The Real Antman Chronicles: July 2010

What is the Gospel of Thomas?

In the 1890s archaeologists found thousands of papyri while digging in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. Included among the thousands of papyri were three fragments of The Gospel of Thomas in Greek. The archaeologists didn’t know what they were, until they discovered the Nag Hammadi library in 1945 in another part of Egypt. Among the discoveries was the Gospel of Thomas in Coptic. Scholars then realized that the Greek fragments found in Oxyrhynchus, was about 20 percent of the sayings of the found in Thomas Gospel.

What's The Gospel of Thomas about?

It is a collection of 114 "hidden" sayings (1) that has been attributed to Jesus. The Jesus Seminar granted this text equal status to the New Testament in their book, The Five Gospels (2), which was published in 1993.

The Gospel of Thomas portrays a very different Jesus from the one portrayed in the four Gospels found in the Bible. In The Gospel of Thomas, Jesus teaches a mystical understanding of the good news. It’s views are very skewed or exaggerated to the point that it becomes inner, mystical, private, personal, and it's not focused on community. The world being redeemed is no longer of any interest and it has a very Gnostic element to it. Meaning that this world will not be redeemed, but destroyed, this world is hopeless, it's lost and Israel's promises no longer mean anything. The Gospel of Thomas has an anti-Semitic flavor to it.

The followers of the Gospel of Thomas give it an early date of about AD 50-AD 70 ahead of the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Let's look at what the supporters of The Gospel of Thomas are claiming:

1. The Gospel of Thomas is a “Sayings Gospel” that would probably have fitted into a society with an oral tradition. A “Sayings Gospel” means that it’s a list of sayings mostly beginning with “Jesus said”. They argue that this is a more primitive form of text than that used in the narrative Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and it would have fitted better in an oral tradition, pointing towards it being authentic.

2. They believe that the Gospels received their information from sources that had to have originated from these oral sayings that were written into a sayings list. They also argue that the parables found in Thomas is a much earlier rendition than those found in the canonical Gospels.

3. Scholars feel that the text comes from a wisdom tradition which resembles much of the Jewish texts from the Old Testament and was very common in Jewish Scripture. Because of this they argue that Thomas is more in the line of early Jewish wisdom teachings and that it would almost demand that Thomas has an earlier date.

4. They argue that historical scholars have concluded that James succeeded Jesus as a leader of the Church in Jerusalem when Jesus died and that this can only be found in The Gospel of Thomas (3).

5. They argue that in his writings, Paul wrote about his concerns warning against those who believe in forms of knowledge to gain spiritual insight, which is very similar to what is found in the Gospel of Thomas.

6. They claim that there's ancient elements that's embedded in the text.

7. There were a group called the "Thomas Christians" that venerated much of the teachings found in the Gospel of Thomas, which was an early group that thrived during the first century.

Is it authentic or not?

What has thus far been confirmed in the above points concerning the Gospel of Thomas is that most of the material found in Thomas parallels with the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), John, and sometimes even Paul and other sources. In fact over half of the New Testament are quoted, paralleled, or alluded to in the Thomas Gospel. An authentic extra-biblical tradition or two may also be contained in it. Also it seems to have been written early meaning that it most likely is authentic.

Then there's the "Q" hypothesis...:

In the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary's "NIV Archaeological Study Bible" they have an article called "The Synoptic Problem and 'Q'". In it they say the following:

"It is believed that the Synoptic Gospels share some sort of literary relationship and that the later Gospel writers used one or more of the earlier writings as a source for their works. Several hypotheses attempt to explain the precise literary relationship of the Synoptic Gospels, although no single proposal solves all of the difficulties."(4)

The Two-Source Hypothesis is a view that’s widely held. These sources are known as Mark and "Q". According to the same article:

"This theory claims that Mark was the first Gospel written (also known as "Markan priority") and that Matthew and Luke both independently used Mark as a source, often polishing its literary style and making editorial changes. Matthew and Luke also added material that is absent from Mark's Gospel."

Matthew and Luke referred to the same or even similar events, this suggests that they drew upon a second common source. This hypothetical source for Matthew and Luke has been given the name "Q" (from the German Quelle, meaning "source"). There are no copies of "Q", but by definition it is a source that contains common material to Matthew and Luke which is not found in Mark. Therefore it is said that "Q" includes such passages as the temptations of Jesus by the devil (Matthew 5:3; Luke 6:20-23) and the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2-4). However, the closing remarks in the article states:

"...the very existence of "Q" is purely hypothetical and much debated, and alternative explanations for the history of the writing of the Synoptic Gospels have been proposed. Not all New Testament scholars believe in Markan priority, and some insist that more attention needs to be given to the fact that Matthew was an eyewitness to many of the events he recorded."

