This will be my last post for now on the Coptic Gospel of Thomas. Here I try to unpack its overarching meaning. It delivers a surprising method, quite different from that found in the Gospels of the New Testament. Its author, of course, thought he was delivering the ultimate truth. It’s interesting to think about what would have happened if people found him more convincing than the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Again, this is taken from my textbook on the NT.
**************************************************************************************
The Overarching Message of the Book. The meanings of many of Thomas’s sayings are in no way obvious. If they were, they would not be called secret! Even though the book contains nothing like the Sethian or Valentian myths, some of the sayings do seem to reflect roughly analogous understandings of the world and the human’s place in it (see earlier posts on Gnosticism). Within the hearer is an element of the divine—a soul—that had a heavenly origin (it originated “in the place where the light came into being”). This world we live in is inferior at best, and is more appropriately thought of as a cesspool of suffering, “a corpse.” A person’s inner being (the “light” within) has tragically fallen into this material world, where it has become entrapped in a body (sunk into “poverty”), and in that condition it has become forgetful of its origin (or “drunk”). It needs to be reawakened by learning the truth about this material world and the impoverished material body that it inhabits. Jesus is the one who conveys this truth; once the soul learns the meaning of his words, it will be able to strip off this body of death, symbolized sometimes as garments of clothing, and escape this material world. It will then have salvation, life eternal; it will rejoin the divine realm and rule over all. There may be no need to call this Gospel “Gnostic,” but one can certainly see why many of its teachings would resonate with a Gnostic.
There is not a word in the Gospel of Thomas about Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. Indeed, for this author none of Jesus’ earthly activities appear to matter; there is also no word here of ….
To see the rest of this post, you will need to be an insider to the secret knowledge of the Ehrman Blog. That requires joining. It’s easier than becoming a Gnostic. And every penny you pay goes to charity. So for the sake of your well-being and the well-being of the universe, join!
Thank you,,,love this post.
For me,,,,there are some sayings which tends toward a more Gnostic views,,,,in the sense that Gnosis has to be understood as “personal acquantance” (knowledge through direct experience) which I’ve understood also are the ancient meaning in ancient Greek.
In my mind, the Gospel of Thomas leads the readers in that direction,,,which has a tendency of be called Christian on the Gnostic branch..
Anyway,,,I’ve loved it from the first time I read it,,,100 times ago.
Could it be that Thomas and his community were living an ascetic lifestyle, employing a Cynicism philosophy combined with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth? That has always seamed to me as being plausible.
I don’t think there’s any evidence that they were influenced by Cynic philosophy per se; for one thing, their viwes are very different in many ways (Cynics had no interesting in escaping the body to have eternal life; they aer all about being happy in *this* life). There were lots of ascetics in lots of different religious and philosophical movements at the time, including early Christian circles that also were definitely not influenced by Cynics.
Since it came from Greek it may have more DNA in common with Heraclitus, but there are some interesting parallels with Buddhist world views in this interpretation; the flawed nature of impermanent things, our being “trapped” in this state of suffering and the folly of clinging to the physical, the need for enlightenment in order to escape what keeps us in this existence, etc.
I’m sorry Bart, but you are setting the bar too high.
If there are only one or two incontovertbile borrowings from the Synoptic gospels in the text of Thomas; that establishes that the author of Thomas knew and used the Synoptics at least once. That he or she may then have chosen to follow their own path for the rest of their work, is entirely irrelevant. If just one passage is copied directly from the Synoptics, it demonstrates a knowledge of the Synoptic text behind every other passage, whether those passages correspond or not.
So, when you say “There are many similar sayings but few extensive verbal correspondences” you are admitting that there are indeed some “extensive verbal correspondences’ (albeit few). When just one would be enough.
In my opionion, both Simon Gathercole and Mark Goodacre have demonsrated a number of up to seven/eight/nine word exact correspondences between the fragmentary Greek text of Thomas, and the Synoptic Greek. And that Thomas is much more likely the secondary text. An illustration might be the formulation ‘kingdom of heaven’ , found several times in Thomas; but otherwise known only in the Gospel of Matthew.
Yes, if Thomas “borrowed” from another writing, then he had access to that writing. That’s correct. I’m disbuting that he has any borrowed sayings from teh Synoptics. I can demonstrate 14 word similarities between how two people say the Lord’s Prayer, even though neither of them have either read Matthew or known each other.
Maybe your two chums’ versions of the Lord’s Prayer might correspond closely; but only if they were both familiar with reciting prayers by heart. Which we can be pretty sure the author of Thomas did not do; not only is there no Lord’s Prayer in the Gospel, there is no prayer at all. All prayer is actively condemned as harmful.
