved by major Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church. It is used by scholars for historical research, but not as part of Liturgy or worship by the majority of Christians. Some Christian authors view it as including material that conflicts with the New Testament. The views expressed in this document show no concern for doctrines such as "God", "original sin", "divinity of Jesus", "atonement", "final judgement" etc.

While minor, I do not believe the placement in the lead (2nd paragraph) was appropriate. It didn't correspond with the article structure, and seemed to give (undue) prominence to the topic. Additionally, there are some POV issues, and accuracy issues. If 100% of this objectionable content was found in sources, then we have used poor sources, or phrased the matter in a non-NPOV way (such as lacking POV attribution). Onto specifics. "Although called a Gospel" is simply not necessary. It leads the reader, and seems to connote that it isn't a gospel, and is incorrectly "called" such. Saying it is "not part of the Bible" is problematic, and I feel it would be better conveyed as saying that all (if not virtually all?) modern denominations do not consider it canonical. It isn't clear to me why the Catholic Church is singled out. I also find it problematic to say "Some Christian authors view it..." because I believe it is almost universally agreed, even among non-Christians, that Thomas has significant differences with other gospels. I'm ok with the last sentence. I believe, minor modifications, and a change in paragraph order would be all that is needed to address these concerns. We should all keep in mind that you don't own the content you contribute, and that it will likely be modified by others. I am not doing any of this in bad faith, and hopefully we can continue working together productively without hard feelings. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did I even bother to read or edit this article? I came across it when I started to clean up the miracles/parables pages. Two or three weeks ago I had no idea what the Gospel of Thomas was. I felt confused when I saw it in parables because I thought Thomas may have a Gospel like Luke. And I have created over 100 Wikipedia articles on Christianity, so if I feel confused, many people will. I also saw that HighinAZ on the parables template was confused by it, so I started to figure out what this Gospel was. The article totally failed to inform me upfront. So I decided to clarify it:

• To start with many people will not know what New Testament apocryphon means and may think it is an addition to the New Testament, but it is not. So that fact needed to be clarifies ASAP in the next 1 or 2 paragraphs of the article.

• This document was not found in a library. Various places say Nag Hammadi Library, and at first I thought it was a library. It is not. It was found by farmers in a field. So I added that clearly, with a photo.

• This document is NOT part of the Bible as most people understand the terms Bible and Gospel. This needs to be said clearly and upfront. So I said that clearly. And it is as true as a fact can get. Do you have a problem with clear statements? Is it bold? No, it is a clear statement that needs to be made upfront.

• Then I thought it was just a collection of parables that matched the Canonical Gospels. Afterwards, further in the article I read that: The Gospel of Thomas shows no concern for doctrines such as "God", "original sin", "Christ", "divinity," etc. As usual this statement had NO reference, and was just sitting there. So I said, is it true? I did a few searches and found specific references that confirmed that. So I added that with the references. Is it bold to have references? Given the sad state of quality that exists in many articles you may think references are bold, but I do not. The statement that: this document show no concern for doctrines such as "God", "original sin", "divinity of Jesus", "atonement", "final judgement" etc. is fully referenced, repeated in several references if you want to check and a key fact that needs to be mentioned to the reader who is not a theologist. That fact was useful to me to understand what this document is like and it will be to others. It must be there upfront, for it was burried in the middle of the document and one should not wait for other farmers to dig it up from Wikipedia.

• Then I thought: "who uses this? Is it part of Liturgy?" The answer was no. So that needs to be clarified upfront. It is important to know who uses this document.

• Next I have to clarify the word incipit for most readers will not know what it is. Readers do not get off on the weight of words, but need clarity upfront.

So what on earth is bold about simple facts, expressed in simple terms, with references? It seems that referenced text is now called bold! Give me a break! History2007 (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

There is nothing wrong with an bold edit, per se. We should make bold edits. Bold edits are just edits that aren't minor. That said, I have to agree with Andrew that if new edits are reverted, WP:BRD shows that they should be dicussed without being reverted first, no matter how great and referenced they are. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 06:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Now they have even been changed. This was not a bold edit anyway, just clarification. He himself characterized it as minor as he started. And they are fine as clarifications. As is this article is full of junk sentences with no refs. It needs major clean up yet. History2007 (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hoping to give a Third opinion, it seems to me there have been 3 main changes to the intro up to now ...

1. Adding:

“ The work comprises 114 numbered sayings attributed to Jesus, many of them composites of multiple sayings. Some of these sayings resemble those found in the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), while others were not known until its discovery. ”

2. Adding:

“ This document is not approved by major Christian denominations and is not part of their Bibles. It is used by scholars for historical research, but not as part of Liturgy or worship by the majority of Christians. Most Christian authors view it as including material that conflicts with the New Testament. The views expressed in this document show no concern for doctrines such as "God", "original sin", "divinity of Jesus", "atonement", "final judgement" etc. ”

3. Rearanging the intro a lot.

Andrew c says:

• User talk:Andrew c says "Although called a Gospel" is simply not necessary. It leads the reader, and seems to connote that it isn't a gospel, and is incorrectly "called" such.

I agree with History2007 to include "Although called a Gospel" It is not a work in the litary form of a gospel. It does have has something in common with gospels thou-- content. We should add "Although called a 'gospel'..." back in.

• User talk:Andrew c says "Saying it is "not part of the Bible" is problematic, and I feel it would be better conveyed as saying that all (if not virtually all?) modern denominations do not consider it canonical.
• and User talk:Andrew c says It isn't clear to me why the Catholic Church is singled out.
• and User talk:Andrew c says I also find it problematic to say "Some Christian authors view it..." because I believe it is almost universally agreed, even among non-Christians, that Thomas has significant differences with other gospels.

I agree with History2007 that "not part of the Bible" is good, but could be better.

I, like Andrew c, also find it problematic to say Some Christian authors view it..." or to single out the Catholic Church or to say some other things added.

Propose we say instead:

“ The document is not considered canonical or "Biblical" by any Christian group, and the theological views expressed in it are very different that of the four cannonical Gospels. ”

Cheers. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 07:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey buddy, you are commenting on the previous version of the edits. And all of this talk-talk-talk-talk about a few sentences.... Amazing....The problem is that a 17 year old who reads this for the first time does not have to know (or click to know) what Canonical means. It is not part of their bibles is clearer. The PROBLEM is that this intro does NOT need to be coded and written for professors of theology. It must beclear to the public. The main problem with all this talk of Thomas is that it is wrapped in mist and uncertainty. It needs to be clear, clear, clear. Is that clear?

What the intro needs to say is:

• What is this thing and where did it come from: It came from a jar, found by farmers. I added that.
• Who wrote it: Some follower of Thomas, not Thomas. I moved that upfront.
• Is it a Gospel? No. Is it in the Bible as most people know it? No. I said that.
• Is it used in worship? No. I said that.
• What is it good for? Research.
• How is it different from what most people call a Gospel? It does not include ideas such as the "divinity of Jesus". Unsuspecting readers who come across this article by chance need to know this key fact upfront.

Then one can talk about how many pages it has etc.

This is one of THE ABSOLUTELY MOST CONFUSING items ever:

• A "Gospel of Thomas" which is NOT a Gospel and NOT written by Apostle Thomas. And by the way, unlike all other Gospels, it does not mention that Jesus was divine.

Does anyone have a problem making that clear? History2007 (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

To add "it does not mention that Jesus was divine" or to add "unlike all other Gospels, it does not mention that Jesus was divine"?

Well, I don't think it is needed. I would rather remove the unneeded text as I proposed above first before we add this also (or instead).^{Carlaude:Talk}

After you made that edit to the very first paragraph, I see no other problems. All items are now both referenced and relevant. I think we are set until some new IP user arrives out of nowhere.... History2007 (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No not really. Even if you circumvent the guidlines of WP:BRD, and are avoiding any compromise, this part below is still both new and has no "consensus to stay"...

“ It is used by scholars for historical research, but not as part of Liturgy or worship by the majority of Christians. Most Christian authors view it as including material that conflicts with the New Testament. The views expressed in this document show no concern for doctrines such as "God", "original sin", "divinity of Jesus", "atonement", "final judgement" etc. ”

To stay, it needs "consensus to stay" and it clearly lacks that-- if anything-- it has consensus to not stay, since two people dissagree with you. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 23:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough that was the only sentence that he did not have problems with for he said: "I'm ok with the last sentence." So there is no problem using your own argument anyway - although I do not necessarily agree with your reasoning. Do you remember the good old days when we were fighting on the Blessed Virgin page? Your reasoning about democracy in Wikipedia was very different on that page - so you can not have it both ways. Anyway, the fact is that fully referenced information that is directly relevant to an article should not be suppressed, and it will not be.

Now, another reason why that sentence is needed, is that the public at large in confused and 30,000 of them per month look at this page to get a clear answer, e.g. see [7]. As that Q&A session shows, that is the question that is on the minds of people who look at this page (The Wiki article was referenced there) and still ask. So the article needs to clarify that fact upfront. I had seen another talk page like that 3 or 4 days ago, when I did searches, but could not find it again, but many people want to know why Thomas is not used because they think it is "a Gospel". The fact is that no preacher in a major Christian church can stand up and use a text that does not consider Jesus divine. That is a key fact that the article needs to clarify. The goal of Wikipedia is clarifying facts for the public. History2007 (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to say so, but the reason you give why the church has not accepted the gospel of Thomas as part of the canon seems to me as a biased opinion. It is not your opinion that counts, however,but the historical reality. If you might come up with a reason that is supported by historical evidence from the time the canon was established, you are most welcome. abvanstallant (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. But my reasoning was not included in the article. History2007 (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

While minor, I do not believe the placement in the lead (2nd paragraph) was appropriate.

• I am disappointed at your desire, History2007, to dictate what "needs" to stay. Like Andrew, I am not doing any of this in bad faith, and hope we can continue to work together without hard feelings.
• Esp. since Andrew also removed the "last sentence" (and others)-- but also because he only said he was "ok with" the "last sentence," his views cannot be accuratly considered as a positive desire to keep the "last sentence." Without that it still lacks a "consensus to keep." I also point out that the text I quoted, without the consensus to keep, is three sentences long.
• That said-- esp. since his take isn't crystal clear-- still hope we can get Andrew to comment again on his current view.
• As for my "reasoning about democracy in Wikipedia" in the "good old days" on the Blessed Virgin page-- I have to ask you to repeat it back to me and/or cite it, before I can recall and/or comment on it. (It might be better to do that on my Talk page so as to keep this page a bit more readable for others.)
• I am also not sure how it would or could be relivent now since my current such "reasoning" is based on stated Wikipedia policies-- not unwritten Wikipedia policies or policies that would be new and ought to exsist. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 16:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If you read the above more carefully, you were ok with parts of the other sentences at various points. And you have not given me specific reasons why my edit is not good for Wikipedia. Your previous reasoning was along the Wikipedia is not a democracy lines. And he did say last sentence was ok, and you said lots of oks to other parts. And no one has yet given specific logical and valid arguments why fully referenced text should not be there. Any why all this fuss? That I cannot completely figure out yet:

• We have a truly terrible article with lots of errors and shot on references.
• All this waste of time on the talk page.

