gnosis92

wiki has a summary of some of the ideas themes and contraversies regrading the gospel of thomas gospel of thomas

here abreviated GOT

my own screen name "gnosis" comes from elaine pagel's discussion of the gospel of thomas gnosis u'll find on pbs.

ehrman argues that since the GOT presupposes gnosticism, and there is no evidence of gnosticism in early first century Judea-Jewish context, the GOT must be dated in second century, when the first documented evidence of gnosticism comes into play.

one claim is that GOT isn't very jewish, but some sayinsg, such as waiting seven days for new born, comes from certain jewish practices and traditions such as circumcission.

i'd like to think some of GOT's material may have served as teh basis for canonical gospels including john and luke, as luke has jesus say "the kingdom is within you" which could have come from GOT.

there is some overlap between GOT and john, such as the vine, water, spirit, "father" as well as GOT and Paul.

for fundies the most parsimonious explanation is that GOT author ripped verses from the NT, but this would only account for roughly half the material.

Doug Shaver

I agree that it's probably second century, but I would not use that argument. I think there is plenty of evidence for first-century Christian gnosticism in Paul's writings.

Even if there were not, an argument that there could have been no Christian gnostics a century before they show up in the historical paper trail looks awfully weak to me.

gnosis92

x= jesus

elaine pagels did write gnostic paul. why do you think it's second century? i'd like to think it's early first century. in many instances GOT does parallel the NT, his version of the logia are simplier and more primitive.

i actually agree with u against ehrman & crossan/funk/jesus seminar that a proto-gnosticism probalby did exist in early 1st century, as evidence by philo/paul, and so the GOT could have been early and reflected this proto-gnostic stream.

another argument against GOT being early that ehrman uses is that HJ was an apolcaptic prophet of gloom and doom (one of ehrman's books is titled such, and widely used among universities) and GOT represents "realized eschatology" a much later tradition.

i guess one way to open this, in the first line of GOT reads "these are the secret teachings recorded by thomas. whoever discovers the proper interpretation of these secret sayings shall never taste death"

was the statement intended to refer to what jesus was saying, or what thomas was saying.

was thomas identified to connect specifically to the doubting thomas story of john, or is there another reason thomas was identified by name?

did the thomasine xians interpret this literally (they will literarlly not die perhaps through some kind of second coming or resurrection) or metaphorically (they will die a physical death, but their spirit will live on)


my answers open to debate:
thomas was identified both b/c it means "twin" in armaic and to connect it to the doubting
thomas tradition spelled out in john (see elaine pagel's beyond belief)

2- x was "promising" the seeker to discover the proper interpretation which thomas recorded is just as good an interpretatino as thomas promising the seeker to discover the proper interpretation of his master, x

3- xian-xian interpreted eternal life literally - ur corpse comes back as a zombie. thomasine xians interpreted metaphorically, to understand the proper interpretation is to discover within urself a divine spark that never dies, to know you pass and integrate urself into this eternal divine spark.

the yahoo group for thomas discussion has almost no discussion on thomas! i made these posts without response (under gnosis of course!)

another discussion: was GOT113 "every woman who makes herself male shall enter the kingdom"
sexist?

lee strobel in the case for christ and most fundies claim GOT is anti-woman sexist (repeated by paul harrison in world pantheist net) due to saying 113. ehrman also discusses this i think it was in misquoting jesus or lost christianities as being sexist, as a type of great chain of being, with men higher then women (gods higher than men, women higher than animals, animals higher than plants, plants higher than rocks)

i interpret this as a woman discovering the male jungian archetype in herself so it isn't sexist at all (i.e eve discovering the adam in jewish folklore/mysticism) i also heard that a woman can make herself male through intense fasting (i.e stops menstruating, loses body fat) a spiritual practice. also not sexist.

Solo

Count me among the early campers. Of course there will be scholars who will deny Jewish gnosticism existed in the first century even if it stares them in the face. So what else is new ? New Testament ?

