Thoughts on the Gospel of Thomas:
The first regards the dates: There is no consensus for when Thomas was written, the majority arguing for a date after 100CE, some for a date as early as 60CE. This comes into play when one looks into dependencies – if early then is Thomas a parallel tradition drawing on the same sources, if late, then possibly entirely dependent on the canonical texts where there is a correspondence.
Then we have versions: The Coptic text dates around 350CE. Clearly we don't know when first written, but the text we have dates then, and is placed in Syria.
Three of the Papyrus Oxyrhynchus fragments, written in Greek, date between 130-250CE – at least a hundred years earlier – and differ from the Coptic version, eg the last portion of #30 in the Greek is found at the end of #77 in the Coptic.
Then we have Hippolytus (225-235CE), writing this:
The Naassenes’ speak ... of a nature which is both hidden and revealed at the same time and which they call the thought-for kingdom of heaven which is in a human being. They transmit a tradition concerning this in the Gospel entitled “According to Thomas,” which states expressly:
“The one who seeks me will find me in children of seven years and older, for there, hidden in the fourteenth aeon (age), I am revealed.”
(Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies, 5.7.20)
(Thomas logion 4: “The person old in his days will not hesitate to ask a child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live... “)
So, although it is generally thought that Thomas was first composed in Greek, there is evidence that the Coptic Nag Hammadi text is a translation from the Syriac.
All this suggests that Thomas may well have existed in various editions and redactions. Hippolytus’ reference to ‘Naassenes’ refers to a Christian cult, following the teachings of a 'Mariamne' (possibly meaning Mary Magdalene), supposedly a disciple of James the Just. Their beliefs represent an early form of a Christian gnosis teaching; Hippolytus certainly thought so, saying they were among the first to be called simply “Gnostics”, alleging that “they alone have sounded the depths of knowledge” (ibid). Such was the claim of every shade of Gnosticism.
The question then is, did the Coptic scribe of Thomas alter the received text to bring it in line with their own teachings, and if so, by how much?
The Syrian world was host to both Manichean and Mandean traditions, both dualist and gnosis-orientated traditions.
+++
Craig A. Evans noted that “Over half of the New Testament writings are quoted, paralleled, or alluded to in Thomas... I’m not aware of a Christian writing prior to 150 AD that references this much of the New Testament.”
To paraphrase J. R. Porter, who argues that around half of the sayings in Thomas have parallels in the synoptic gospels, it is possible that the sayings in Thomas were selected from the canonical gospels, either more or less exactly or “amended to fit the author’s distinctive theological outlook.” (J. R. Porter, The Lost Bible, New York, Metro Books. Emphasis mine).
Several scholars argue that Thomas is dependent on Syriac writings, including unique versions of the canonical gospels. They contend that many sayings of the Gospel of Thomas are more similar to Syriac translations of the canonical gospels than their record in the original Greek.
Craig A. Evans states that saying 54 in Thomas, which speaks of the poor and the kingdom of heaven, is more similar to the Syriac version of Matthew 5:3 than the Greek version of that passage or the parallel in Luke 6:20.
Klyne Snodgrass notes that #65–66, the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, appears to be dependent on the early harmonisation of Mark and Luke found in the old Syriac gospels. He concludes that, “Thomas, rather than representing the earliest form, has been shaped by this harmonising tendency in Syria ... Thomas, which has a Syrian provenance, is dependent on the tradition of the canonical Gospels that has been abbreviated and harmonised by oral transmission.”
Even Bart Ehrman (‘even’ because he can usually be relied upon to oppose the orthodox viewpoint) argues that the earliest Christian documents are Mark and the authentic Pauline epistles. The earliest Christians believed Jesus would soon return, and their beliefs are echoed in the earliest Christian writings. The Gospel of Thomas proclaims that the Kingdom of God is already present for those who understand the secret message of Jesus (#113), and lacks apocalyptic themes. Because of this, Ehrman argues, the Gospel of Thomas was probably composed by a Gnostic some time in the early 2nd century. Ehrman also argued against the authenticity of the sayings the Gospel of Thomas attributes to Jesus.
N.T. Wright, Anglican bishop and professor of New Testament history, also dates Thomas to the 2nd or 3rd century.
”(Thomas’) implicit story has to do with a figure who imparts a secret, hidden wisdom to those close to him, so that they can perceive a new truth and be saved by it. “The Thomas Christians are told the truth about their divine origins, and given the secret passwords that will prove effective in the return journey to their heavenly home.” This is, obviously, the non-historical story of Gnosticism [...] It is simply the case that, on good historical grounds, it is far more likely that the book represents a radical translation, and indeed subversion, of first-century Christianity into a quite different sort of religion, than that it represents the original of which the longer gospels are distortions [...] Thomas reflects a symbolic universe, and a worldview, which are radically different from those of the early Judaism and Christianity.”