I will be totally, and I mean totally reworking said junk article within the next month, and add quality to it with references. So all debate here is really a waste of time since the article will change. There are those may "promote" the G-of-Thomas because they like Gnostic thought. But what is your stake Carl? No one asked you for a third opinion, did they? Your only, only edit here was "2009-11-08 18:19" namely yesterday, so why did you suddenly start feeling all emotional about this page old buddy? Were you missing me? We had not fought for so long.... History2007 (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds frightfully familiar. You seem to think you are right, history2007, for the single reason that you think you are right. Once again: not your opinion, bur the facts are relevant here. abvanstallant (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes-- I have not said much in terms of specific reasons why your edit is not good for Wikipedia-- and there is a particular reason why we have not dissused specific reasons. You said ... "I see no other problems.... I think we are set until some new IP user arrives" This seemed and seems to me a rather clear statment that you were not willing to budge on you views and nothing would change either way until or unless a new person that wasn't you waded into the debate. Not withstanding the fact that we haden't even really discussed things even yet-- you were telling me you were all done discussing and debating-- and for that reason the content was not changing-- (as if the current state of consensus was also favoring your text). I would love to go back to a discussion if there is anyone else here willing to do so.
• As for Wikipedia not being a democracy-- that is still true-- and for that reason we should follow (or at least consider) all the Wikipedia policies-- not just stand round and jump into counting the number of editors for and agaist. I want to go "back to" or "on to" a real disscussion. But we cannot do that if you think all disscussion over, or even all disscussion moot.
• As for all the fuss-- I thought most of the "fuss" was from you. For example you seemed to be repeating things that we aren't dissagreeing with (e.g. truly terrible article) but that also to not seemed tried to partiular edits I propose either... nor to partiular edits I you propose. Yes, I was, and am still, "ok with parts of the other sentences at various points." What does that mean here to you? Not that this is supposed to matter, but that also I don't want to promote the Gospel of Thomas nor any other so-called "New Testament apocrypha," esp. if it promotes Gnostic thought. I am not feeling emotional about this page. I just noticed that I seemed to agree some with Andrew and some with you, History2007. I had hoped that a third opinion help settle isues, not drag them out. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

specific arguments

“ The document is not considered canonical or "Biblical" by any Christian group, and the theological views expressed in it are very different that of the four cannonical Gospels. ”

• As for my specific arguments, they are along the same lines as Andrew's, at least on the points I agreed with him. Text has to be a lot of things other than "fully referenced" to be relivant and encyclopedic. There are hundreds of thing we could say that in the lead about what the Gospel of Thomas is not that would still be true and WP:V. We don't need a list of what it is not or does not say. I favor one very clear statement to summarize all of what it is not-- and then add to that only if it were needed. There are/were many many apocryphal Gospels, and I don't think the other have a detail list of how they are not like the four canonical Gospels. I also think that if it reads as as strong anti-Gospel of Thomas POV-- it will just be discounted, changed, and fought over later by others. It should read as encyclopedic.
• Likewise, I think "The document is not considered canonical or "Biblical" by any Christian group" is a lot more clear and to the point than the current "This document is not approved by major Christian denominations and is not part of their Bibles." ^{Carlaude:Talk} 21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• And I think "...and the theological views expressed in it are very different that of the four cannonical Gospel." is a lot more clear and a lot less equivical than the current "It is used by scholars for historical research, but not as part of Liturgy or worship by the majority of Christians. Most Christian authors view it as including material that conflicts with the New Testament. The views expressed in this document show no concern for doctrines such as "God", "original sin", "divinity of Jesus", "atonement", "final judgement" etc." Saying that "It is ...not as part of Liturgy or worship by the majority of Christians make it sound like there are some Christians that do use it for liturgy or worship. Also since "Liturgy" is not a word used even by all Christian denominations, it will be less than clear term. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Although called a gospel"

You liked "Although called a Gospel," as I did, so that is back and I used your sentence, and kept half of my list of items it does not mention to balance it. Can we move on to fix the harmony now? But this is still a low quality article as soon as one moves beyond the intro. The problems are not just in the "intro window" but further down throughout the text. Really needs a low quality flag at the top.History2007 (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for considering my view.^{Carlaude:Talk} 17:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying "Although called a gospel" is condescending in my opinion, as if this text bears this title incorrectly. In the early ages of christianity, however, there were many, many gospels. and even the gospels we know from the New Testament existed in various versions. Now living christians have become accustomed to the title of gospel as refering to only the so called four texts in the New Testament, but that does not reflect the original meaning of the word. Saying "Although etc." is therefor a biased perspective from traditional christians who have become accustomed to thinking that only the texts in the New Tetament are "true" gospels. So, saying "Although etc" is not a neutral point of view and should be rejected. abvanstallant (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The other noncannonical gospels are in the form (or genre) of a gospel. This is just list of saying without context and without other feutures of a gosel. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 17:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The gospel of Thomas is not...

"This document was not written by Thomas the Apostle…." "Although called a Gospel, this document is not considered…." "Unlike the four Canonical Gospels, this document is not…" Was not.., is not..., is not... These sentences too seem to betray, in my opinion, a traditional christian perspective, as if it must be made clear beyond any doubt -" is that clear?" - that this is absolutely not a christian text. I consider these wordings as POV. abvanstallant (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean to say "seem" or "seam"... that is not clear. History2007 (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Eugnostos, althou some of this does follows the "traditional Christian perspective" it also follows the perspective of non-Christian scolars. Maybe you can give more detail on that else you want to see. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 17:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I can understand partially what Eugnostos is saying. Part of the issue is trying to define something, not by what it is, but by what it isn't. We should try to focus on affirmative statements, not negative statements. While it is important to describe the differences this book has from some NT texts, and to state that the vast majority (virtually all) modern Christian groups do not consider to canonical. But I think Eugustos was pointing out the excessive use of negative statements to beat a point over our heads. But as I am typing this, I notice the lead has changed once again, and a lot of that stuff has been taken out already. So... maybe I shouldn't post my comment ;) -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Affirmative is good, and so is direct naming. Suppose you have a car that is named a boat, then you have to say it is not a boat. This doc is not by Thomas, so it needs to be said, and is probably not what people think of as Gospel.... History2007 (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

More Parallels with Paul's Letters

• 1 Corinthians 10:27 eat whatever is set before you and Thomas 14:4 eat whatever is set before you

32.178.56.115 (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Divinity of Jesus and doctrines of Thomas vs Canonicals

I feel a bit uneasy about saying that the gospel of Thomas has no reference to the divinity of Jesus, for various reasons, which I want to share with you.

•In the sentence in which this is said, this negation of the divinity is combined with the absence of the crucifixion and the final judgement in Thomas. It is true without doubt that the crucifixion and the final judgement are not mentioned in Thomas. But is this equally true for the divinity of Jesus? There are sayings in Thomas which may be explained as referring to the divinity of Jesus, for instance logion 77: “I am the Light…”

•Saying that unlike the canonical gospels there is no reference to the divinity of God in Thomas, suggests that this is as clear a difference as with the crucifixion and the final judgement. But, strange as it may perhaps seem, there is no text in the canonical gospels that states unequivocally that Jesus is God. There are many texts in the canonical gospels that have later been explained as saying that Jesus is God, but this is a theological interpretation of the texts. We all know that the divinity of Jesus has been hotly debated in the first centuries of Christianity, so it is not that obvious at all. It is only with the council Nicea in 325 that this debate has been closed and that Jesus has ben proclaime both God and human.

•So, saying that, in contrast with the canonical gospels, there is no reference tot the divinity of Jesus in Thomas, is in my opinion questionable. Eugnostos (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact the references say that not in those exact words, but in similar terms. I will look up the references again and get the exact wordings therein. The long and short of it is that GT sees Jesus as a "nice man" and that is it, the canonicals have a different view. History2007 (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Koester mentions, when discussing the differences between Thomas and Q, that there is most strikingly no mention of Jesus' death and resurrection. Next, he mentions that Thomas is "an almost total absence of christological titles, such as "Christ/Messiah," "Lord" and "Son of man." But he argues that is because those things represent a later tradition, and perhaps there were multiple revisions of Q, and Thomas goes back earlier than the synoptics (and points out various saying where he believes Luke added or changed things to say "son of man". With that said, I think we'd probably need a source arguing that Q contains christological titles. It seems like original research for you to find something in the text, and then have us change the Wikipedia article based on your interpretation (I'm not saying you are doing this, but you haven't cited a source yet). It appears we do have sources currently backing up our phrasing, and we'd need to consider other sources before considering altering our text. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually found the ref as well, Stevan L. Davies, 2004 The Gospel of Thomas page ii:

Thomas's gospel lacks all o fthe ideaology of original sin and final judgment, it has no interest in the notion that Jesus needed to be a substitutionary human sacrifice to atone for sins. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus is a role model, not a God/man whose Divine nature is wholly unlike that of mortals. Neither hell, nor the Passion of Christ, nor the Day of Son of Man when the sun will be darkened is ever mentioned.

And James Dunn, John Rogerson 2003 Eerdmans commentary on the Bible ISBN 0802837115 page 1573 has a lot to say along the same lines, but too long to type now, so I will type that later as I expand the article.

As for the deep differences between GT's viewpoint and the canonicals, there are other items I had not included, yet, e.g. Tarcisio Beal, 2009 Foundations of Christianity pages 61-62 says:

"The Gospel of Thomas is not only loaded with Gnostic demeaning of the material creation and with misogyny (hatred of women) but its Jesus is a total distortion of the "Man from Nazareth". Here is a good example:

Simon Peter said to them: 'Mary Magdalens shoul dleave us,for females are not worthy of life.'

Jesus said: 'See I am going to lead her to make her a male, so that she too might become a living spirit that resembles you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven'.

