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.

Removed embedded link[edit]

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

Mostly unsubstantiated opinion (aka "original research")[edit]

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) (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[edit]

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)