But I would be very interested to know your personal evaluation of Simon Gathercole’s 2014 commentary on Thomas; as you are teaching a course on this Gospel?
Especially Gathercole at page 180
“I examined the twenty sayings where we have parallels between Mark and Thomas with, alongside those two, either Matthew or Luke. These are the sayings where it would in principle be possible to detect the influence of Matthean or Lukan redaction. The result was that in 11 out of 20 cases, Matthean or Lukan redactional features are evident, leading to the conclusion that there is significant influence from the Synoptics. As a result, a view of the independence of Thomas from the Synoptics is difficult to entertain.”
(Gathercole adds that Mark Goodacre’s observations on ‘the kingdom of heaven” at GTh 20 make it 12 out of 20)
I’m not teaching a course on the Gospel of Thomas. It would take too much to get down in the weeds, but if you would like to propose an example I could respond.
Thanks for the invitation Bart.
There was one point from Gathercole that I raised in a previous post, but you did not respond there (no reason why you should have of course).
In saying 13, there is a contrast between the responses to Jesus’s question “Compare me and tell me whom I resemble.” of Simon Peter and Matthew; as against that of Thomas himself.
Gathercole says:
“There is almost certainly a polemic, probably aimed at a wider church group for whom Peter was a foundational figure, and Matthew’s Gospel an/ the authoritative portrait of Jesus.”
That the author of Thomas should seek to disparage Simon Peter comes as no suprise. But why rank Matthew alongside Peter, as he is not named in corresponding synoptic passages (e.g. Mark 8:27)?
“Matthew is not known in earliest Christianity as much more than an evangelist. In the NT he is merely one of
the disciples with no special role, and his only additional significance in the corpus of the ‘Apostolic Fathers’ is in Papias’s reference to him as an author [of a Gospel].”
So, for Gathercole, the author of Thomas knew of the Gospel of Matthew; and likely believed that Matthew was the author.
Three points. First, that’s not a redactional change. Second, odd names you don’t expect show up all over the place in the Christian tradition. Why do you have Gospels assigned to the people you do? Why do you have apocryphal Acts about people that otherwise no one seems to have thought much about? (Andrew) (And why Thomas, e.g. Is he a big name in NT Xty?) Third, only two peole are mentioned as Gospel writers in early second century Christian, Mark or Matthew (from Papias). Of those, only one was a disciple of Jesus. Why would it be weird if people thoguht that he might be particularly important, without having read his Gospel? Anyone who had heard the same tradition that Papias heard would have thought so.
Another point from Gathercole relates to the dating of the Gospel of Thomas.
At saying 71 “Jesus said, ‘I will dest[roy thi]s house, and no-one will be able to build it […].”
Gathercole (with most commentators) sees ‘this house’ as the Jerusalem Temple, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70CE; after which the site remained ruined for 65 years. So, this might lead us to date the Gospel of Thomas to sometime after 70 CE; were it not for the final clause predicting that the Temple would not be rebuilt. Josephus, in both the Jewish War, and the Antiquities treats the latest destruction as just one of a long series of destructions and rebuildings – such that a sometime restoration of the Temple remained a lively aspiration.
It was only following the Bar Kochba revolt (135CE) that the Jerusalem itself was destroyed, its Jewish population expelled, and a Roman temple built over the Temple Mount.
Following which, it becomes for the first time a standard Christian polemic – in Justin, Aristo andTertullian – that the Jerusalem Temple, this time, could never be rebuilt; which consequently implies a date for the Gospel after 135CE.
Not sure I see much probative there. Are you saying that Christians who believed that the destruction of the Temple came as a judgment of God against the Jews were unlikely to think that it would not be rebuilt? (As opposed to a hopeful Jew like Josephus?) Don’t see much of a persuasive argument there.
Apologies Bart; if you were expecting an example of a redactional change in a synoptic text.
One such that Gathercole proposes; is saying 33: “For no-one lights a lamp and places it under a bushel, nor
does he put it in a secret place. Rather he places it upon its lampstand so that everyone who enters and goes out will see its light.”
This corresponds to Mark 4:21; “Is a lamp brought in to be put under a bushel, or under a bed, and not on a stand”.
And to Matthew 5:15; “Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.”
And in Luke 11:33; “No one after lighting a lamp puts it in a cellar, or under a bushel, but on a stand that those who enter may see the light”.
The version in GTh33 clearly incorporates Luke’s particular redactions – Mark’s ‘under a bed’ becomes ‘in a cellar/secret place’; and the light, as in Luke, is for “those who enter” (with the addition of those.’going out’). The author of Thomas must have known Luke’s version.