So GT is a really different entity in terms of views and doctrines. The article has not clarified these issues, hence the tag on top. History2007 (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, who is the "you" you are advising to do original research. is it me or History 2007. It is of course clear that there are no Christological titles for Jesus in Thomas. I know Koester and most of the literature here mentioned in this article. My point is that the divinity of Jesus is not explicitly stated in the canonical gospels and that therefore the sentence :. You do undoubtedly know that there were men different interpretations of the nature of Jesus: wholly and only human as an inspired prophet, wholly and only divine, a spiritual messenger from God but not himself God, and at last both human and divine at Nicea. Even if Marc, Matthew and John call Jesus "Christ" then this does not yet have the meaning of Him being divine. Christ just means "anointed", like the kings of Israel, and these were fully human. That the word "Christ" has become synonymies with "God" is a late development; it is Christological theology. But I do not intend to remove the reference to the divinity of Jesus from the introduction if there would be no agreement here to do that. I only wanted to present my reservations. If you and others do not agree, then that is ok with me. That's all. I do not think we should start a lengthy discussion here on the physis of Jesus. And I do not dispute that GT is different form the canonical gospels. Regards, Eugnostos (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

GT is in my opinion not as 'really different" from the canonical gospels as History2007 claims. Yes it is no narrative, like the canonical gospels, so it is different, but the absence of Christology does not mean that it is in opposition to or contradicting the canonical gospels, as History2007 appears to think. Don’t forget that almost half of Thomas is also in the canonical gospels. And I consider it nonsense to say that it is loaded with hatred of women. It is not Jesus who says that women are not worthy of life,but Peter.Jesus even rebukes Peter for saying that. Eugnostos (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Eugnostos, the OR advise was directed towards you. I can understand having reservations, but unfortunately, without sources, we shouldn't be editing the article to account for your personal feelings. Do you know of any scholar that argues that Thomas isn't so different in these regards that we could cite? I think getting the sources down can lead us in the right direction. I can understand where you are coming from, and the rationale behind it, for sure. But on Wikipedia, we are supposed to be compiling and summarizing stuff that is already published. That's all. :) -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The statements in blockquotes were not mine. They were word by word from the books. History2007 (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Authorship

To say that "no" scholars consider the apostle Thomas to be the original author is incorrect. While the text has been modified and added to by latter authors, a good number of N.T. historians do accept that Thomas "the twin" refers to the Apostle Thomas, and that a large portion (60-70%) of the sayings were recorded by him as Jesus spoke. 99.20.133.172 (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you named names, and cited specific sources. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it to say most scholars anyway, and added refs also to body of article. Article needs a REAL clean up, the more I read, the more disappointed I am in what there is now. History2007 (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to help clean up this article. I have a number of books that discuss Thomas here at home, and I have access to a university library. Do you think you could perhaps state a few of your biggest concerns, and what has been disappointing you in this article, so I can have a starting place to guide my improvement drive! Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a rummage sale of information, with bits and pieces all over the place. My main item with all these "multi-author articles" is that if within 30 minutes I do searches and learn something new that the article did not tell me I know it is in trouble. As a start, let us just look at the topic at hand, authorship. There are several suggestions about it scattered through the early camp late camp section, but no clear summary of it.

I think the questions to pose first then rehash the whole article are:

• What is this?: Answer: found by a farmer etc. This is already in the article.

• Who wrote it?: Answer: not clear but here are 3-5 good guesses by scholars. But it should be a shorter section, not very long, then get expanded later in a "scolarly debates" section.

• When did they write it?: Again, not clear but 3-5 good guesses in a few paragraphs then get expanded in the "scolarly debates" section.

• What does it say?: A description of the theme, etc. and a brief overview of the philosophy etc.

• How is it different?: A section of differences between this and the 4 evangelists gospels.

• Who referred to it? The attestation section is ok, but needs more work, there seem to be more items to go in there. But the first time reader does not need to deal with all that. Hence I would move it further down.

• Who uses it: At least two different groups. First we can nicely say (without saying) that many scholars who are looking to get tenure are writing about it because the other gospels have been analyzed for centuries and this is fresh material. And the second group are the Gnostics since the tone appeals to Gnostics.

• What do the scholars say? Here the early and late camp debate can take place. Most readers will be bored by the time they get to this. But they will have had the basic ideas upfront.

Then the details of the scholarly debates can get handled at length towards the end. Then it may become readable. As is it took me web searches to understand what this document was: the wikipage had failed. History2007 (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to say so, History2007, but your recent contribution, in which you say that the citation of Ménard is a "summary of the academic consensus" is just not true. This may perhaps have seemed so, soon after the discovery of Thomas, but no serious scholar will nowadays follow Ménard. If you insist on citing Ménard, his opinion belongs elsewhere in this article under 'Date of Composition," in "The late camp". Eugnostos (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The quote came directly from the ref I cited. And the Cyril statement is already in the article elsewhere above. History2007 (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Temp Image

File:Kodeks IV NagHammadi.jpg

A Codex found by a farmer at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945.

After adding the table, I have had to temporarily remove the image as it just didn't seem to work at the top. I would suggest putting it under the Corresponding Oxy. Papyri if it were to stay, however, I haven't as I am on my Eeepc so the page may not appear on my screen as it would most other users.--Ari (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will fix it. History2007 (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Box

The box makes no sense since it says the author is Thomas the Apostle, while the text says the author is unknown. Also saying the source are the Canonicals is confusing. And Diatessaron is guesswork, not sure. Please remove or correct the box. As is it is just incorrect and a liability, not asset. History2007 (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The box says it is attributed to Thomas, however, it is Pseudepigraphical. --Ari (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see that, but how do you say CONFUSING... The box achieves nothing because it is confusing and saying Pseudepigraphical introduces a word few readers have met before and also sources etc. are unclear. Th ebox is no asset. History2007 (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That's why the word is wikified. Similarly, the question is attribution not authorship. The document clearly attributes itself to Thomas, "...which Didymus Judas Thomas wrote."

The box acts as a summary, as it does on many of the other apocryphal works such as Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of James, Gospel of Mary and others.--Ari (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you have to explain it proves that it is not clear. I rest my case. It is unclear and confusing to casual readers. History2007 (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Attribution has a meaning different to authorship, and this is not a technical difference. The document clearly identifies who it is attributed to. Your previous discussions on authorship may be what clouded the water. And again, it is a summary common to apocryphal articles. --Ari (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Then they are ALL confusing. This article is just one piece of poor quality nonsense text, one place after another. Why not say the author is Thomas Crown? Makes as much sense, i.e. nonsense. History2007 (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Because you insist that a document attributed to someone should say it isn't attributed to anyone it is all rendered nonsense. I know Wikipedia is notoriously subjective - but taking it a bit far? --Ari (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Overall, this is just one more example of the word "mess" applied to this article. It is being sloppy not just on this issue, but all over the article..... as discussed on this page repeatedly.... History2007 (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the "Attribution" section of the infobox is fine. Template:New Testament manuscript infobox contains some technical information and jargon that may not be entirely clear to the lay reader, but is the sort of common, scholarly information found in strong sources related to manuscripts. But that is nothing to something like Template:drugbox which has information that you'd almost HAVE to be an expert to understand. We don't leave out the "alignment" or other technical aspects of Template:Infobox D&D character, just because someone may have to click on the wikilinks to find out what "Chaotic Good" means. I think saying that the work is attributed to Thomas is valid and apparent, and the note that it is pseudepigraphical further explains the authorship (and is clearly linked for those not familiar with the concept, similar to how someone may not know what a D&D class or setting is, or how someone may not know what a drug schedule or solubility or metabolism is, or what a papyrus or uncial manuscript is). I believe it is common place to use professional, technical language, descriptions in infoboxes. With all that said, I'd be open to suggested rephrasings for sure. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Gospel of Thomas Scholars

Why? I am unaware of any other articles that simply contain a list of experts and authors who have written about the subject. My proposal is that we drop the section, and clean up the references to reflect reputable scholarship on the issue. I will start on the bibliography now and have no hesitation to clean up the scholars list asap. --Ari (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the least of the problems. The key problem is structural, that time and space are mixed in the origin discussion... And the junk table up there did not help. History2007 (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that a list of Thomas scholars could easily be converted to a "Further reading" section, if we aren't already citing them (which, I would think, we should be using them as references as is). -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

factual accuracy is disputed.

I have no idea what I can do to remove the "factual accuracy is disputed" tag, because I have no idea why the editor who placed it there believes that. Warning tags like this should be accompanies by talk page discussions. We are discussing the problems with the infobox above. I believe an inline tag would be much more appropriate if the dispute is still open, then tagging the entire article. History2007 restored the tag, saying As I said on talk, th ebox is junk, and so is much more inside but box is main objection now.... as a start.. And I'd maintain that problems with the box do not warrent flagging the entire article, and if there are factual issues with the entire article, they need to be spelled out so I can start addressing them. We can't willy nilly throw on tags like that, if we aren't going to start working towards specific improvements. Please take the opportunity now to outline specific factual inaccuracies in the article that, if fixed, would satisfy the user enough so that we can remove the flag at the top of the article. If the objections cannot be sufficiently communicated to other users who want to help, then the flag has no business being on the article (and again, if it's just a problem with the infobox, then use inline tags or a section flag, not an entire article flag). -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If specific problems are not listed on the talk page, the tag can be removed. — goethean ॐ 17:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

My objection is mainly to the box... and Ari seems to be starting a revert cycle. I explained my objection above. The issue is that it is misleading. If one of you supports me to clarify the box, we will have the tag off in 30 seconds. Can you put a tag on the box alone? If so, please do, and remove main tag. History2007 (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed some values of the box, made the box invisible, and removed the tag. — goethean ॐ 18:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaah, thank you. At last a straightforward comment. But the Nov tag about improve was there before, so please restore that one. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Allegedly contributed to Jesus"

The gospel of Thomas is a text. This text, as a text, contains sayings of Jesus. One is free to doubt whether these sayings are originally from the historical Jesus, as you may doubt whether the corresponding sayings of Jesus in the New Testament are from the historical jesus, or whether Jesus has even existed, or whatsoever. But that is a totally different subject than the description of the contents of The Gospel of Thomas. As a description of the contents of GT it just contains 114 saying by Jesus, allegedly contributed to Jesus or not. Adding "allegedly" is not a neutral point of view. It is a point of view from outside the text. Eugnostos (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ascribed is NPOV in reflecting the document(as a sayings document) and scholarly discussion. --Ari (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Contributed" is by far preferable over the pejorative "allegedly". Still I do not agree but I rest the case as a compromise. I am quite aware of the scholarly debate about the historicity of GT. But a description of a text should be neutral and not contain a reference to the doubts that have been raised about this text. And even "contributed to" is not neutral. If there is a scholarly debate about any text, these doubts should be added separately, and not as part of the description of the text. Eugnostos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC).

