Talk:Gospel of Thomas

"Gnostic" or "gnostic"

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

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.

Interesting point about the oral traditions. Just to add to that is the discusion about the 'sayings' Original language. The coptic version may indeed have been written later and been a translation of an earlier Koine Greek text which again could be based on Aramaic sayings. Any editing should make distinctions between these and how dates are affected accordingly. The Gospel is well worth reading by itself and when seen in the light of the later collection of New testament gospels, particularly John there has been some work on whether John was actually partly written to refute some of the sayings and therefore to exclude the inherent beliefs of Thomasine Christians from what became post Nicene Christianity. Si noah (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2021 (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)

"Non-canonical"

@Si noah:, there is no consensus for the change you want made. As has been repeatedly said to you, the fact that the Gospel of Thomas is non-canonical is a basic fact of the text that will be included in any discussion of it. You have been pointed to the policies wp:RGW as well as WP:BRD, and yet you have made no attempt to use this talk page. I'm holding off on reporting you for edit warring in the hopes that you will stop simply reverting to your preferred version and acknowledge the lack of consensus for your change.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ermenrich, who has repeatedly told me this? As I have used the talk page for the 3rd time now you have just said i haven't used it. The point I'm making is that non-canonical is not included in any discusion of it. If you read James Robinson who originally translated it he stays well clear of this phrase preferring Coptic language Gospel or variations of that. I can see that Wikipedia is being used by people who launch into threats of blocking others who do not agree making it far from an open source of correct information. In your use Moby Dick is non-canonical. Shall I change that? Or Wind in the willows or The Republic? The Gospel of Thomas follows the ancient practice of dialogue and sayings that predates the New Testament and has no parallel in it so is obviously not of the Canon as other than having Jesus in it would fit no canon the early Church chose to create. Its a stand alone text that may have some value to the study of Q and the four canon gospels but is not one of them. Thanks anyway. Feel free to report me for whatever you like. Fact is fact and calling your own view a consensus doesn't make it so. I based mine on the scholars who translated and printed it after nearly two thousand years of it being suppressed. Thanks anyway Si noah (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You have never posted on this talk page to discuss your editing. The rest of your post is a bunch of non-sequiturs: "Moby Dick" is not a religious text. The Gospel of Thomas is a Christian religious text which is not canonical in the religion. I count at least 5 times that you've reverted the article to your preferred wording despite multiple editors reverting you. The fact that scholars discussing it in every instance don't need to mention that is not relevant: this is an encyclopedia where basic facts must be assembled, one of which is that this gospel is not part of the Christian canon. If you revert again, I will report you at WP:AN/3RR.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I posted in reply to another user and not in the non canonical talk section. I sense you are very agitated for some reason and perhaps more reflection may be needed before you reply. Are you OK? Mobile Dick is acknowledged by many (and several academics on this topic) as being 'religious' and indeed a gnostic text if you wish to go down that line. You correctly say that Thomas is not part of the Christian canon but that is irrelevant to it being a collection of saying of Jesus. It was never written I imagine to be part of the Christian canon. Thomasine, orthodox, nicene or any you care to mention. It's a stand alone text most probably used by thomasine Christians who practiced before any canon was considered or put together. Please reflect on why you wish to push an agenda over basic fact. As a historian yourself you will appreciate that the text's Original form is pre-canon and must be treated and described as such regardless or what followed historically. If reporting makes you happy then feel free. The call to a higher authority maybe demonstrates exactly why you wish to limit the Gospel in the same way the Nag Hammadi texts ended up being hidden away to save them from those who shut down all discusion Si noah (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

wp:NPA comment on the content, not the commenter. You are still bringing up irrelevant information: Moby Dick has nothing to do with this discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Gospel of Thomas was excluded from the canon. Everyone who reads an article about deserves to know this. You are making assumptions about the meaning of including this information: no one is saying that non-canonical texts can't shed light on the beliefs of early Christians.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Si noah: You have made long "edit comments", but that is not where we communicate about article decisions. We do it here on the talk page and sometimes on a user talk page, but not in edit comments. Each time you were reverted, the reason was given in the edit comment (click the history tab to read edit comments). That made it your responsibility to discuss here on the talk page and get consensus before repeating your edit. One more time of pushing your view into the article will get you blocked. You don't get to make the change without the agreement of a majority of editors in this discussion. For the record, I am opposed to your edit, it excises a necessary categorization of this text. Skyerise (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

