Did I get this right - that

[Joe for Clark]

the Thomas gospel is kinda like John to the third power??

That the correlations may be to Matthew and "Q" - but the thrust is very mystic - like John, but to an extreme.

You know what I mean??

Joe

[SutaUvaca]

1. The easy answer is probably "No."

Your questions are interesting but quick answers aren't really good I think.
May I suggest a reading of Elaine Pagel's "The Gnostic Gospels."
She gives a good survey of how the newer (discovered) "gospels" compare to the ones that were canonized.

[Joe for Clark]

2. I think it just keeps going back to her.

Ok - I'll get Beyond Belief - I'll read it.

I am pretty sure - if it really is Thomas Judas - it is not gnostic, as I think of gnostic.
I realise there is great debate about the word gnostic.

See, I went to business school in college - I want the take of people that studied other things in this. I have never seen a text that has given me such fits - I read thru something, I get the take and make judgements accordingly. This one is different.

This is driving me nuts.

Joe

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Are you talking about the Gospel of Thomas

that has been in publication since at least the early 90s? I read a Gospel of Thomas back then, it reminded me of basic mysticism, and I went on to other things. But lately I've heard of a Gospel of Judas, and from what I've heard of it, it isn't the same thing.

[Joe for Clark]

5. Gospel of Thomas Judas.

Apparently, discovered intact in 1945. Some people may have been more aware than I -

What I am talking about is supposed to be written by Thomas (the doubter) -

It is mystic - It does apparently date correctly to the time of the four gospels, maybe predates.

I think we are talking about the same thing??

Joe

[On the Road]

4. It Is Very Mystic

but I think it helps to approach it by asking two questions:

1) Are Thomas's versions of the canonical gospel sayings earlier and more authentic, or later and more derivative?

Many scholars feel the canonical gospel versions are the original, and that Thomas's are 2nd century derivations. But one of the principles in studying texts is that texts usually become more normal rather than more bizarre. By that principle, "the first shall be last and they shall become a single one" is more likely earlier than simply "the first shall be last."

According to the gospels, Jesus was accused of being out of his mind. Few of the sayings in the New Testament would suggest that, but many of the sayings in Thomas could sound like a delusional person.

2) Which faction or strand of early Christianity or Judaisam do they represent?

Thomas is often referred to as "gnostic," which is kind of a catch-all category which is not usually taken seriously as a representing early Christianity. But Thomas may also reflect a strain of Jewish mysticism closer to home. Jesus' appointment of James as his successor points to an early anti-Paul source for at some of the material.

If you want to read more on Thomas, I would suggest Stevan Davies, who's a specialist and has a decent writing style. (He was even used to post on a historical Jesus site I frequent.) Here's a list of his and some other books:

http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/books.html

There's also a Yahoo discussion group which I haven't read but looks very active.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GospelofThomas/

I love some of the sayings in Thomas and would like to understand it better. Probably my favorite:

101. Jesus said "The Kingdom of Heaven is like a woman bearing a jar full of meal. Walking along a distant road, the handle of the jar broke; the meal spilled out on the road behind her, without her knowing or troubling about it. When she entered into her house, she put the jar down and found it was empty."

Now that is fresh, unfamiliar, and probably genuine (who would make something like that up)? It's probably the closest we get to the mystery of hearing Jesus speak.

[Joe for Clark]

6. I read davies site on this.

Doesn't really answer the question - poses good hyotheticals.

He is careful to point out both sides.

I just want to know what it means?? I read the thomas work - it is more like zen than christianity.

But it does also read like "stereo installation instructions".

Maybe that is the way it should be - but it is not easy to read, either.

I will check out that yahoo group.

It is like John, I think.

Joe

[okasha]

7. Thomas, like Q, is a "sayings gospel"

There's no narrative to speak of, just the basic teachings with little or no context. Also like Q, the first "layer" of Thomas dates somewhere within 30-60 years after Jesus' death, so they're fairly close to the source.

Thomas resembles John because John is also based on a "sayings" document (maybe Thomas, maybe another)combined with an early "miracles" document so that the sayings and the miracles reinforce each other. The narrative elements in John seem to be late compared to this earlier core matter.

[Joe for Clark]

8. Good post -

You know, I get paid to tell people what is smart and not - right and wrong.

And this matter should be clear - and it is so murky.

This resembles John because John is a mystic gospel. I am surprised he survived cannonization at this point.

Thomas is mystic - but has elements of Matthew?? This is a very strange deal here.

I still do not know what to make of this - but I ain't letting go either.

Joe

[On the Road]

9. Although He Writes in an Evenhanded Way, Davies Believes

that Thomas is early and independent and contains more original versions of the synoptic sayings.

As to what it means, there is no single agreed-on answer. According to the canonical gospels, Jesus taught in parables which were puzzling to the public but which he explained in private. Some of the sayings in Thomas may be examples -- only if you were allowed into the inner circle of the movement would you know the interpretaion.

One thing that's fascinating about Thomas is that reflects, and rhymes with the canonical gospels in curious ways. It seems like whenever I read it, something else pops out. For example:

Thomas 80: Jesus said, "He who has recognized the world has found the body, but he who has found the body is superior to the world."

Now that doesn't sound like anything you hear in Sunday school. But then there's this:

Luke 17:37 "Where, Lord?" they asked. He replied, "Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather."

To fully understand the meanings of those two passages and their relationship, I think you would have to understand not only who wrote them, but the relationship of their two groups, their background, how they saw Jesus, and ultimately how they modified what Jesus was really trying to convey. That's why I think that if used properly, Thomas can be an excellent vehicle for asking over the right questions and giving open-ended food for thought. And maybe that open-ended questioning process IS part of what it's about.

[Joe for Clark]

10. Oh, I think you are right.

That it is seen as apocraphal - I DON'T THINK THEY KNEW IT EXISTED.

Hell, we didn't really know until 1945 - in an acidental discovery.

This is getting under my skin. Davies says that "most scholars" agree it dates to or predates the Luke, Matthew, Mark and John gospels - IT EITHER DOES OR DOESN'T. How come they don't know?

No one really knows what happened when the new testiment was cannonized - how they determined it.

But we do know that Constantine offered and paid alot of money to get a final version quickly.

Is this Thomas gospel the "Q" gospel - it just might be the basis for it - and god knows it does not read very well.

I know I am dumping and I don't mean to.

Joe

[On the Road]

11. Thanks for Responding at Length

People often lose interest here.

It's not a surprise that people don't know if Thomas was before or after. Hundreds of old documents exist from different centuries with all kinds of complex variations. Scholars often have very strong preconceptions, and you can read almost anything you want into the evidence if you try hard enough.

The reason Thomas is not in the New Testament is probably that it came from a competing school of Christianity or Judaism. For one thing, it supports Paul's chief rival: Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

But it's more complicated than that. Thomas was also found in Egypt, which was a hotbed of esoteric Judaism, primarily types that were antithetical to James. And while honoring James, it contains quotes against circumcision and purity regulations like kosher food. So it's a mixed bag.

I'm starting to think that Thomas and the other gospels originated with a core set of sayings and like the canonical gospels was adapted, sometimes as a kind of propaganda to reflect an opposite point of view

I think understanding the political, economic, and partisan relationships go a long way toward understanding what went into the gospels. Paul was clearly an upper-class accomodationist. What Jesus was is still hotly debated.