No one said "contributed" so I am not fussed about your extended complaint on it not being neutral. Your alternative, however, was not NPOV. --Ari (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all about method. The description of a subject in Wikipedia should not contain an opinion about the subject. Even "attributed" is not POV. But, as I said before, I rest the case. Regards. Eugnostos (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see allegedly being problematic, but attributed works for me. If Eugnostos is willing to rest the case, I think we can all live with "attributed".-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ari, I humbly apologize for citing "attributed" wrongly as "contributed". English is not my native language. But I hope my knowledge of GT transcends my knowledge of English. Yes, Andrew, I can live peacefully with "attributed". Eugnostos (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, overall I am also unhappy with muscle flexing by Ari... to many reverts... So I can not agree either.... History2007 (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Muscle flexing because I refused to change the attribution of the Gospel from Thomas (which the gospel clearly makes, as evidenced above) to anonymous? Such an edit would have been factually incorrect as it is not a formally anonymous document such as the canonical gospels. I understand your concerns that no scholar believes that the work was composed by Thomas, but that is an entirely separate issue from what the document claims to be. --Ari (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Junk table, junk discussion, chat chat chat rvert revert for ever... waste of time... History2007 (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I support changing the wording to the more neutral "sayings of Jesus". Articles on other gospels do not question their subject's authenticity in the first sentence. There's no (valid) reason why this one should. — goethean ॐ 18:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I do, of course, fully agree, Goethean, that "sayings of Jesus" is the better and correct formulation. What about Andrew and History2007? Eugnostos. 80.101.85.163 (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I will vote with what Andrew thinks should be done. History2007 (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious verifiability issues

This article is plagued with references that do not properly support the statements made in the article. Some claims are patently false on their face. Some portions are direct quotations from the sources without indication that it is a quotation. Some statements are highly selective in cherry-picking information. This entire article needs to have the references checked. It may even be necessary to re-reference and rewrite significant portions of the article. As but one example of the problems, I removed a claim that the Gospel of Thomas was written by a second century disciple of Mani. Mani was active in the mid-third century and his disciples did not active produce literature until the late third century. As such, the claim was obviously false on its face. Vassyana (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality problems? You are not kidding us? Actually the Mani fact was one of the few correct refs except 2nd century! But I do agree with the quality problems by and large. I added the exact quote and ref now... History2007 (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[8][9] Good stuff. Thank you. Vassyana (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Gnostic Tag

The Gnosticism tag seems to be in a very unusual place- everywhere else I see links like that at the top of the article. Is there any reason for it being where it is? Plasmasphere (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Defending neutrality of Wikipedia defined as vandalism

Well, well, Ari has now identified my effort to improve the neutrality of Wikipedia as vandalism. It is, to say the leas,t a very original value-judgement. I will of course be back. Eugnostos (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Organization of Date of Composition section

Hello all - just wanted to let you know that I had issues with the "Date of Composition" section's organization. My basic problem was that as someone unfamiliar with the material, so many similarly sized sub-headings (levels 3 and 4) made the different arguments difficult to understand. It was hard to differentiate between the different camps, and to see where the break was while you were reading the section. I think it would add clarity to make the "Date of Composition" section its own article page and have a brief overview/link on this page. Reading through the archive, I see there have been prior issues with this section's general format, and separating this material out might help with those problems as well. Just a thought. Rdxtion (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting idea, but I don't think we really need a spin out article. I think if a section under a header has just one paragraph, then we don't need that section header. We should try to combine the sub-sections. The hierarchy is too detailed. Additionally, it wouldn't hurt if there was some major copy editing, summarizing, and re-organizing. A lot of gritty work that someone is going to have to do :P, but I'm sure the article will greatly benefit from the effort. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with Rdxtion, that the section about the dating requires re-editing. I have just made a modest beginning by removing the following sentence: "Most scholars fall into the later camp, assigning a early-mid second century date." This is just not true. Thomas has revitalised the scholar's quest of the historical Jesus. And this is based on the assumption by really very many scholars that Thomas is an early text. Thomas resembles the source Q, a collection of sayings used by Luke and Matthew, which consequently predates them. Thomas might be contemporary to Q. The last word has not yet been said about this, but it is certainly not true that "most scholars fall in the late camp". My perception, reading the literature, is contrary to that statement. But let us not argue about numbers. This is not a case to be decided democratically by counting votes. It suffices to state correctly the arguments of both late and early. Eugnostos (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe moving the date of composition to another article would be taking it too far. It is an essential element of how Thomas is received today, so it should remain in this article. However, I agree that it needs work.

Eugnostos, I restored the sentence you removed regarding where scholars stand on the dating of the text. It was independently cited by multiple verifiable sources. Your opinion on the date does not trump verifiable sources making statements on the state of scholarship. --Ari (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just reading "Recent Trends in Gospel of Thomas Research" in Currents in Biblical Research, Feb 2007; vol. 5: pp. 183 - 206. and it tends to disagree with you on Thomas revitalising the quest for the historical Jesus. "In the past decade and a half it appears that scholars have been reluctant to employ Thomas in reconstructing the historical Jesus." (190). This even goes for the reconstructions that see Thomas as independent/early in many regards:

Notwithstanding the weighty judgments issued in the early 1990s by scholars like Crossan (1991), Patterson (1992; 1993a; 1993b), and Cameron (1991), not to mention the Jesus Seminar (R.W. Funk and R. Hoover 1993), Jesus scholarship of the past fifteen years has been rather restrained in its use of the Gospel of Thomas. In his The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993), a popularized revision of his earlier Jesus and Judaism (1985), E.P. Sanders writes that he shares ‘the general scholarly view that very, very little in the apocryphal gospels could conceivably go back to the time of Jesus’, which is to say that ‘only some of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas are worth consideration’ (Sanders 1993: 64). In his popular-level Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time (1995), Marcus J. Borg states that the two main sources for studying Jesus are, on the one hand, the early layers of the synoptic witness, and, on the other, the early layer of the Gospel of Thomas. For Borg, ‘a strong case can be made that some of these [sayings] go back to Jesus himself’ (Borg 1995: 22). Even so, oddly enough, Thomas is never mentioned any other time in the whole book. - Ibid.188.

--Ari (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence once again. There is no way to verify this statement. It is no more than an arbitrary opinion, and by no means a a neutral point of view. Ari is not showing much respect to scholars who hold a different point of view than his by saying that they are lying. Moreover, Sanders is not "most scholars". Strangely enough Ari cites scholars who agree that Thomas, at least the core of it, is early to defend his point that Thomas would be late. I know there are many christians doubting the early date of Thomas, as there are many scholars who consider Thomas early. The arguments of both camps are sufficiently exposed in the article. Eugnostos (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Without further citations, your edit is disruptive, given that we have 4 cited scholars claiming that there is a majority view. Unless you can demonstrate other scholars who claim that "most scholars fall within the early camp", then we have absolutely no reason to delete the comment, and it seems like this is based on your personal bias (or personal opinion, either way, it's inappropriate motivation for editing Wikipedia articles). If it is the case that we have conflicting sources, then we can get more into that, but as it stands, we have multiple clear statements regarding the majority view. WP:NPOV WEIGHT demands that we state if and when there are dominant and minority views. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on those who make a statement. I consider a demand to proof that a statement is not true as inappropriate in a serious discussion. The one who makes the statement that most scholars are in the late camp has to deliver the proof. Citing opinions of others is no proof. Eugnostos (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an extraordinary burden, and something in consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, and use within actual articles. If I get this right, you are saying that we cannot make any statements to WP:WEIGHT, without some mathematical "proof", or some unknown amount of evidence to convince Eugnostos. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. We have four texts which do this. If we had a single text which stated otherwise, then we'd have to say "wait a second, perhaps these other scholars are lying or simply wrong". But when it comes to WP:WEIGHT, there is no statistical proof necessary. We need to summarize our sources. If our sources clearly say the majority is X, and we have NOT A SINGLE SOURCE saying otherwise, then we have absolutely NO REASON to start questioning our sources. I am sorry that you don't believe our sources, or that they aren't good enough or whatever, Eugnostos. But really, consider what would convince you of evidence of proper "weight", and then review WP:NPOV, and see if you are raising the bar higher than our policy.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ari, if you want to cite an authoritative source who gives as his opinion that the majority of scholars favor the late camp, go ahead, but publish it as a citation, and as somebody's opinion, not as if it were a fact. Put it in the part of the article about the late camp. Eugnostos (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Eugnostos, by restoring the inclusion of a cited statement on the majority position is I am not showing disrespect to the various scholars or saying that they are lying. Majority could be wrong in many regards, but that does not change the fact that the majority (do not read as right/wrong/my/your) position is the majority position. Should we remove a consensus statement about how most scholars see X as the cause of Y instead of Z because you personally hold to Z? Of course not, as that would not be representing the debate and has more to do with pushing one's own agenda.--Ari (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Eugnostos, can you please restore the statement now? Because it disagrees with your personal opinion is not sufficient reason. --Ari (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that opinions should not be presented as facts. Put the unverifiable opinion of "most scholars" in the part of the late camp. That is where is belongs, not as a value-judgement in the introduction of the dating problem section, presented as if it were a neutral fact. Eugnostos (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, four cited scholars is not "most". Stating this as if it were a fact is incorrect, it is an opinion. It is not NPOV. Ari, I am not pushing my agenda, I am pushing neutrality and correctness. Eugnostos (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2010

(UTC)

