Talk:Gospel of Thomas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


WikiProject Religious texts (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing this article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

"Gnostic" or "gnostic"[edit]

At least in the first section, the term "gnostic" varies in its case, and it varies in similar contexts: E.g., one finds "Gnostic teaching" here, and "gnostic belief" there. I'm not sure if there's some particular, esoteric reason for the variation, but if so, such variation is a grammatical anomaly and as such ought to be taken under consideration by page monitors.

Date Of Oral Tradition[edit]

Whether or not it was written in 60 or 240, isn't it important how early these words were uttered? Oral tradition back then was gospel as common people had the power to memorize entire books amd book length speeches, since there was no such thing as mass production or printing press. If it was ever spoken incorrectly in front of an audience, they would refute it and say "no, your telling it wrong, its this..." What has happened to the human mind since the printing press is staggering, and now texting or txting and students not being able to write entire pages of essay without without updating their facebook status in between, leaves teachers baffled at broken looking papers. I am saying with modern advances we have traded in certain abilities.

Therefor it is possible that even if it was written down as late as 200 years after Christs death, it might make no difference on its authenticity. Invalidations would be if it changes who Christ IS or if Thomas never said those things. Not the dates of being written.

That said I have never read it and am now curious. But someone needs to point out the importance of spoken word back then.

Thomas, New Scholarship and the Oral gospel traditions[edit]

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.

Should the Gospel of Thomas really be under Gnosticism?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)