I was expecting that only because you said that’s what it was. 🙂 Your other example presupposes teh author had the three texts to choose from and chose one. That’s precisely what I’m disputing. that kind of saying was altered all over the place all the time. Notice how readically different GT is from Luke, and ask: is the way they express it necessarily because one borrowed from another? Among other things, notice that the only actual similarity is an explanation that would occur to most anyone who wanted to say why it a lamp would be put on a stand. And the wording does not match.
On dating the Gospel of Thomas from the reference to the destruction of the Temple, never to be rebuilt at GTh71.
(this is my observation, not Gathercole’s).
I was confused by your double-negatives; but are you are proposing that some Christians of the first century might then already have expected the Jerusalem temple never to be rebuilt?
That is a possible speculation; but the only New Testament book addressing the issue, apparently does expect the derelict Temple site to be restored to Jewish worship, albeit only for a period of about three years. In the prophecy of the two witnesses at Revelation 11, John of Patmos, who is clearly writing after 70CE, neverthless envisages a future in which Jewish worship will have returned to the inner court of the Temple (Revelation 11:1)
Of course, by the end of Revelation, Jerusalem (having been destroyed yet again) is replaced by a new version ‘coming down out of heaven’; and this one has no physical Temple (Revelation 21:22). ‘because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple).
But John still envisages the ruined temple of his day as being restored for worship.
Not sure what you are saying Bart.
Is it that the wording in GTh has a different order- as bushel then ‘secret place’, where Luke has ‘cellar’ then bushel? Which is true; but the sort of change that happens in copying and translating anyway. Or are you saying the Coptic of the GTh could not have rendered the Greek text of Luke? In my view, the only other respect where wording in Luke could not have served as the direct exemplar for GTh, is the addition of the phrase ‘and goes out’ at the end. For instance, the Coptic term ‘secret place’ is an obvious rendering of the Greek ‘krypte’; which most modern versions render as cellar/crypt, but which is ‘secret place’ in older English bibles.
One possible additional correspondence (though this is not in Gathercole) is that Luke, Matthew and GTh drop the definite article from the text found in Mark; ‘the lamp’. On Sabbath nights, covering a ‘normal’ lamp with the pot from under the bed was common Jewish observance (M.Sabbath 16:7). Jesus’s original, Aramaic, saying was referring to the festival (Hannukkah) lamp; which has to be visible from outside.
I’m not saying that anything is impossible. I’m saying that the forms of the logion have many differences and that the one Gatherpole is claiming is good evidence that Thomas knew Luke does not strike me that way. It’s the kind of change that one could imagine several people making in various wordings; and surely the saying was circulating in all sorts of similar ways in various communities.
Is this somewhat like what we see in parts of Paul?
At one point the author seems to quote 1 Cor. 2:9, but it’s hard to know if he got it from there or not. (Paul himself says he’s quoting someone.) For the most part I would say that Thomas’s theology is quite at odds with Paul’s — especailly on the significance of Jesus for salvation, the one thing they both are deeply concerned about.
Wouldn’t a logical reading of the text be that the adept or disciple who hears his words with understanding becomes a spiritual “twin” of Jesus?
That’s how some people have read it!
Do you think Thomas had at least the Q source? If not then where did they get the sayings from?
No, I don’t. Most of the sayings of Q are not in Thomas and most of the sayings in Thomas are not in Q. Thomas would have gotten his traditions the same place that virtually everyone else got their traditions: word of mouth, as sayings of Jesus and account so his deed passed along from one person to the next.