"not as a value-judgement in the introduction" - that is not the problem of the text, but your personal skewed interpretation. Nowhere does noting the MAJORITY position (you know, the position held by MOST scholars) equate a value judgement. It is a simple fact of how it is approached. As we have noted from your earlier posts on the point, you objected primarily because you personally disagreed with it. Instead, you contended (without references) that the early camp was the majority position. --Ari (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is far form "a simple fact". A "simple fact" should be easily verifiable. This statement is not. It is impossible to verify it or even to deny it as Andrew asks me to do. And I have not said that the early camp is the majority position; I have said that I have read a lot of scholarly literature in which it is accepted as a matter of fact that Thomas, or at least the core of it, is early. Calling this the majority position would be just as unverifiable as the contrary. The statement that "most of the scholars belong to the late camp" is an opinion of "some" scholars, four of them, to be exact, citing Andrew. It is their opinion, their perception, and that does not make it not at all "a simple fact". This opinion, as an opinion, belongs tot the section of the late camp, and should not be given as a neutral point of view, as if this were a fact, in introducing the dating problem. I will stick to that. Eugnostos (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Quantification is not an opinion. Notice your evolving argument. First, you state it is simply wrong and contend that the early camp is the majority (despite verifiable sources being sure of the contrary). Then you go onto stating that it is not NPOV and is making a value judgement (despite no value judgement being made). Now, it is "unverifiable" despite it clearly being verified. A statement on quantity is not an opinion. For example, we all know 2+2=4, and that is not just my personal opinion. It is a statistical fact - just like 4 is greater than 2. Evidently, the only issue here is your personal opinion. Removing a verifiable statement because it disagrees with your personal view is a clear case of POV pushing and a violation of NPOV. --Ari (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Verified? Show me, please. You are welcome. But, even if thousands of people say whatever, that does not mean it is verified. Wikipedia is about verifiable facts, or in your language "simple facts". It is simply not true, as I said before, to state as a "simple fact" that the majority of the scholars belong to the late camp. That is an unverified and unverifiable opinion of of the sources you have mentioned. And that does not make it a fact. I will stick to that, defending the neutrality of Wikipedia. These statements belong to the late camp, and should not be presented as a neutral fact. You are free to cite them there; I will not object, if correctly presented as citations. Eugnostos (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ari, in the discussion page on the historicity of the canonical gospels I read, as said by you: "Regarding historical reliability of the the gospels, I don't think I can actually explain it. It is so deadly obvious". Do I understand correctly that you think that the gospels in the New Testament are to be considered as true history? I would very much like to know, because I detest edit wars. I want to understand why you are so adamant in defending the late camp. And I remember you adding a site or a reference to something like "Why scholars lie about the historical Jesus". Does reflect your own attitude to the scholarly research of the historical Jesus? I really want to respect your opinion and I am sincerely willing to find a way out in this discussion that does justice to you, but also to what I consider to be correct. Eugnostos (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you really wanted to "respect" my opinion, you would not be wholesale lying about my opinion. I added a link saying "Why Scholars Lie about the historical Jesus" - where did you pull that out of? The same is pretty much the case for this whole post. But it demonstrates your clear misunderstanding of Wikipedia (in addition to your obvious dishonesty). Wikipedia is not about MY or YOUR OPINION. It is about verifiable souces, and how they deal with the topics. When scholars say that the dominating dating for Thomas is the second century - whether or not we like it is totally irrelavent - and it is the credentialed scholar making the call, not us. --Ari (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ari, in the discussion page on the historicity of the canonical gospels you say: " Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability." Tell me, how would you verify the statement that most scholars are in the late camp? Mind you, citing people, however many, who hold the opinion that most scholars are in the late camp, is no verification. It still remains an opinion. Eugnostos (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How would I verify the statement? I'd refer to the cited sources, and see if the claim is found within their text. Simple as that. When Raymond E. Brown, in his college level text on the NT, published by a scholarly press, states that most scholars do not believe Matthew the disciple wrote the gospel that bears his name, that is good enough for verification purposes. When Bart D. Ehrman states that the majority of scholars hold to the 2 source hypothesis as a solution to the synoptic problem in his college level introductory text, put out by a scholarly press, that is verification enough. These are scholarly publication, by well known scholars of the topic. You are being hyper-critical in these situations. Unless there is a very good reason to think that these scholars are either wrong or lying, or that there is in fact scholarly debate over this, then we have no business throwing skepticism at these sources. Really, can you cite a single scholar who says the majority opinion is otherwise? If not, we have NO REAONS AT ALL to question what scholars say. Doing so is original research, and saying their publications are simply "opinions" is degrading. Please, Eugnostos, cite conflicting sources that support your view. Otherwise, your personal criticism is original research, and has no place in the article. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)\

Indeed, how could you verify the statement? You can not. And that makes it an opinion, not a fact, whoever you may want to cite. And as such it must be presented. I am not hypercritical. I am critical, and that is a scientific virtue. It is not acceptable to present opinions as facts. It is against all the rules of correct behaviour in science and on wikipedia. Eugnostos (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't verifiy the statement? What have numerous people just demonstrated to you. People actually do the research on this and your ignorance of it or personal disagreement does not change that. This is Wikipedia not Eugnostospedia - where everything is subjective!.--Ari (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand, Eugnostos. By stalking my discussions are you implying that there is something wrong with me maintaining WP policy about verifiability instead of the subjective 'truth' of individual editors? I have yet to get a reasonable response from you on the post which is pretty much what I have expected after you yapping on with numerous pointless reasons on why we should ignore what scholars say dominate. It is exactly the same situation when we talk about most scholars believing it is of Syrian origin, or that Thomas didn't write it, etc. Just because you don't like where the majority of scholarship stands is insuficcient to delete it. Clearly, the only thing on your mind is agenda pushing, and you are going to the extent of attempting to personally attack me (through obvious misquotes, or simply lying - that "why scholars lie" lie was pretty funny!) to achieve your childish aims. --Ari (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've pulled out some of my texts on the NT written by very well known and respected scholars (one on the slight conservative side, and one on the slight liberal side). Brown, p. 840 of An Introduction to the New Testament writes: "the majority of scholars thinks that, although GTh may have preserved some original sayings of Jesus, as a whole the work is a composition of the 2d century and reflects at times incipient gnosticism." Ehrman agrees with those findings on, p. 206, of The New Testament and p. 20 of Lost Scriptures. If we can't use these guys as sources for this, then we need to strike stuff like most scholars today believe that "canonical Matt was originally written in Greek by a non eyewitness whose name is unknown to us and who depended on sources like Mark and Q, and most of modern critical scholarship agrees that Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name and The most popular view in modern scholarship is the two-source hypothesis,. But of course, that is nonsense. We follow our sources. If our sources are describing views of most scholars in their field, then it is perfectly fine to repeat that. They are the experts, not us. The only situation I could think to start questioning sources is if there is a clear contradiction or disagreement between our sources (for example, if we had a source that said the early camp was the majority, which we don't).

That said, perhaps a way to move forward is to point out the flip side of the coin, something that Brown and Ehrman point out: Thomas in all probability contains at least some material that is authentic to the historical Jesus, and also isn't found in the NT books. i.e. the phrasing of some parables may be closer to what Jesus actually said than what we find in the NT gospels. Maybe we could add something like Those who consider a later date of composition acknowledge that Thomas "may have preserved some original sayings of Jesus." Just to make it clear that the Gospel of Thomas contains some material that most likely predates the composition of the NT Gospels, even though it's final composition was most likely later than the NT Gospels. It isn't black and white, and we shouldn't give the false impression that because it is a later document, it is completely useless in historical Jesus studies, or that it is a complete forgery or false or something like that.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you had an early-camp scholar's comments on the scholarly consensus, that would certainly help. Like Borg (or Crossan?). — goethean ॐ 16:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Miller/Funk in The Complete Gospels p. 302f. state: "All of these factors place Thomas approximately in the same period as the canonical gospels (ca. 70-100 C.E.)". Crossan in Sayings Parallels, citing others, on p. xviii writes: "GThom can probably be dated to the second half of I C.E. (Koester 2:150-54; Cameron: 23-25)." though all of those books come from the early 1980s. Going to those sources, Cameron writes "Since the composition of the Gospel of Thomas parallels that of the gospels of the New Testament, the most likely date of its composition would be in the second half of the first century, almost certainly in Syria." Koester writes "It is therefore quite likely that an early version of the Gospel of Thomas was composed as a sayings gospel around the year 50 CE, probably also in the area of Syria/Palestine. It is important to note that the full text of the Gospel of Thomas is available only in a Coptic translation from the 3d century, preserved in one of the 4th-century codices of the Nag Hammadi Library (NHC II,2). A few Greek fragments of this gospel, found in Oxyrhynchus in Egypt and dated to the late 2d or early 3d century, demonstrate that it was originally written in Greek. They also show that the text of this gospel was by no means stable."

So where does that leave us? No clear statement of a majority view, and oddly enough no statement regarding a conflict at all. Why are they completely ignoring the late camp? Are they simply presenting their opinions, or do they believe that what they state summarizes all of scholarship? I do have an extensive personal library, but I don't have access to every book by the early camp, so maybe my few examples aren't the best sample. Furthermore, I've gone and checked out citation #26 Lapham, and #27 Klauck. Like Crossan and Millar, it appears Lapham does not make any statement regarding a majority view. For whatever reason, page 108 doesn't load in google books for me for Klauck, so I cannot verify that content either. Also came across this. Not sure what I think now. Still think it's safe to make a statement regarding camp most scholars fall in though. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, I very much appreciate your positive and constructive attitude towards the controversy about the dating of Thomas. You are of course right is saying that this is not a black and white issue. But there is a controversy between various camps . Controversies, if there are any, must be made clear and every camp should be done justice in its own right. That is one of the basic rules of Wikipedia. But in whatever controversy, Wikipedia should not take sides, there should not even be the suggestion of Wikipedia taking sides, however subtle. I consider the sentence "Most scholars...etc" as suggestive, because it does not represents a neutral fact - it is an opinion, however authoritative the writers may be. This cited opinion is part of the leading paragraph preceding the description of the two camps. There it has the suggestive air of being a verdict. In its black-and-white onesidedness this opinion does not belong there, not in this way, if it is not counterbalanced by a a view from the "other camp". Even if this were the majority view,, the minority view should be equally respected. That is what Wikipedia ia about. Your proposals seem to me correct and adequate. Thanks and regards. Eugnostos (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the referende Klauck, Hans-Josef, Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction since it does not support the statement that "Most scholars... etc." Klauck mentions on page 108 of his book the early second century (summarized now in my own words) as a terminus ante quem which means that is must have been written "not later then" the beginning of the second century and adds "The dates proposed by scholars vary widely. The fifties of the first decade have also been suggested." He does, in fact, leave the exact dating open! Now up to the next reference. Eugnostos (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And then the reference to Van Voorst (Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). ). He is cited as follows: ...most interpreters place its writing in the second century.... Let us now look at the context of this sentence. The whole paragraph of which this sentence is a part reads:

The Gospel of Thomas has no christological titles, no narrative material, and no reference within lts sayings to any action of Jesus or any event in his life. It is dated after 70 and before ca. 140, the date archaeologists have determined for its papyri, Within this range further precision is difficult, although most interpreters place its writing in the second century, understanding that many of its oral traditions are much older. (…) Of all the extracanonical gospels, The Gospel of Thomas is the one most likely to have a claim to preserve a significant number of authentic sayings of Jesus.

This is far more nuanced than just saying that Thomas is from the begining of the second century, Does it support that statement? If you isolate the cited sentence from its context it seems to do so. But what if you read it in its context? Decide for yourself what Van Voorst really says about the origin of Thomas. If this would lead you to remove the reference, I will not protest. Eugnostos (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the context. I agree that he sentence fragment is being used simplistically and in fact deceptively. Accordingly, I removed it from the article, but was promptly reverted by Ari. — goethean ॐ 10:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is it "deceptively" used? Van Voorst clearly states that most commentators place its writing in the second century. Van Voorst also makes a very similar statement in his article in the Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. So yes, it does support the statement it references and just because he discusses the wide debate on it (as any review should do), does not change the statement he makes regarding what position is the majority. It is simply not sound logic that his discussion of the existence of a wide range of argued date nullifies his statment on where most date the works writing. --Ari (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

When an editor supplies a sentence fragment, and then when one sees the entire sentence from which it was cut, and one says "OH! I can see why the editor cut the fragment out of the surrounding context --- the context contradicts his POV." That's a clear sign that hanky-panky is going on with sources. The reference doesn't say what you are representing it to say, and that's why you removed the context. — goethean ॐ 18:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A good thing the clear meaning of the sentence doesn't in anyway contradict what it is referencing so your criticism doesn't even almost apply in this case.The full sentence says "Within this range further precision is difficult, although most interpreters place its writing in the second century, understanding that many of its oral traditions are much older." How does this statement not say that most interpreters fall into the late camp? Do explain it to me - because that is exactly what it is saying. And if your objection is the last bit on older tradition, you simply don't understand the 'late camp' that argues itself on the basis that Thomas contains older earlier traditions based on earlier canonical gospels.

