SLD

I have heard argued on these boards that the reason for rejecting the Gnostic Gospels, such as Thomas, are that they are obviously much later creations than the four “real” gospels. Thus the early Catholic Church was correct in leaving out the other Gospels at the Council of Nicaea and thus only the four Bible Gospels are the authentic word of God. An interesting article in today’s New York Times, however discusses the findings of one scholar who suggests that the story of doubting Thomas in John is a jab at the Gospel of Thomas – thus indicating that it is in fact older than John.

The gospel of John was thus written as an anti-gnostic gospel intended to counteract the growing “heresy” of Gnosticism. Does this indicate that gnostic Christianity was a precursor to Christianity?

Most mainstream biblical scholars hold that John was written much later than the other gospels – sometime between 90 and 120 AD, but fundamentalists have argued for a much earlier dating – as early as the 40’s or 50’s. However, if Thomas was written before John, than a much earlier date can be ruled out.

Does anyone have a consensus on the dating of the Gospel of Thomas?

SLD

Peter Kirby

Most agree that the Gospel of Thomas was written between 30 and 230 CE. The latest possible date is fixed by the Oxyrhynchus fragments and the reference from Hippolytus (Haer. 5.7.20).

best,
Peter Kirby

SLD

That's quite a broad range, Peter. You mean to say that some actually date that Gospel before the Crucifixion? I mean I know it's a sayings Gospel, but I wouldn't think it would have been compiled during Jesus's life.


SLD

Peter Kirby

It is what we know for certain.

The year 30 is taken to be the approximate year of the crucifixion by some, so the range indicated says that the compilation could have started soon after the crucifixion. Actually, though, do we have reason to claim that nobody who knew Jesus would have written down sayings during his lifetime? Part of the problem with dating GThomas is that it, like many wisdom documents, would likely have coalesced over several decades.

best,
Peter Kirby

SLD

I see your point Peter. But part of the rationale for this book is that the story of doubting Thomas in John is a response to the GoT and thus the GoT predates it. That may make it the earlier than even Mark. It does make one wonder if in fact it does predate Jesus's crucifixion - there is no passion narrative in it. I wonder how Doherty would view this as evidence of a real historical Jesus.

SLD

CX

This sounds like the central thesis of Elaine Pagels new book. It's worth noting however that the concil of Nicaea convened in 325 was not primarily concerned with establishing a canon, but rather with developing an orthodox statement of faith (the "Nicene Creed") and rejecting Arianism.

Pagels discusses at length the defense of a "four formed" gospel by Irenaeus in the 2nd century. Irenaeus was combatting Gnosticism in his lengthy refutation of "Falsely so-called knowledge". He brings up such stellar arguments for a "four formed gospel" as that there are "four principal winds" and "four regions to the universe".

Ultimately we have no way of knowing when various "gnostic texts were written" with any certainty. Most were destroyed by the orthodox church. Prior to the finds at Nag Hammadi, we had almost no knowledge whatever of early variants of Xian belief. This in itself is not an argument for the authenticity of the four gospels as we have them today.

What is clear is that no later than the 2nd century, gnostic Xianity was a pervasive and powerful alternative to what we now regard as orthodox belief. Unfortunately it is the victors who write history. Even so Pagels book (along with here 1979 classic The Gnostic Gospels provides a compelling view of the diversity of early Xian belief.

SLD

You are correct, the article was about Elaine Pagels. I didn't know if we could link to it here. In any event, I think it's an interesting thesis that Thomas predates John - it destroys the argument that the "other" gospels are not authentic and that's why Christians should only accept the four in the Bible.

Interesting that the real reason for using the four gospels real defense was that there are four winds and four known areas of the universe. That sure helps a skeptic like me.


SLD

Tercel

The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the choosing of the Bible books: It's a common myth.

Wanna know more? Read this thread.

It seems to me that even if the idea behind this hypothesis is largely true, it need not indicate the existence of the Gospel of Thomas: Merely the existence of a sect which claimed Thomas as its founder.

Except that John was the gospel most liked by the gnostics in general as it contains a comparatively high level of gnostic-type stuff.

Well, if we apply the same skeptic methodology that gets applied to the canonical gospels ("They didn't exist until the time of the first extant references and were heavily redacted after that") then we can conclude with certainty that the Gospel was first drafted in AD 220 or so but was heavily redacted during the next 50 years as reflected by the later Coptic versions of it and the varient reading quoted by Hippolytus.

Give the guy a break: In the course of 5 books totalling 148 chapters of Against All Heresies he spends a whopping one verse (3.11.8) reflecting the on the mystical significance of the number four. Whopdiddly.

Toto

Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas

NY Times links require free registration:

'Beyond Belief': Another Gospel Truth book review by Frank Kermode

The Heresy that Saved a Skeptic {human interest}

Chapter One

Vorkosigan

Well, if we apply the same skeptic methodology that gets applied to the canonical gospels ("They didn't exist until the time of the first extant references and were heavily redacted after that")

List five skeptics who make that claim, please. Or retract this silly nonesense.

Vorkosigan