- there is nothing pejorative in defining the Gospel of Thomas as non-canonical - It was never written I imagine to be part of the Christian canon., neither were any of the other gospels, they were all written before the canon was established - cheers, Epinoia (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's some great sources for "non-canonical". All of these books refer to the Gospel of Thomas as "non-canonical" or "extra-canonical". Most other books on the Gospel of Thomas also call attention to the distinction by specifically prefacing mentions of canonical works with the word "canonical", or by using a phrase such as "omitted from the canonical collection" for Gnostic works (Pagels (1984), The Gnostic Gospels), but they all report the fact that the book is not in the canon. No book on the subject ignores or fails to mention the distinction, even if they don't use the term "non-canonical".

• Cameron, Ron (1982). The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts. United Kingdom: Presbyterian Publishing Corporation.
• DeConick, A. D. (2006). Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel and Its Growth. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Foster, Paul (ed.) The Non-Canonical Gospels. (2008). United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Wolfe, R. (2011). The Gospel of Thomas: The Enlightenment Teachings of Jesus. United States: Karina Library Press.

They are indeed good references and it's true that many will if not specifically calling it non- canonical will reference it due to the subject matter and the use of the word Gospel to clarify that it is not a New Testament text. A footnote has now been included to support this (possibly by you) which was needed but what I was getting at is the describing it as non-canonical as a general distinction is the territory of theologians defining it against a background that didn't exist at the time of it being created. It's original translator James Robinskn seems to prefer Fifth Gospel when describing it and that is very distinct and linking it positively rather than as if its somehow inferior because it wasn't included in the NT. Its a stand alone text used by a community who from its content didn't follow the gospels from the canon. My view is that it should be treated in its pre-NT context when describing it rather than using Christian terminology to limit it. Time permitting I'll add some more relevant references to the talk that demonstrate this useage. Si noah (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"My view is that it should be treated in its pre-NT context when describing it rather than using Christian terminology to limit it." - This isn't a thing on Wikipedia. You will find plenty of rules, both general and specific to projects. Feel free to try to find this one and link to it. It doesn't exist and therefore there is no reason to follow your suggestion. Finding more relevant references won't help. One of our rules is that if there were a difference of opinion then we might have to find a way to include both; but it wouldn't require the removal of "extra-canonical", which is supported, even if another source were to explicitly opine that such a label were wrong. Skyerise (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a very kafkaesque response. So I need quotes but now quotes won't do. I need to look for a rule but won't find a rule. As I mentioned I don't need to find someone who opposes the use of the phrase to make a legitimate academic point. The phrase supports a particular point of view that places a bias on the way it is read. Adding references from original modern translators who have no particular axe to grind does that well enough but obviously isn't good enough for you so I'll leave you to the labyrinth of your own making on that. At least someone took note in a nonconfrotential way and added a reference and while I still think that misses the point it was done in a non aggressive overarching way and they took time to look for some supoorting evidence. You ignored my request to do that and just decided I was wrong and nothing I could do will change that regardless of what I'm saying about the page, which says it all. Si noah (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Try making valid arguments supported by sources. Skyerise (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Si noah, you don't know why translator x doesn't say "non-canonical" (you keep naming names but you haven't provided page numbers or any rational that they themselves wrote). It isn't true that academic sources do not use the term "non-canonical" either, as has been amply demonstrated. You appear to be advocating for a particular viewpoint that is not supported by academic sources, namely that we can't use the term non-canonical because it makes the Gospel of Thomas into a second rate gospel. Your insistence on this point makes one suspect you are doing it for reasons that go toward advocacy, which is not allowed here (see the frequently linked wp:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). Wikipedia does not exist to rehabilitate the Gospel of Thomas from its unjust suppression. It exists to report facts about it - one of the most significant of which is that it was not accepted into the New Testament canon and was suppressed.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Are we back to that now. I've made it clear that non-caninical shouldn't be used in its initial description and added sources. Which part of that wasn't clear? I get why some disagree as it is used particularly when discussing it in the light of NT texts. For a general non specialist reader the sources I referenced use different terms for exactly that reason otherwise it leads people to believe that Thomas is of lesser value somehow by comparison. Sure make that argument later but not to introduce it. My point is perfectly valid. Just because you disagree it doesn't change that so don't lessen a different view to your own by claiming it isn't valid. Si noah (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Try making valid arguments supported by sources. Skyerise (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Something can still be valid just because you don't agree doesn't change that. I added sources and again they seemed to become 'my favourite authors'. Doublespeak at its best. Si noah (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Try writing shorter replies that are easier to parse. Make a list of sources, with page numbers, that support your position. Even better if they're online.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