I guess I could conflate some other sentences like Eugnostos did in order to attempt to imply Van Voorst says something other than what he really states but that would be a task falling far short of my standards and simply reading the words in the book that I hold in my hand. --Ari (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Quoting an entire paragraph rather than a sentence fragment = conflation. Interesting hermeneutic. — goethean ॐ 13:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that would be an interesting hermeneutic - if only it somehow applied to this situation. --Ari (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"But in whatever controversy, Wikipedia should not take sides, there should not even be the suggestion of Wikipedia taking sides, however subtle." - I think everyone here would agree with that, but when Wikipedia includes verifiable consensus statements or statements on the majority position within the academic field, this is not taking sides by correctly representing the debate. If we had access to the information that the Heliocentric model is far more popular than the Geocentric model, should we call noting this evil POV pushing because you disagree with it? I know I wouldn't, but maybe you should think about the consistency of your answer. You go on with "Even if this were the majority view,, the minority view should be equally respected." On what basis is it not being respected? Because the verifiable sources do not share your personal position that Thomas is the majority position? How is this statement reflecting the state of scholarship taking anything away from eithe position? On Van Voorst, he clearly states that most interpreters place Thomas' composition in the 2nd century. Talking about Van Voorst's acknowledgement of the arguments of the early camp position or that it shares canonical sayings does not change his statement to magically say that the early camp is the majority position, especially when he explicitly states the opposite. --Ari (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help me Ari, where did I say that something said here was evil? Eugnostos (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said you called anything evil. I guess trying to help you understand WP and reporting verifiable consensus statements through hyperbole didn't work.--Ari (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbole Ari? You know how to use big words to identify others, don't you, Ari? But thanks for saying I never called anything evil. As for me, this is enough for the time being. Bye. Eugnostos (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please play your games somewhere else. Thanks. --Ari (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reframing the dating introduction

I have re-framed the text of the leading paragraph of the dating controversy. I hope that even Ari wil consider it fair as it is now formulated, since his beloved sentence is fully incorporated. Both Valantasis and Voorst are giving the required nuanced view of the whole picture. The difficulties involved and the scope of the scholarly debate are clearly outlined, as a non-partison introduction to the subject. From there on one can continue with each camp individually. Agreed? I await your response. Eugnostos (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What happens to the Mani attribution in that scenario? That reference is floating elsewhere in the article and now that you guys are on this topic that needs to be consolidated (not deleted) into the date discussion. I still see this article as lots of villages of information looking for a city. Consolidation is necessary to gain quality. History2007 (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a nice comparison, History2007, seeing the dating topic here as separate villages and not a city. I fully agree. Also to me it seems that still a lot is to be done before we can comfortably settle in your ideal "city of Thomas". And I also agree that the significance of the Mani attribution should not be overlooked. It is of great value in understanding the history of GT. But I am not sure whether this attribution plays a meaningful role in the dating of the earliest Thomas-manuscripts. I do not think that there is any reasonable doubt among scholars that the earliest manuscripts of GT date from the first half of the second century. This refers to the so-called Oxyrynchus papyri fragments of GT. These fragment, only recognized as parts of GT after the complete text of GT was discovered at Nag Hammadi, has settled the date of GT as "not later than the first part of the second century". It may of course be earlier, but not later. There is a time-span of almost a century between these fragments and Mani. That GT was valued among the followers of Mani, is undoubtedly interesting, but I do not think it is seen as an argument in the dating debate.

What then is the importance of GT being known among the manicheans? One of the first translators of GT from coptic into the French language was Puech, a professor in the history of early christianity in Montpellier in France. He discovered soon after having studied GT that one of the Cathars form the thirteenth century must have known GT by hart. Nobody knew that, since GT had been unknown before the find at Nag Hammadi. The Cathars are by many historians considered as manichaens. The Mani attribution confirms that. Eugnostos (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. But perhaps you can somehow merge that section that has Mani info in it into the rest of the article. That way people from the villages start to migrate to the city and you get a metropolis with fewer villages. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Two minor changes to lead

It said in the lead ' The document most probably originated within a school of either Early Christians, possibly Gnostics, who claimed Thomas as their leader' It didn't read right. I took out the 'either'. Then I thought , maybe it meant to read 'either Early Christians, or possibly Gnostics...' since I'm not sure what was intended to be said I'm just going to leave it. Secondly it said in the lead, ' nor does it mention the messianic meaning of Jesus. This seemed too emphatic, party political to me , so I changed it to 'nor does it mention a messianic understanding of Jesus'. . Just wanted to explain the minor changes to the lead I made. Sayerslle (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Coptic title

Someone had removed the coptic text in the lead, leaving only the reference. I have removed the isolated reference and tried to restore the whole original coptic title , but I am not sure whether I have succeeded. If you do not have the coptic lettertypes on your computer, the coptic title will now appear as a range of small squares. This does not mean that something is wrong. You can only check this if you have the coptic on your computer yourself. Eugnostos (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Getting better

Regardless of the disputes (and I do not see Eugnostos as a vandal) this article seems to be improving. There is a long way to go, but overall, I think the quality is improving, the flow is getting better, etc. The early vs late camp separation is still too dominant, but I think it is clear that the efforts are paying off. To all readers of the article: please mail your payments to the latest editors involved here. History2007 (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, History2007 for not considering me as a vandal. Let's go on improving it. Eugnostos (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandal? I don't think so. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Finds and Publication

I re-edited Finds an Publication. The contents has not much changed, but the text is now more clear and orderly composed. Most references are maintained, some are added. Eugnostos (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added the following paragraph: "Although it is still generally assumed that the "Gospel of Thomas" was first composed in Greek, there is growing evidence that the Coptic Nag Hammadi text is a translations from Aramaic. On comparing the Greeks fragments from Oxyrhynchus with the fuller Coptic version, the differences can be attributed to the reliance of both on a common Aramaic source. [17]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugnostos (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Good Work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Syriac origin

In the "Late camp" I read: "Craig A. Evans argues that Thomas is dependent on Syriac writings, including unique versions of the canonical gospels. Many sayings of the Gospel of Thomas are more similar to Syriac versions of Jesus' sayings than Greek canonical gospels' versions. As an example, saying 54, which speaks of the poor and the kingdom of heaven, is more similar to the Syriac version of Matthew 5:3 than the Greek version of that passage or the version in Luke 6:20.[42]" I do not understand why the Syriac origin is seen as an argument for a late date. In fact, it would better serve as an argument for an early date. I know that Evans defends a late date. But the Syriac origin can hardly be Evans' main argument. Will someone please explain? Eugnostos (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

From the text, I assume the later date for Syriac origins is because he believes it is dependent on a stream following a later Syriac translations of the gospels. He isn't the only one who makes reference to the old Syriac versions, so as you find it ambiguous it probably needs some sort of expansion/rewrite. --Ari (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course, Evans is not the first to refer to the Syriac origin of Thomas. See also the last paragraph of "Finds and publication" and the reference to Perrin. But as I said, this is more an argument for an early date than for a late date. I know Evans is an emphatic defender of a late date, and I am sure he must have better arguments at his sleeve. So, to do him justice, someone should come up with a better citation. You are welcome. Eugnostos (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In order to understand the controversy between "late" and "early" camp, and especially the strong opposition to "early", one must know what is really at stake here. What is the real conflict? In Thomas all the dogmas of the Nicean creed are absent. No crucifixion, so no atonement of sins. No resurrection, no ascension, no second coming, no final judgement of the living and the dead at the apocalypse. If Thomas is late, that is from after the canonical gospels, Thomas can be understood as a stripped version and even heretic aberration of the earlier New Testament gospels. In that case Thomas provides no danger to the traditional Christian dogma's. But, if Thomas is early, and even from before the canonical gospels, it might represent the original message of Jesus and in that case the canonical gospels could be seen as a heretical aberration. Now it is not difficult to understand why the opposition of traditional christians to "early" is as heavy and emotional as it is often presented. An early date of Thomas could be understood as gnawing at the roots of the traditional christian faith. In any way, the late camp deserve a respectful representation here at Wikipedia. But at the same time the impact of the different views should be made clear as well. Eugnostos (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Eugnostos, not sure what this has to do with Syriac origins and I don't see the point of making statements to the effect that the majority late (that you personally oppose) is dominated by apologetic zeal, especially when it is held by people from across the spectrum. I agree that the possible interpretations of how this may affect other things - and we already have a section on historical Jesus studies - should be included, however, what you presented above is rather simplistic. For example, a short sayings document doesn't contain a narrative therefore Jesus had no narrative to his life? --Ari (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tags

Actually, I think this article is quite good. If there are any difficulties, please list them here. I do not have any strong feelings . . . except all material must have sound references. Ret.Prof (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been reading the back and forth, and as an outsider it is good stuff. The article has improved. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is much better than a few months ago, but still really hard to digest for a newcomer, because information is still scattered all over the place. I think good efforts directed at improvement paid off to some extent, but it is still in need of help. The Date & Place issue and the relationship and philosophy sections still need help I think. History2007 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The content is good, but it is not very readable. A newcomer to the topic would have difficulty . . . and thanks for not adding more tags - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The section on "Date of Composition" could stand to be better organized. It almost reads like two separate articles--one that argues for an early date, and one that argues for the later date, and the transition from one to the other is abrupt, with no explanation.Spiritquest (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lead section

The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarise the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence.

While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should be short, containing no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.

This is easier said than done, therefore I welcome improvements to my attempt to to accomplish the aforementioned. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the correction mentioned below in my note(s) on Translations and External Links, I would suggest a minor change to the description of Eusebius' views. He did not, as the content implies, single out the Gospel of Thomas for his quoted remarks. He was talking about a group of books which included but wasn't limited to Thomas, and I think that this can be made clear with a very minor rewording. -- Mwgrondin (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I re read the sources and you are correct. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

When we get around to rewriting that material, I would suggest that it be shortened (since Eusebius is only an example) and that either (1) quoted English words be avoided, or (2) that the specific translation being used be indicated in the footnote. The problem is, of course, that there are different English translations of Eusebius, and if we are going to depend on a particular one for the point being made (which is risky business IMO), then we need to at least inform the reader which translation is being used. Mine (Williamson) for example, has different wording than what is quoted. - Mike - Mwgrondin (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus' "twin brother" in early church documents?

