Talk:Gospel of Thomas

"Gnostic" or "gnostic"

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

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.

Interesting point about the oral traditions. Just to add to that is the discusion about the 'sayings' Original language. The coptic version may indeed have been written later and been a translation of an earlier Koine Greek text which again could be based on Aramaic sayings. Any editing should make distinctions between these and how dates are affected accordingly. The Gospel is well worth reading by itself and when seen in the light of the later collection of New testament gospels, particularly John there has been some work on whether John was actually partly written to refute some of the sayings and therefore to exclude the inherent beliefs of Thomasine Christians from what became post Nicene Christianity. Si noah (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thomas, New Scholarship and the Oral gospel traditions

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.

The majority of links that I have clicked in this talk leads to the previous millennium, and some links lead to only one or two articles, or nothing. The oral memory theory is used to explain the delay in decades with regards to writing down the stories about Jesus, and naturally can't be debunked nor proven

You say "new scholarly position" yet it is unclear to which points you refer. All of them? For the record, Maurice Casey died in 2014, 6 years ago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Casey. Markan Priority is supported by the vast majority of scholars today, yet exactly how Mark gathered his material remains debated. The part of oral memory entered that debate decades ago, and the theory in itself, like "layered tradition", is prone to cause a stalemate in and discussion: it can neither be denied nor confirmed, and the downside of it is that it is used to argue that e.g. the Gospel of Thomas is authentic exactly because it has so little in common with the Synoptic Gospels: oral memory is the key there, and I am still unsure whether such is argued in seriousness or merely to sabotage, yet the fact of the matter is that where written sources contradict or pose questions, oral memory enters the scene as some kind of panacea Sato21st (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Proto Gnostic

The Gospel of Thomas has almost no gnostic concepts in it and yet this article presumes it is gnostic in origin. There are many mentions of secret teachings in the cannon and this does not presuppose that there being secret teachings is gnostic in origins. In fact Ireneas states that there is orthodox gnosis as well as the heretical gnostic teachings. The concept of the body as a poverty is in the text, but this is also considered to be a miracle. I do not see any other Gnostic concepts here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.50.63 (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. When I read the Gospel of Thomas it didn't read as Gnostic at all. If anything, it appears to be some kind of pre-Gospel Christian literature. Maybe it would be better to fit it under "early Christianity" or "apocrypha". Bagabondo (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Gnostic is a useful a term as religious: it is an umbrella term for many concepts, varying from self-seeking to full blown duality with a Creator and a demiurge, much like the Christian God and Satan. The main reason why Gnosticism as a label to Thomas gets pushed is the majority opinion that it evolved in the first century CE as a reaction to ["orthodox teachings, traditions, or the authority of the church"], as if there were anything like an organisation or orthodoxy at that time. It is a veiled attempt at pointing out dependency Sato21st (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

So what, precisely, does anyone wish to change? The article makes clear in the lead that "It is possible that the document originated within a school of early Christians, possibly proto-Gnostics.[8] Some critics further state that even the description of Thomas as a "gnostic" gospel is based upon little other than the fact that it was found along with gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi.[9]". (I'm going to re-write that sentence as it's just ugly). Should this be expanded on in it's own section (something like "Relation to Gnostic Texts")? If so, then Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" has a whole chapter on the Gospel of Thomas, as well as his arguments that it does reflect Gnostic teachings (Chapter Three- The Discovery of an Ancient Forgery: The Coptic Gospel of Thomas-specifically the subsection "Interpreting the Gospel of Thomas). And obviously we would have to balance this out with sources that argue the opposite. Remember, it is NOT our job to decide what is "right", but to present the RS and what they say. Vyselink (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the editio minor?

​Recently added was its editio minor counts more than 80% of parallels, but I find this sentence unclear. What is this referring to? – Thjarkur (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The editio minor was intended as major, yet quickly published and relatively very brief: https://www.worldcat.org/title/gospel-according-to-thomas/oclc/787635

At the end it contains the parallels. The translation by Guillaumont et al is considered the major early transcription and translation. I'll grant that the term "editio minor" might be confusing indeed, in hindsight. In its Preliminary Remarks on page v the authors themselves refer to it as "fragment of a work which is much more extensive and complete" and "extract" Sato21st (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"Trite" as a note?