In my analysis of the cognitive structures in the early texts, Thomas would be an earlier gospel than Mark although it probably "lived" through some later additions. The most compelling evidence for an early date would be GT(12) in which Jesus directs his "disciples" to "go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being". This most likely is a mediumistic Jesus speaking, whose "departure" means the adept's "loss of the Spirit" (on which the GT elborates elsewhere), but the scribbling tradition here almost certainly originates before James' death in AD 62, given the decline of James' importance for the movement after the fall of Jerusalem.

The most important feature of the gospel of Thomas is its systematic exposition of the "deathless" state of the gospel-managed Jesus "twin" who "enters" the mysterious, hidden Kingdom. In this cognitive context some of the sayings known to the canon appear in a more natural setting. For example GT(62) presents the familiar saying of Mt 6:3: "do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing". The canonical version directs an alms-giver to give without ostentation,"in secret" as it were, without thought of being " praised by men". But the saying in Matthew is misapprehended and mislaid in its use. It clearly wishes to convey the public nature of the secret. But the "secret" in the saying alludes to an internal matter In Thomas, Jesus offers this: "To those worthy of my mysteries, I tell my mysteries. Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing". This of course is the "mystery" which Zen master Hakuin was alluding to in his famous koan of the "sound of one hand clapping",. i.e., you will get hold of my mysteriously functioning brain, if you reach a hypnotic state of mind in which the "conscious" self sleeps and magical things (euphoric hallucinations) happen outside of its zone of awareness, while you are awake. The cognitive content of the Thomas' saying represents the fully articulated thought. Matthew emerges as a later, derived, idiom of the traditional (or perhaps, original) Jesus saying.

The intended audience in GT, unlike the canonical Gospels, is not general believer group at large, but initiated mystical adepts who can read complex cryptograms, and correlate them with the phases of their experience with the spirit, i.e. the ascent in euphoric phantasy, the mysteries of sleepless brain, the peak experience, the ensuing psychosis, departure of the spirit, and integrating the experience into normal waking consciousness. There is no apparent dependence on the synoptic or Johanine traditions and the resurrectional imagery is strictly limited to the "Kingdom experience" articulated by Jesus. As the canon preserves this tradition but overlays it with another model of resurrection based on restricted number of post-crucifixion apparitions of Jesus, GT appears to present on the whole an earlier layer of traditions.

Jiri

robto

Crossan has a good section on GOT in Birth of Xty. He bases his view on S.J. Patterson, who is well worth a read. He makes it clear that the majority of GOT is independent of the canonical gospels. To me this means early (and to Patterson - he places GOT around 80 AD).

I'm agnostic (hah!) about pre-Xn gnosticism. The arguments on both sides seem pretty weak. Maybe there isn't enough evidence to decide?

In any case, I don't think an early GOT requires a developed form of gnosticism at an early date. Paul is evidence enough that some Xns thought they had a special knowledge.

gnosis92

i'm rather impressed with ur comment, which is why i posted this thread to begin with. i admit i'm a fan of the early camper b/c it pisses off fundies to say GOT is earlier than their new testament, and what pisses of fundies is something i tend to agree with. so i admit i have an emotionally vested reason to believing GOT is early, and then i read books to back-up my predetermined conclusion.

i was myself going to comment on GOT saying "be passers-by" as suggesting that the gnostic intiates are like aliens to this world, not belonging of this world (x says the same in john gospel) and longing to return to the world "blessed r the solitary and elect...for they shall return to the kingdom from whence they came."

another example is in GOT it says "why do you wash the outside of the cup or dish? do you not know who made the outside made the inside?"

whereas in matthew x called the pharisees "hypocrits, you wash the outside of the cup but inside you are full of greed and hypocrisy"

while you can argue either way, whether either may be an authentic tradition, GOT is definitely a mystical exposition, not necessarily gnostic, of the unity of outer/inner.

matthew x is presenting a diatribe against the pharisees. matthew does seem to have an agenda of showing x is the messiah and x fulfilled ot prophesies, and the pharisees r wrong. while having an agenda does not necessarily invalidate historicty, it seems plausible matthew heard of GOT's washing the cup, and applied it to his agenda, in implicating pharisees as hypocrits, without the original mystical presentation of the statement.

