BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”

Thanks for the link to the BBC broadcast. The program — which I have yet to watch through to the end — raises the Gospel of Thomas to a higher status among the general public, many of us who probably had only scant awareness, if any, that such a compelling gospel existed.

Coming as it did in 1945 — the final year of the most murderous war in human history, its discovery takes on a special (salvific?) glow and coming as it did by pure happenstance adds to its unique luster and its genuinely humble 20th Century debut. That its interpretation so confounds even us moderns — and also infuriates so many — is a fair indication why so many of the early church fathers lashed out against it so harshly. However, what were they missing the GTh’s adherents had placed such faith in?

You contend that the gospels esoteric drift is what especially annoyed the heresiologists. They held — as do so almost Christians today — that salvation can be achieved only through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Such a set up allows the learned and the unlearned equal access, a situation at odds with the esoteric tone of GTh, which you opine is what particularly riled the establishment Christians.

I think in Irenaeus’s case, it was less his commitment to egalitarianism than it was his umbrage at being told he needed a “second baptism” and that perhaps he — and others — were not “capable of receiving the truth” (E. Pagels, “Beyond Belief,” pp 136 -137.)

The egalitarianism of GTh is partially established, perhaps, in logion 7, when Jesus implies a child seven days old has knowledge about the “place of Life” and even “the person old in days will not hesitate to ask” that child.

Perhaps what also vexed the heresiologists was GTh’s fundamental trust in each human being and its lack of emphasis on traditional lines of authority, i.e., apostolic succession. That’s no way to build an institution!

I find GTh remarkably spiritual but also very much humanistic in post-Enlightenment sense, and a gospel tailor-made for doubters, skeptics, thinkers — and, above all, seekers.

Any thoughts?

Thanks for sharing that. I agree with the Bart from 2010. Enjoyed your part and also the part about Marcion. How would you contrast your thoughts today on Maricon’s theory, versus the days of your first arrival at seminary? The monotheism versus duotheism twist thing. Assuming strong rejection in the early days, but why not embrace it with your latest open-minded, controversial, dogma-busting today self. Not embrace it as a truth, but as an alternative interpretation. You know, as opposed to a trinity-twisting make-it fit theory that won out.

We’re British, so we have to ask Rev. Jones: was Tom Baker your favourite Doctor? You’ve got the hat and the curls even if your scarf isn’t quite right.

Finally got to see this all the way through. Thank you for preserving it from the small minds at Auntie Beeb who have the courage to produce controversial documentaries but not to stand by them. Must question one assertion though. If Constantine ever “converted”, it was on his death bed. And just to be on the safe side, he had “last rites” performed by priests of several religions. Hard to see him as a Christian hero when he murdered most of his family. The victory of Orthodoxy is more about worldly power than righteousness. In the end, my husband who was raised Anglican and I who was raised Jewish have come to the conclusion that monotheism in all its forms leads to intolerance and judgmentalism. Can you cite any moment in history when polytheists engaged in religious wars? Remember the Roman persecution of Christians (such as it was) was political not theological. It was like Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing to salute the American flag. Only monotheism with its insistence on One True God leads to Crusades and Jihads.