What early church documents say that Jesus had a twin brother named Didymos Judas Thomas? None of the Gnostic or apocryphal gospels I have read make this assertion, none of the canonical gospels make this assertion, and none of the Church Fathers or leaders of Gnostic movements make this assertion. In fact, I have never even heard this until I read this article. So, if no gospels (gnostic, apocryphal, or canonical) make this assertion and no early commentators make this assertion, where is this coming from? Also, even if (hypothetically) one group did maintain this assertion, what evidence is there that it was ever widespread or traditional in early Christianity to hold such a belief? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.132.160 (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Translations and External Links

This note is occasioned by a disagreement between Goethean and myself concerning my attempt to delete two external links: (1) a translation of Thomas at Sofiatopia, and (2) a spiritual webpage run by Hugh McGregor Ross. IMO, neither of these is either factual or informative, but rather are promotions of certain spiritual views about the text. (In the case of the Sofiatopia translation, this comes out in the capitalization of pronouns referring to Jesus, which is not a reputable translational technique.)

As to translations, there were many links to good ones which were deleted in January for reasons unknown to me. However, the external link to Gnosis.org, which is not in question, provides access to several good translations. Therefore, the link to Sofiatopia is at least unnecessary. If we are to keep that link, however, I would wish to add a few more to reputable translations.

Please be aware that I am not a skilled Wikipedia editor, but I do have an interest in this particular wiki due to the fact that I have maintained a scholarly site devoted to the Gospel of Thomas for over ten years now, and am the owner of a scholarly discussion group (GThomas) at Yahoogroups. Goethean has not told me what his interest or expertise in this wiki is. I would appreciate the advice of interested parties in how to proceed. Mwgrondin (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I did not make it clear that what I am asking for here is consensus on the external links. On the positive side, an external link that we ought to have is to Steve Davies' Gospel of Thomas Homepage (http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html ). This site is both informative and factual. So I would propose that we have external links to just the two reputable sites that have a wealth of reliable information - the Davies site and Gnosis.org. Please do respond, as I will be at a loss as to how to proceed if you do not.

One more thing, unfortunately off the subject of this note: I haven't paid a lot of attention to the main content of the wiki, but in looking at it this morning, I see that one of the opening remarks is inaccurate. It is stated that the codex in which the Coptic GTh appears was written around the year 100. This is wrong. That is not the dating of the NH codex, but rather the dating of the original text - according to Valantasis (although the source passage appears on p.13 of my copy of Valantasis, not pg. 12). I leave it up to those of you who have been working long and hard on the wording of this wiki to make the appropriate correction. -- Mwgrondin (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at your webpage and it is great stuff. I would suggest you be "bold" when you edit this article. You can count on my support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted his attempt to remove the current external links, as his rationale was not valid. — goethean ॐ 13:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Goethean - There is a difference of opinion between you and I as to whether WP:EL suggests that NPOV is applicable to external links. On your page, I cited some material from it to justify my position and you provided none. Even if we leave that aside, however, there are other reasons supported by WP:EL that would justify removing the two inferior links (note that I have no objection to the Gnostic.org link). Let me suggest now that in addition to the Davies website mentioned above, we also include http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html, which is a reputable website containing links to many good translations and other informative material. That would give us three links to factual and informative material. No link to a single favored translation (in particular, an inferior one) would be needed. In light of the fact that you directed me here in order to seek consensus, and that the consensus of contributors on this point is 2 to 1, and other participants are unlikely to show up in the near future, will you now accept this change, please? - Mike Grondin - Mwgrondin (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In looking at the list of translations at the earlychristianwritings site above, I see that the vanden Dungan translation at sofiatopia is linked to from there. I still think it doesn't conform to good translational practice, but at least it's available from the external link that I recommend, so there's no reason to have it be a separate link by itself. - Mike - Mwgrondin (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to "second" Grondin's suggestion re: including reference to the Davies website, which was one of the first reliable scholarly websites regarding the Gospel of Thomas, and has been relied on by Gospel of Thomas scholars for years. The Davies website is far superior to the two "inferior" links that Grondin refers to. BobSchacht (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC) BobSchacht

Were the Thomas Christians of Syria Jewish or Gentile?

My understanding is that they were Gentile, but the gospel says Christians should follow James (not Peter), so maybe they were Jewish. Anyone know? It should be in the article either way. Leadwind (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's reasons to believe that they were ethnically Jewish, but I've yet to see any strong arguments one way or the other, so how can that be put in the article? BTW, what do you have against Maurice Casey? - Mwgrondin (talk) 06:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What to do about the Jesus-Mythers Paragraph?

I have satisfied two 'citation needed' tags that Leadwind put in the article tonite, but I don't know what to do about a third such tag, which has been in the Jesus-Mythers paragraph since January. I'd like to eliminate the tag, but since I don't have the books in question, I can't supply a page ref. Unless we can find someone to fix up the paragraph (including missing refs to the works in question), can we get rid of it? - Mwgrondin (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Lacking a response to this note, I've proceeded to remove (but saved) the Jesus-Mythers paragraph. In addition, I did some rewording to remove the final remaining tag. As an apparent result, the negative Wikipedia comments (that the article was on four lists of articles lacking something or other) that used to appear at the bottom when one was doing an edit are now no longer there. Some small progress, one hopes, but unfortunately too easily rolled back at any moment by any random edit in this wild-west environment. Mwgrondin (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution to Paul

The third paragraph under the section entitled "Philosophy of the Gospel of Thomas" describes as "a Pauline position" the idea that "what goes into the mouth will not defile a person, but what comes out of the mouth will." Actually, this is not from the writings of Paul, but is found in the Synoptic gospels (reference Mark 7:18-19 and the parallel verses in Matthew 15).Spiritquest (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I got the distinct impression that the writer meant, by saying that it was a "Pauline position", that the speaker believed that it was not as important to observe Jewish dietary laws, making it a "Pauline" perspective. Jesus does say about the same thing in our synoptic Gospels, but this does not necessarily mean that Jesus would obliterate one tittle of the law, only insist that observing "loshan Hora" is of far more importance than eating kosher food. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosalita12 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Why isn't this mentioned in the article, it is a strong argument for why the book is absolute rubbish and certainly not canonical? Poly87 (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia articles depend on reliable sources and do not publish original research, and 'absolute rubbish' is not a term generally used by scholars of Hellenistic literature. — goethean ॐ 15:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Goethan. Wikipedia per se have no opinion on whether anything is "canonical" or not. "Canonicity" in this context is the opinion of the Christian main stream, and nobody on Wikipedia is seriously going to claim that the Christian main stream claims that Gospel of Thomas is canonical.

Looking on it the other way: Wikipedia is not going to prove anything in one way or another, but is only referring to what various academics and others claim about the Gospel of Thomas. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

But other quotations are mentioned, so why not this one? Following your logic then all the quotations should be removed... Incidentally, I'm not a 'scholar of Hellenistic literature' either but that doesn't stop me from making an observation. Mge456 (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Find an external academic source analysing the statement, and we might consider it. Wikipedia have no own opinion, it only refers to what reliable sources claim. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I know why its not mentioned. Because Wikipedia wants the pseudo-Gospel of pseudo-Thomas to be canonical. Despite the fact that, if any fool actually bothers to read the text, it is absolutely contrary to everything Jesus taught, in addition to heavily plagiarizing the New Testament out of context. The only reason it is given such an early date, despite every evidence to the contrary, is because it puts a theology in Jesus' mouth that is in harmony with modern multicultural views. The oldest references are from the third century, the oldest copy is from the third century, and the author presented in the oldest references lived in the third century. Should we (not as scholars, but as people with common sense) place this third century work in the first century? certainly not. That same logic, by the way, is what placed the canonical Gospels at such a late date, because it presents a theology that makes modern multiculturalists uncomfortable (I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one sees the Father except through Me). --LutherVinci (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this passage ties Thomas to the Canon (though it probably shouldn't be canonized) like class notes to the sermons of the apostles. When read as riddle, rather than literally, it becomes a rosetta stone to the 'mystery', that is the gospel message hidden in the Old Testament. Paul says 'the woman was deceived' and the female becomes a metaphor for 'the blind', or those who do not understand. Using the metaphor we can solve the prophesy of Jer 30.6 where men are pregnant. Those who do not understand must become male (understanding), those who are male become the virgin bride of Christ (their fruitfulness is not of the flesh, but of the spirit), who will travail as they become apostles and witnesses for Christ. 50.8.77.133 (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It would do you no good to try to put a positive theological spin on a quite plainly non-Christian text. Incidently, most scholars on the subject don't bother to explain the theology, (maybe because they know it's futile?) but instead try to cover it up, saying that Saying 114 was an interpolation added later.

I encourage you all to read the Gospel of Thomas, using the online text provided in the article, to see the foolishness so many people get worked up on for yourselves. You will note that the Sayings are not in any particular order, and have no narrative context to them. Essentially, some Manichean took various sayings of Jesus out of the Bible, reworded them to give a more Gnostic spin, and haphazardly listed them to form a kind of "book of Proverbs" for Gnostics. If you compare Thomas with other third century Gnostic work, such as the Nag Hammadi library, you would find that the remaining Sayings of the text are simply well known Gnostic proverbs. For instance, the phrase "two becoming one", so often used in Thomas but not found anywhere in scripture, clearly comes from the lost Gospel of the Egyptians, dating to the early third century.

I would also like to point out that the Gospel of Thomas is never quoted anywhere in scripture or by any early church father before the third century (and starting in the third century, it's never mentioned in a good light). Saint Paul's Epistles makes frequent quotations of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, emphasizing on the passion narrative, (which Thomas never mentions) but not once quotes Thomas even implicitly. Neither is Thomas quoted by Clement, Ignatius, or Irenaeus, even though they collectively quoted the entire New Testament cannon. Tatian's Gospel harmony, written in the early second century, merges text from only the four canonical Gospels, and Saint Clement of Rome wrote in 94 AD that "there are only four Gospels".

One would assume that if the Gospel of Thomas was so special, it would get a little more prestige in its own time.LutherVinci (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

LutherVinci, doubtless you are a scholar and a gentleman; however, there is a mountain of accepted argument for the validity of the gospel of Thomas. One that springs to mind -- partly because it's written by Christians -- is "The Five Gospels" by The (cross-sect) Jesus Seminar. If you'd prefer something less "pulpy", you're free to check JSTOR.

Unfortunately, your own words betray you to be boringly typical! Like some kind of conservative Roman Catholic edit-war monger, your opinion regarding historiography and Truth carries about as much weight as that of, say, a Mormon edit-war monger or a Japanophile edit-war monger. Get out of here, dude, if you're making edits prompted by your religion-based paranoia (outlined by you, v.s., "Wikipedia wants the pseudo-Gospel of pseudo-Thomas to be canonical...") or religion-based prejudices (v.s., "It would do you no good to try to put a positive theological spin on a quite plainly non-Christian text").