Bart, this may be a silly question, as I am not well-read as pertaining to the Gospel of Thomas. I was surprised to learn of the overall understanding this gospel poses to origin of soul, it’s preexistence, etc. My question has to do with Origen. From my understanding, the Gospel of Thomas wasn’t accepted by some early church thinkers, including Origen, but I cannot help but notice striking resemblance to some of Origen’s writings. He too, had a similar take on the soul and the position/life of the physical body. Likewise, these thought processes were roughly around the same period. Was the idea of an earthly, fallen, almost prison-like existence common at this time? Was the church forming this philosophy in several places? Seems like a blend of Christianity/Greek philosophy to me… Understandably, a shift would take place in thinking, as “the end” never came according to early church positions, and, the original teaching of Jesus. Where’d idea of fallen, trapped soul form? Is there any semblance to Thomas message and philosophies of Origen? A common thread? Thank you for literally writing an essay a day on these topics, something I wouldn’t want to do in any college course
The idea was common in some circles, but not Christian. It is advanced by Plato in his Myth of Er in the Republic book 10, and was picked up on by others (he got it from Greek thinkers before him); the Gnostic view is very different (the “souls” exist as a divine being who is captures and divided up); Origen’s is very different still: souls were created by God to adore him forever but they all fell, with the exception of one, who became Christ. Thomas doesn’t show any specific connections with Origen, who certainly would have been influenced by Greek ideas more than Gnostic…
One problem with the Gospel of Thomas is how it fits with the well-attested association of Jesus with John the Baptist and the expectations of a coming kingdom on earth. It doesn’t seem to fit at all. So the author of the Gospel of Thomas was either not aware of Jesus as one who proclaimed a coming kingdom, or, if aware, rejected those ideas and constructed a Jesus more to his/her liking and mystic inclinations. It seems to be coming out of left field. And yet, you’ve got at least some sayings that are consistent with the canonical gospels. Unless Jesus never did actually associate with John the Baptist and never did actually proclaim a coming kingdom, in which case where did THAT come from?? So mysterious!
Yes, Thomas is all around de-apocalypticizing the tradition.
It’s such an interesting gospel! One of the reasons I find it so fascinating to read is because it hasn’t been edited by orthodox believers. While it’s a second century book, is it based on a unique Q-like older source? Are there elements in it that scholars are able to date before the 2nd century, aside from the stories we’re already familiar with?
Yes a number of the sayings may go back to Jesus (the ones like the Synoptics)., so definitely before the 2nd c. It’s hard to know if it’s based on a written source, or is simpliy a collectino of sayings the author has heard.
I’m sure you have come across this interview with Elaine Pagels. She suggests that John was in deliberate opposition to Thomas (‘duelling gospels’) and explains why. If you haven’t: uscatholic.org/articles/201905/matthew-mark-luke-and-thomas
Yes, that’s the thesis of her book Beyond Belief.
My previous comment blocked. Maybe because it has a web link in it? Won’t make that mistake again! Basically I was saying that Elaine Pagels thinks that the author of John is in a Christological duel with the author of Thomas, that’s why you get so much disparagement of (the disciple) Thomas in John. Which would mean that Thomas had weight when John was writing.
No, don’t recall blocking any comments that are relevant and reasonably polite! But I did take a day off.
Moderation very slow!
If there were three of me it would go much faster…
Sorry Bart I had no idea you were doing this all single-handed. My apologies
Yes, pray for my soul.
Professor: I read the article Dirk linked but have not yet read Pagel’s Beyond Belief (just ordered it). Please feel free to spoil any surprises and tell me what your answer to Dirk might be. What do you think of her thesis? That John and Thomas were dueling gospels?
I don’t think so. I think they probably do contain dueling traditions. But Thomas was almost certainly written after John, I should think, not before, as she maintains.
Dr. Ehrman,
I recently read “The Gospel of Thomas” section in Chapter 12 of your book “The New Testament: A Historical Introduction” (love the Seventh Edition, btw). I am also going through your lecture/book from The Great Courses, “The Historical Jesus”, specifically Lecture 7 which deals with the Coptic Gospel of Thomas. I have two questions. First, why do you say that the author *explicitly* claims to be Thomas? It doesn’t strike me that way. The author refers to Thomas in the third person both in the introduction and in other places in the text. Second, why do you think that the reference to Thomas as “twin” necessarily means that he was *Jesus’* twin? Could it not mean that he was a twin to one of Jesus’ other siblings? Perhaps this is a simple way to explain why there is no answer within Syriac Christian texts to the conundrum of Jesus both being born of a virgin and being the divine Son of God while having a non-divine twin brother born of natural relations (i.e., they didn’t think Thomas was *Jesus’* twin and therefore this wasn’t a conundrum for them).
My sense is that when the author tells us that Didymus Judas Thomas wrote down the sayings, we are to understand that we are reading the sayings that Didymus Judas Thomas wrote down. And no, you’re right: twin just means (someone’s) twin. In the Syriac texts though (see the Acts of Thomas) he is the twin of Jesus.
Right, so the author seems to be claiming that Thomas is the original source of the sayings within the present work but not the author of the present work. This seems to be analogous to what is going on in John 21:24. The author, who is not the beloved disciple himself, is claiming that the beloved disciple is the original source of the content in the present document. Is that how you understand it?
Yes, I suppose it’s similar. But with John 21:24 the author (whoever it was) is not talking about the entire Gospel but about the incidents being recorded in ch. 21 — at least I read it; and whowever composed ch. 21 is not claiming that the account he is giving is exactly what was written by the disciple.