Talk:Gospel of Thomas

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

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)