page numbers and quotations. Skyerise (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The Gospel of Thomas translated by Marvin Meyer, introduction p5 'The Gospel according to Thomas is an ancient collection of saying of Jesus' The Nag Hammadi Library editod by James M Robinson p124 introduction by Helmut Kiester 'The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of traditional sayings of Jesus' Si noah (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

No, we've already established that some authors use "non-canonical" and/or "extra-canonical", which makes it fair game for inclusion. The fact that one or more authors don't use the term doesn't change that. What you need to provide is published arguments that the term doesn't apply or shouldn't be used, specifically with respect to the Gospel of Thomas. Skyerise (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a different matter altogether. Because someone wants to apply a term to discuss other texts in relation to it a hundred or so years after it was created does not mean I have to counter them. As a general introduction the neutral description is more fitting and support by original translators should be fine for that. The other writers are making points to do with the text in the light of the NT as I've said so therefore they should add supporting information as to why they do that. You won't agree anyway with whatever I provide so it's a bit pointless that is clear. I've tried adding two very mainstream factual weblinks with similar points and content about Thomas but the page won't add them for some reason. Si noah (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

No, if you can show that there is a dispute over the applicability of the term among different branches of scholarship, then that is a fact which can be noted in the article. Skyerise (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the term at all as I've said repeatedly. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be in the introduction which should reflect a neutral viewpoint. Such discusion can be then included later. There is an inconsistency in the use of the term across wiki when looking at the way any such text is introduced if you check the texts that could be called non-canonical using your argument. Si noah (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll fix that. Skyerise (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that arguments for leaving things out are never neutral. Our neutrality policy is about inclusion, that all positions should be included unless they are fringe. Skyerise (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Google Preview of Date Range Inaccurate

Hello! I noticed the Google preview of this page gives a 60 A.D. to 140 A.D. date range, as opposed to the 60 A.D. to 250 A.D. date range written (and backed up by citations) in the article itself. I searched "Gospel of Thomas date" and this inaccurate 60-140 date from Wikipedia was the first result. I'm not sure how to correct this, so I'd appreciate it if someone else could do so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.93.215.128 (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The prose of the article is sufficiently clear: most scholars date it to between 60 and 140, while some date it as late as 250. We need do nothing to the article; the Google search results are Google's problem. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hyperlink to the "Thomasine" page

Under the religion part, it says Christanity (Thomasine), but it links to the Saint Thomas Christians in India, these two groups are unrelated, but I'm not sure if I should link it to the "Thomasine" Christians that we know existed in the 1st and 2nd century AD in the Eastern Mediterranean, because scholars are unsure if the Gospel of Thomas was even revered by this community. Thoughts? Maybe just removing the hyperlink entirely, or adding a "possibly?" to the proper Thomasine hyperlink TablemannDanny231 (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)