The first regards the dates: There is no consensus for when Thomas was written, the majority arguing for a date after 100CE, some for a date as early as 60CE. This comes into play when one looks into dependencies – if early then is Thomas a parallel tradition drawing on the same sources, if late, then possibly entirely dependent on the canonical texts where there is a correspondence.
Then we have versions: The Coptic text dates around 350CE. Clearly we don't know when first written, but the text we have dates then, and is placed in Syria.
Three of the Papyrus Oxyrhynchus fragments, written in Greek, date between 130-250CE – at least a hundred years earlier – and differ from the Coptic version, eg the last portion of #30 in the Greek is found at the end of #77 in the Coptic.
Then we have Hippolytus (225-235CE), writing this:
The Naassenes’ speak ... of a nature which is both hidden and revealed at the same time and which they call the thought-for kingdom of heaven which is in a human being. They transmit a tradition concerning this in the Gospel entitled “According to Thomas,” which states expressly:
“The one who seeks me will find me in children of seven years and older, for there, hidden in the fourteenth aeon (age), I am revealed.”
(Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies, 5.7.20)
(Thomas logion 4: “The person old in his days will not hesitate to ask a child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live... “)
So, although it is generally thought that Thomas was first composed in Greek, there is evidence that the Coptic Nag Hammadi text is a translation from the Syriac.
All this suggests that Thomas may well have existed in various editions and redactions. Hippolytus’ reference to ‘Naassenes’ refers to a Christian cult, following the teachings of a 'Mariamne' (possibly meaning Mary Magdalene), supposedly a disciple of James the Just. Their beliefs represent an early form of a Christian gnosis teaching; Hippolytus certainly thought so, saying they were among the first to be called simply “Gnostics”, alleging that “they alone have sounded the depths of knowledge” (ibid). Such was the claim of every shade of Gnosticism.
The question then is, did the Coptic scribe of Thomas alter the received text to bring it in line with their own teachings, and if so, by how much?
The Syrian world was host to both Manichean and Mandean traditions, both dualist and gnosis-orientated traditions.
+++
Craig A. Evans noted that “Over half of the New Testament writings are quoted, paralleled, or alluded to in Thomas... I’m not aware of a Christian writing prior to 150 AD that references this much of the New Testament.”
To paraphrase J. R. Porter, who argues that around half of the sayings in Thomas have parallels in the synoptic gospels, it is possible that the sayings in Thomas were selected from the canonical gospels, either more or less exactly or “amended to fit the author’s distinctive theological outlook.” (J. R. Porter, The Lost Bible, New York, Metro Books. Emphasis mine).
Several scholars argue that Thomas is dependent on Syriac writings, including unique versions of the canonical gospels. They contend that many sayings of the Gospel of Thomas are more similar to Syriac translations of the canonical gospels than their record in the original Greek.
Craig A. Evans states that saying 54 in Thomas, which speaks of the poor and the kingdom of heaven, is more similar to the Syriac version of Matthew 5:3 than the Greek version of that passage or the parallel in Luke 6:20.
Klyne Snodgrass notes that #65–66, the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, appears to be dependent on the early harmonisation of Mark and Luke found in the old Syriac gospels. He concludes that, “Thomas, rather than representing the earliest form, has been shaped by this harmonising tendency in Syria ... Thomas, which has a Syrian provenance, is dependent on the tradition of the canonical Gospels that has been abbreviated and harmonised by oral transmission.”
Even Bart Ehrman (‘even’ because he can usually be relied upon to oppose the orthodox viewpoint) argues that the earliest Christian documents are Mark and the authentic Pauline epistles. The earliest Christians believed Jesus would soon return, and their beliefs are echoed in the earliest Christian writings. The Gospel of Thomas proclaims that the Kingdom of God is already present for those who understand the secret message of Jesus (#113), and lacks apocalyptic themes. Because of this, Ehrman argues, the Gospel of Thomas was probably composed by a Gnostic some time in the early 2nd century. Ehrman also argued against the authenticity of the sayings the Gospel of Thomas attributes to Jesus.
N.T. Wright, Anglican bishop and professor of New Testament history, also dates Thomas to the 2nd or 3rd century.
”(Thomas’) implicit story has to do with a figure who imparts a secret, hidden wisdom to those close to him, so that they can perceive a new truth and be saved by it. “The Thomas Christians are told the truth about their divine origins, and given the secret passwords that will prove effective in the return journey to their heavenly home.” This is, obviously, the non-historical story of Gnosticism [...] It is simply the case that, on good historical grounds, it is far more likely that the book represents a radical translation, and indeed subversion, of first-century Christianity into a quite different sort of religion, than that it represents the original of which the longer gospels are distortions [...] Thomas reflects a symbolic universe, and a worldview, which are radically different from those of the early Judaism and Christianity.”
mathitís) = 