Conclusion of the "Q" Hypothesis:

The Gospel of Thomas followers or "Thomasine Christians", claim that the Gospel of Thomas was in fact "Q" or something similar to "Q" because of the resemblances it has with Matthew and Luke. Also because there are no copies of "Q", The Gospel of Thomas suitably fills this gap. "Q" has also been pointed out as a collection of Jesus' sayings. This hypothesis may also prove that the four Gospels were dependant upon The Gospel of Thomas. But could it be possible that it's actually the other way around? Could it be possible that it’s a fraud?

What seems to be the problem?

However, there are a few problems with this theory that it is early...problems that just can't be denied. Many people assumed that the Greek version that they found of this document was earlier than the Coptic version (see opening paragraph). Because the canonical Gospels were written in Greek, this would support the view that they were influenced by Thomas. But now it’s believed that this is not true by the few scholars who has enough competence in this field. It is now believed that the Gospel of Thomas was originally written in Syriac.

What they regard as it's strength may well be it's weakness:
Ironically because Thomas alludes to, parallels or quotes over the half of the New Testament, it also counts against the claim that it is authentic. This actually points toward Thomas being dependant upon the canonical Gospels!

For instance, no Christian writer prior to AD 150 referenced to the New Testament this much. If one looks at the The Epistles of Ignatious or the bishop of Antioch, which were written about AD 110 didn't even quote half of the New Testament, and their authenticity isn't in doubt. In contrast to this The Gospel of Thomas has shown familiarity with fourteen or fifteen of the twenty-seven New Testament writings.

The Gospel of Thomas also contains the sayings of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke. What should be remembered is that in terms of Greek grammar and style, Matthew and Luke is much more polished than Mark. As we saw earlier in the quotation from the NIV Archaeological Study Bible’s article, Matthew and Luke sometimes even improve on Mark's grammar and word choice. Keeping this in mind we find that Mark isn’t even referred to by the Gospel of Thomas! This shows that Thomas only have forms that reflect on the later developments found in Luke and Matthew and that it doesn't have any early, pre-Synoptic material.

Apologist Glenn Miller said the following on his website, Christian-Thinktank:

"The material unique to Matthew is called "special M" in the literature. It refers to material available to Matthew (and used by him) that does NOT show up in Mark, Luke, or John. There are many passages in GTh (the Gospel of Thomas) that cite/refer to this Special M:

1. Matt 5.10--GTh 69a

2. Matt 5.14--GTh 32

3. Matt 6.2-4--GTh 6,14

4. Matt 6.3--GTh 62

5. Matt 7.6--GTh 93

6. Matt 10.16--GTh 39

7. Matt 11.30--GTh 90

8. Matt 13.24-30--GTh 57

9. Matt 13.44--GTh 109

10. Matt 13.45-46--GTh 76

11. Matt 13.47-50--GTh 8

12. Matt 15.13--GTh 40

13. Matt 18.20--GTh 30

14. Matt 23.13--GTh 39, 102

This represents a close familiarity with Matthean tradition--either oral or written"

"The material unique to Luke is called "special L" in the literature. It refers to material available to Luke (and used by him) that does NOT show up in Mark, Matthew, or John. There are several passages in GTh that cite/refer to this Special L:

1. Luke 11.27-28 + 23:29--GTh 79

2. Luke 12.13-14--GTh 72

3. Luke 12.16-21--GTh 63

4. Luke 12.49--GTh 10

5. Luke 17.20-21--GTh 3, 113

This represents close familiarity with Lukan tradition--either oral or written"(5)

Because both Matthew and Luke are considered to be written later than Mark, this shows that the canonical Gospels were NOT dependant on the Gospel of Thomas. It actually seems to be the other way around.

Even more bad news for Thomas:

The Gospel of Thomas even contains material from the Gospel of John, which was written about AD90. This poses a further problem for those wanting to date Thomas in the middle of the first century. One has got to ask how Thomas could’ve been written in the 50s and 60s but still contain material that wasn't written down until the 90s?

Wait! It gets worse...:

When some of the material is found that some scholars believe are "old and independant" it actually reflects Syrian development. The Gospels are published in the Greek language that spreaded to all sorts of language groups. Eventually it went eastward where people speak Syriac (a form of Aramaic). This brings us to the next point...