Note 94 labels a significant section as "Trite" - is this someone's name or discrediting the content itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.96.170 (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

"Non-canonical"

@Si noah:, there is no consensus for the change you want made. As has been repeatedly said to you, the fact that the Gospel of Thomas is non-canonical is a basic fact of the text that will be included in any discussion of it. You have been pointed to the policies wp:RGW as well as WP:BRD, and yet you have made no attempt to use this talk page. I'm holding off on reporting you for edit warring in the hopes that you will stop simply reverting to your preferred version and acknowledge the lack of consensus for your change.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ermenrich, who has repeatedly told me this? As I have used the talk page for the 3rd time now you have just said i haven't used it. The point I'm making is that non-canonical is not included in any discusion of it. If you read James Robinson who originally translated it he stays well clear of this phrase preferring Coptic language Gospel or variations of that. I can see that Wikipedia is being used by people who launch into threats of blocking others who do not agree making it far from an open source of correct information. In your use Moby Dick is non-canonical. Shall I change that? Or Wind in the willows or The Republic? The Gospel of Thomas follows the ancient practice of dialogue and sayings that predates the New Testament and has no parallel in it so is obviously not of the Canon as other than having Jesus in it would fit no canon the early Church chose to create. Its a stand alone text that may have some value to the study of Q and the four canon gospels but is not one of them. Thanks anyway. Feel free to report me for whatever you like. Fact is fact and calling your own view a consensus doesn't make it so. I based mine on the scholars who translated and printed it after nearly two thousand years of it being suppressed. Thanks anyway Si noah (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You have never posted on this talk page to discuss your editing. The rest of your post is a bunch of non-sequiturs: "Moby Dick" is not a religious text. The Gospel of Thomas is a Christian religious text which is not canonical in the religion. I count at least 5 times that you've reverted the article to your preferred wording despite multiple editors reverting you. The fact that scholars discussing it in every instance don't need to mention that is not relevant: this is an encyclopedia where basic facts must be assembled, one of which is that this gospel is not part of the Christian canon. If you revert again, I will report you at WP:AN/3RR.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I posted in reply to another user and not in the non canonical talk section. I sense you are very agitated for some reason and perhaps more reflection may be needed before you reply. Are you OK? Mobile Dick is acknowledged by many (and several academics on this topic) as being 'religious' and indeed a gnostic text if you wish to go down that line. You correctly say that Thomas is not part of the Christian canon but that is irrelevant to it being a collection of saying of Jesus. It was never written I imagine to be part of the Christian canon. Thomasine, orthodox, nicene or any you care to mention. It's a stand alone text most probably used by thomasine Christians who practiced before any canon was considered or put together. Please reflect on why you wish to push an agenda over basic fact. As a historian yourself you will appreciate that the text's Original form is pre-canon and must be treated and described as such regardless or what followed historically. If reporting makes you happy then feel free. The call to a higher authority maybe demonstrates exactly why you wish to limit the Gospel in the same way the Nag Hammadi texts ended up being hidden away to save them from those who shut down all discusion Si noah (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

wp:NPA comment on the content, not the commenter. You are still bringing up irrelevant information: Moby Dick has nothing to do with this discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Gospel of Thomas was excluded from the canon. Everyone who reads an article about deserves to know this. You are making assumptions about the meaning of including this information: no one is saying that non-canonical texts can't shed light on the beliefs of early Christians.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Si noah: You have made long "edit comments", but that is not where we commuicate about article decisions. We do it here on the talk page and sometimes on a user talk page, but not in edit comments. Each time you were reverted, the reason was given in the edit comment (click the history tab to read edit comments). That made it your responsibility to discuss here on the talk page and get consensus before repeating your edit. One more time of pushing your view into the article get you blocked. You don't get to make the change without the agreement of a majority of editors in this discussion. For the record, I am opposed to your edit, it excises a necessary categorization for this text. Skyerise (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)