Anyone curious as to how wrong you are can check out your page at here 96.31.211.181 (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Date Of Composition

In the article, the suggestion is that Valantasis is ambivalent about dating but he clearly defines his position thus:

"It is certain that some of the material of the Gospel of Thomas comes from the first stratum (30-60 CE)and there is always the possibility that one of the copyists of the Coptic version included sayings other than those contained in his archetype. With both these provisions, I would date the Gospel of Thomas to 100 - 110 CE."

From "The Gospel Of Thomas" by R. Valantasis P.20

The quote given in the article is from earlier within the introduction and I feel it misrepresents the views of Valntasis:

"Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as AD 60 or as late as AD 140, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature."

I will include the former quote in this section as a counterpoint to the latter but I will not remove the former, as I assume good faith. - JackWild — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.138.52 (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jack I modified your edit and removed the quotation that you added. The section that you added it to is about dating Thomas generally, and I think that the quotation is inappropriate to that section. You may re-add the Valantasis quotation under a more appropriate section if you'd like. — goethean ॐ 17:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see that you have added the information as part of the flow in order to clarify Valantasis' view, which is all I was concerned for. I am happy with your modification without the need to include the quote, thank you. - JackWild — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.138.52 (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Credible?

What is the criterion for determining whether one miracle is more credible,than another. Miracles tend to have the trait of being an act or feat which most of what is considered science is at a loss for explaining means and method for the results. Sochwa (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Should the Gospel of Thomas really be under Gnosticism?

It was my understanding that while those of Gnostic belief used the Gospel of Thomas, it was not solely used by Gnostic belief, nor did it directly promote Gnostic belief. However, it had nothing contrary to Gnostic belief either. If I recall, it's origins predate Gnostic philosophy, so it cannot really be considered to be a Gnostic work. If I had to place it somewhere it would be in the New Testament Apocrypha, simply on the basis that it is a non-canonical gospel.--Robert Wm "Ruedii" (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Nestorian Church

I am no expert but I am pretty sure the date of 1945 given for the discovery of the gospel of Thomas is very Eurocentric and inaccurate. The Gospel of Thomas is included in the bible of the Nestorian Church. In fact Nestorians are often called St Thomas Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.194.129 (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That does not appear to be correct. See Peshitta. Rmhermen (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That does not show anything... why-the-lost-gospels-were-never-lost - Philip Jenkins

I read the gospel of Thomas while staying in Hualien Taiwan (Parkview Hotel??)... it was in the bible that was found in the hotel room. I may be wrong as it was some time ago but I am pretty sure it was the Nestorian Church that had placed the bible in the room to be read... which was what raised my curiosity to pick it up in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.194.129 (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed embedded link metalog.org

Removed embedded link - "Are the Coptic Gospels Gnostic?", could be a reference but metalog.org appears to be down. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Mostly unsubstantiated opinion (aka "original research")

A lot of the middle portion of this page, consists of the writer's opinion, with no citations of any references.

That material reads something like "The sayings in the Gospel of Thomas cannot be understood in the same way as the synoptic Gospels, so they clearly are talking about the Self vs the Ego."

It's classic Wikipedia that some person's eyewitness account of a small historical event is removed because it is not first posted to some web page, and then "cited", but when it comes to potentially important theological texts about the Meaning of Life, then some Wikipedia writer can write whatever he wants out of his personal opinion. (rolls eyes) 76.209.222.104 (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it. If we need a "Philosophy" section, it will need to be written afresh from actual sources! Skyerise (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

dubious criticism

This quote is dubious. Proverbs and Amen-em-Opet are not saying gospels, like Q and Thomas are. It's hyperbole, not scholarship.

[[Maurice Casey]] has strongly questioned the argument from genre: the "logic of the argument requires that Q and the Gospel of Thomas be also dated at the same time as both the [[book of Proverbs]] and the ''[[Instruction of Amenemope|Sayings of Amen-em-Opet]]''."<ref>{{cite book |first=Maurice |last=Casey |title=An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke |series=Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series |volume=122 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2002 |isbn=978-0521817233 |page=33}}</ref>{{dubious}}

Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying the Author of the Gospel of Thomas

In some parts of the article it is written that the author is not known. It should be understood that the knowledge base of the subject is small meaning only a few individuals my know the answer. So, rather than state the author is unknown I suggest allowing sources that can show common sense, common phrasing. So if two or more sources contain the same information, from millennias past, it is more likely the texts are truthful, and valuable to researchers and readers of Wikipiedia. There simply is not more information out there, to cite, and in this case the answers we seek remain hidden. The edit I would like to should be "According to The Talmud of Jmmanuel, there are two Thomases, one in the family of Immanu'el, and also one disciple. Upon research of the writings in the Gospel of Thomas and comparison of the Talmud of Jmmanuel scrolls, we find a very similar texting and phrasing. Most likely the author of the Gospel of Thomas was originally Thomas the brother of Immanu'el."

Its not conjecture or original research but more apparent knowledge, to seekers of truth.Joseph1100 (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gospel of Thomas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008055033/http://www.gospels.net/thomas/ to http://www.gospels.net/thomas/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160130132129/http://jdt.unl.edu/thomasbook.htm to http://jdt.unl.edu/thomasbook.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Garbled nonsense in The role of James

A sentence in the Role of James section as currently written:

Moreover, there are some sayings, (principally log. 6, 14, 104) and Oxyrh. papyri 654 (log. 6) in which Gospel is shown in the opposite point of view to Jewish mores specially in respect to the circumcision and dietary practices (log. 55), key issue, in the early Jewish-Christian community led by James (Acts 15: 1-35, Gal. 2:1–10).

reads as if it were composed or edited by a non-native speaker. "Especially" and "a key issue" seem expected, but since I am unclear as to the writer's intent, I won't try fixing this. Perhaps someone can address this obscure statement? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thomas, New Scholarship and the Oral gospel traditions

In a general sense I think it would be fair to say that there is now a "consensus that Jesus must be understood as a Jew in a Jewish environment." Voorst 2000. p 5 (As to the importance of Aramaic, please see Talk at Oral gospel traditions.) Over the past ten years the thinking of Biblical scholars has undergone a radical transformation. Many scholars now believe:

1. Jesus was a Jewish rabbi living in a Jewish society (Sitz im Leban).
2. Jesus and later his disciples were active participants in the Oral Tradition of the Second Temple Period.
3. Early Christians, up to the time of the creation of the first Gospels, sustained the Gospel message of Jesus, by sharing the stories of his life and his teachings orally. This Oral Tradition remained vibrant until the destruction of the Temple.
4. These 21st C. scholars generally agree that Mark was the first to write down the Oral Tradition in the form of a Gospel. They further agree that Matthew also wrote down the sayings in a Hebrew dialect. However, most modern scholarship agrees that the canonical Gospel of Matthew does not appear to be a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic but was composed in Greek. (ie Matthew's Hebrew Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew are two distinct Gospels.)

Three of the most notable scholars to join this new scholarly position have been Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, and James Edwards.

The majority of links that I have clicked in this talk leads to the previous millennium, and some links lead to only one or two articles, or nothing. The oral memory theory is used to explain the delay in decades with regards to writing down the stories about Jesus, and naturally can't be debunked nor proven

You say "new scholarly position" yet it is unclear to which points you refer. All of them? For the record, Maurice Casey died in 2014, 6 years ago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Casey. Markan Priority is supported by the vast majority of scholars today, yet exactly how Mark gathered his material remains debated. The part of oral memory entered that debate decades ago, and the theory in itself, like "layered tradition", is prone to cause a stalemate in and discussion: it can neither be denied nor confirmed, and the downside of it is that it is used to argue that e.g. the Gospel of Thomas is authentic exactly because it has so little in common with the Synoptic Gospels: oral memory is the key there, and I am still unsure whether such is argued in seriousness or merely to sabotage, yet the fact of the matter is that where written sources contradict or pose questions, oral memory enters the scene as some kind of panacea Sato21st (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Proto Gnostic

The Gospel of Thomas has almost no gnostic concepts in it and yet this article presumes it is gnostic in origin. There are many mentions of secret teachings in the cannon and this does not presuppose that there being secret teachings is gnostic in origins. In fact Ireneas states that there is orthodox gnosis as well as the heretical gnostic teachings. The concept of the body as a poverty is in the text, but this is also considered to be a miracle. I do not see any other Gnostic concepts here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.50.63 (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. When I read the Gospel of Thomas it didn't read as Gnostic at all. If anything, it appears to be some kind of pre-Gospel Christian literature. Maybe it would be better to fit it under "early Christianity" or "apocrypha". Bagabondo (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Gnostic is a useful a term as religious: it is an umbrella term for many concepts, varying from self-seeking to full blown duality with a Creator and a demiurge, much like the Christian God and Satan. The main reason why Gnosticism as a label to Thomas gets pushed is the majority opinion that it evolved in the first century CE as a reaction to ["orthodox teachings, traditions, or the authority of the church"], as if there were anything like an organisation or orthodoxy at that time. It is a veiled attempt at pointing out dependency Sato21st (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

So what, precisely, does anyone wish to change? The article makes clear in the lead that "It is possible that the document originated within a school of early Christians, possibly proto-Gnostics.[8] Some critics further state that even the description of Thomas as a "gnostic" gospel is based upon little other than the fact that it was found along with gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi.[9]". (I'm going to re-write that sentence as it's just ugly). Should this be expanded on in it's own section (something like "Relation to Gnostic Texts")? If so, then Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" has a whole chapter on the Gospel of Thomas, as well as his arguments that it does reflect Gnostic teachings (Chapter Three- The Discovery of an Ancient Forgery: The Coptic Gospel of Thomas-specifically the subsection "Interpreting the Gospel of Thomas). And obviously we would have to balance this out with sources that argue the opposite. Remember, it is NOT our job to decide what is "right", but to present the RS and what they say. Vyselink (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the editio minor?

​Recently added was its editio minor counts more than 80% of parallels, but I find this sentence unclear. What is this referring to? – Thjarkur (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The editio minor was intended as major, yet quickly published and relatively very brief: https://www.worldcat.org/title/gospel-according-to-thomas/oclc/787635

At the end it contains the parallels. The translation by Guillaumont et al is considered the major early transcription and translation. I'll grant that the term "editio minor" might be confusing indeed, in hindsight. In its Preliminary Remarks on page v the authors themselves refer to it as "fragment of a work which is much more extensive and complete" and "extract" Sato21st (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"Trite" as a note?

Note 94 labels a significant section as "Trite" - is this someone's name or discrediting the content itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.96.170 (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)