having read the nt, i don't find got to be too difficult, although some refences like "a man of old will ask a newbord 7 days place to live" do require some background knowledge (jews circumsize their boys 7 days after birth)

gnosis92

that's why i dont' entirely buy into ehrmans' argument, however, it is possible that gnostic sayings were included as GOT is simply a list, and adding to a list is easy. ehrman does agree GOT is largely independent of NT.

ehrman's example of a clear gnostic included

"on the day u were one, u became 2, what ru going 2 do?

which he interpreted as gnostic coming into being as spirit becoming enfleshed

have u heard of index fossiling? if u c a fossil with a trilobyte then the rock must be around 300 million years old.

well if a text has gnostic themes like GOT, GPeter, Gmary, Gphilip, GJudas, then it must be dated second century, says ehrman & co. marcion and valentius were 2nd century gnostics.

Solo

The shrinks call it "derealization" - of course, the kingdom is not of this world.


There are some interesting asides to this. Some of the gnostic snippets that were not excised from the canon do not fit anywhere in the "faith only" context of the later Christianity. For example the saying about the "violence" with which one enters the kingdom (Luke 16:16, Mt 11:12). In Thomas, this saying has several supporting logia which reveal its meaning:

(7) Blessed be the lion (the psychosis) whom the man eats (masters), for the man will become like a lion (fearless, masterful); and cursed be the man whom the lion (psychosis) eats (destroys) for the lion (the beastliness of madness) becomes like a man.


(35) It is not possible for anyone to enter the house of a strong man (God) and take it by force unless he binds his hands (finds a way to deal with the force of gnosis); then he will be able able to ransack his house....

(69) Blessed are those who have been persecuted within themselves. It is they who have truly come to know the Father.....

.......no comments necessary there, I hope.

I think though this saying simply means that in rules of the Kingdom, the wisdom that comes from the knowledge of the world does not buy you a lot.

Jiri

gnosis92

here's a cut and paste

Jesus said, "The person old in days won't hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live.

For many of the first will be last, and will become a single one."



it could be, the way i understood that logia after knowing jews circumsize the boy after 7 days is that after being circumsized, the boy enters into the covenant of abraham so a person old in days asking a infant boy who has just entered teh covenant of abraham will understand taht the place of life is to enter into a covenant with spirituality.

it's easy to grow up forgetting this, "for many first will be last" hence those who do remember to ask, remember the covenant, and hence, live, i.e have spiritual life, which is a unity of the self and the sacred. "will become a single one"

i did not initially understood the significance of 7 days as referring to circumcission. i'm not a jew so i don't think about these things. i thought it referred to 7-day creation in genesis. i originally thought a child represents day 1 of creation, and on day 7, the child is on the same age as when god created the world according to genesis. so to ask a child of 7 days about the place of life, is to understand the place of life is to rest, as god rested on 7th day of creation. god's rest on the 7 day was understood as sacred, hence to rest on 7 day is to observe what is sacred, hence will become a single one with the sacred.

since i'm not a jew im not sure if 7 days could mean other things, esp in relation to 7 days and infants.

Doug Shaver

Your chat room shorthand is distracting, but I'll try to cope with it as long as you insist on using it.

I don't think anything Pagels wrote is second century.
Neither do I think Paul is second century, and I didn't write anything that would imply my thinking so.

Given an assumption of a historic Jesus, certain conclusions will follow, but I don't make that assumption.

They're the same thing. Any writer of the time who attributed any saying to Jesus believed it himself. Otherwise he would not have so attributed it.

That obviously must depend on whether the author knew John's gospel. You cannot connect specifically to a character you've never heard about.

I can think of a few possibilities. I am not familiar enough with the relevant scholarship to have a defensible opinion on which is most likely correct.

It might be sexist or it might not, but I could not care less what any fundamentalist thinks one way or the other.