Thomas is only mentioned in that one story, and is not treated unsympathetically–there are many more uncomplimentary stories about Peter in all the gospels, and generally speaking, all the disciples are accused of not having enough faith in Jesus, of failing to understand him, and of failing to stand by him. 

John is far more concerned with attacking the Jews than anyone else (it’s an obsession with him).  I find it hard to believe Pagels would say that’s all John was trying to do, but it’s an interesting idea.  What precisely does she think the author of John dislikes about that collection of sayings?  Because it’s not like there’s a narrative to discredit there. 

And is the author of John (who I don’t believe was John) trying to discredit the author of Thomas (probably not Thomas), or the Apostle Thomas?  Since Thomas is just passing on a collection of brief fragments, what’s the agenda?  They aren’t really in competition.  If you want a gospel depicting the life of Jesus, you’re not reading Thomas. 

See, the story of Doubting Thomas doesn’t really say anything about Thomas himself.  All the other disciples who Jesus appeared to before Thomas believe because they have seen as well.  So the only way he’s different is that he wasn’t there the first time.   

I think we can assume there was a process in the early days after the crucifixion, where some of them were having visions of Jesus risen, and others weren’t, and those who had the visions had their work cut out for them persuading the others.  Thomas is just a stand-in for the ones who needed more persuading, the ones who weren’t given to visions. 

John is the only one who tells that story, but quite possible it derived from an earlier source. There would have been a lot of stories–think about the way Paul tells it, with hundreds of people having seen Jesus risen.  We have a tiny fraction of the stories early Christians told about the resurrection. 

John is the most concerned with portraying Jesus as a fully divine being, and only those who accept this unconditionally are worth anything, in his view. 

“Blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe.”  But if nobody had seen (or believed they had seen, same difference), nobody would have believed.  They would have just grieved and moved on with their lives.  John wouldn’t be writing the gospel to begin with–there’d be nobody to read it. 

I wasn’t crazy about the format, but I’m getting used to it.  Look forward to conversing with you here.  

I didn’t mean passing mentions.  It’s the only place where he’s in the spotlight, and the story hardly gives an impression of him being a major force among the disciples.  And yet, there’s a gospel with his name on it.  Obviously somebody thought well of him.  

I suppose Pagels’ point may be that he had a following, a ‘school’, based more around developing that spark of divinity inside you, and the author of John wanted to discredit it.  Maybe I should read what she actually said.  🙂

I think it’d be hard to prove that’s a view specific to Thomas.  It’s definitely the view expressed in Mark’s gospel–anyone with faith can work miracles.  Jesus is just a man chosen for his faith, not some pre-existent divine being.  I feel quite certain that’s what Jesus himself believed–and true, John didn’t.  His tendency is to focus entirely on Jesus as the Incarnate Word of God–he represents the side of Christianity that says just accept him as your savior–it’s not about developing yourself as an individual.  The Gnostics tended more towards individuality.  But as Pagels pointed out in her earlier work, when taken to extremes, this approach didn’t lend itself well to creating a lasting institution.  (Which of course Jesus was never trying to do.)

I’ve read several of Pagels’ books, but it’s been a while.  

I studied history at the graduate level for a while (did not get a degree).  It was ‘modern’ European history (from the Renaissance onwards), which gives you a grounding in the overall discipline, but I do not have any background in ancient history, nor do I know any language but English (my inability to learn any other language is the main reason European history did not work out for me but I still learned a lot).  

I have done a fair bit of reading on this subject, which is of deep interest to me, but that doesn’t make me a scholar.  

I’d agree there are some more qualified people posting here, but pretty sure I’m not the only dabbler.  Word to the wise–just because somebody sounds like they know what they’re talking about doesn’t always mean that they do.  As the saying goes, you have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts–learn the facts, and chime in.  If you feel like it.  

I’m definitely easier to get along with than a camel.  Though I did enjoy reading T.E. Lawrence’s reminiscences on Jedhah, the famed white she-camel of the Sahara (“She was a splendid beast.”