Tatian and the Diatessaron: The Death blow of Thomas?:

A written harmony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, was created by Tatian, a student of Justin Martyr. This harmony was created in the year AD 175. This became known as the Diatessaron, meaning "through the four."(6) He blended all four Gospels together and presented it in Syriac. This blended, harmonized form of the Gospels was the first time Syrian-speaking Christians had access to them. Because of this blending together, Tatian created some new forms, because it's part Matthew, part Luke, etc. The interesting thing is that it's these distinctive Syrian forms that shows up in the Gospel of Thomas.

In his book, The Case for the Real Jesus, Lee Strobel interviews Bible scholar, Dr. Craig A. Evans. Dr. Evans says the following:

"...a study by Nicholas Perrin has found that in places The Gospel of Thomas is also acquainted with the order and arrangemnt of material in the Diatessaron. All of this means Thomas must have been written later than the Diatessaron in 175. Now everything begins to add up. Of course Thomas knows more than half of the New Testament. By the end of the second century, you're in a position to know that much. And Thomas reflects Syrian ideas."(7)

Evans later reveals that GTh refers to Thomas as Judas Thomas and that the name is found only in the Syrian church. Evans continues:

"...the Syrian church was very much into ascetics. They did not like wealth. They did not like businessmen and commercialism. That shows up in Thomas. They were into elitism and mysticism. And guess what? That also shows up in Thomas...But maybe this is the most interesting evidence. If you read Thomas in Greek or Coptic, it looks like the 114 sayings aren't in any particular order. It appears to be just a random collection of what Jesus supposedly said. But if you translate it into Syriac, something extremely intriguing emerges. Suddenly, you discover more than five hundred Syrian catchwords that link virtually all the 114 sayings in order to help people memorize the gospel..."(7)

Evans goes on to explain that because Saying 2 refers to a certain word that's contained in Saying 3, Saying 2 is followed by Saying 3 etc. Some of Thomas' mysticism and Tatian's distinctive views are very similar, which again points to Thomas being late and not part of antiquity. This throws out the option that the Greek version was the earliest form of Thomas.

It's anti-women ending:

The Gospel of Thomas ends controversially with:

"Simon Peter said to them, 'Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life.'

Jesus said, 'Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.'"

There are several people who have made the assertion that this saying wasn't included in the original Gospel of Thomas, because it doesn't fit the theory that the Synoptic Gospels and John were dependant upon Thomas. If they were, they would certainly have portrayed women a bit differently in their Gospels. For those not familiar with the canonical Gospels, they even mention that women were the primary witnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus! If they were copying and expanding on Thomas, women would not be the primary witnesses of this very important event.

What about the relation it has with the "Q" Hypothesis?:

The Gospel of Thomas certainly wasn't "Q" (if Q existed). It must also be acknowledged that there were another collection of sayings produced, called the Sentences of Sextus. This was produced at the end of the second century. So the "collections of sayings" genre was just as popular in Syria at the end of the second century as it was anywhere else in an earlier period.

Even if Q existed, then one still has to contend with the fact that The Gospel of Thomas was written about 100-150 years later than said Q.

What about the earlier Thomas with more ancient elements found?

Evidence is needed to support the claim that there was an earlier Gospel of Thomas, even though there are some ancient elements found in it. As of yet, there are no such evidence found. The few scholars who are supporting this claim, are aware of these very points that's made against the Gospel of Thomas. Their theory that Thomas is early is embarrassed by it so they turn to something called "special pleading." They hypothesize a different form of Thomas that's earlier than the one that we currently have modifying the evidence to fit their theory as they go along.

What about the claim that a group called the "Thomas Christians" were an early group that thrived during the first century?:

If this is so, why are there no reference to them by the church fathers writing in the 90s, around 100 and 110 if there were "Thomas Christians" during the first century? Why do they only appear on the radar until the end of the second century? It's clear that the Thomas Christians are the Christians of Syria who thrived during the end of the second century.
What about the argument that it would've fitted into a society with an oral tradition?:

Craig Blomberg writes in the article, The Coptic Gospel of Thomas(8):

"The only ones they (the scholars) were particularly impressed with were paralleled texts, particularly parables, which appear shorter and less allegorical in Thomas. If length and detail are signs of developing tradition, then the Synoptic accounts must come later than Thomas, which may thus be dated to the mid-first century. But in fact the continuing oral tradition of Jesus' teachings abbreviated and eliminated allegorical elements more often than it added them, so at best these criteria prove inconclusive."

The conclusion:

I realize that I have only touched the tip of the iceberg concerning the Gospel of Thomas. What can be concluded though is the following:

1. It was written between AD150-AD200, which is much later than the canonical Gospels (written between AD45-AD94).

2. It quotes more than half of the New Testament, more than any other writer of thatperiod. This would support that it was dependant on the canonical Gospels and the New Testament.

3. It was originally written in Syriac and not Greek, which handicaps the idea that it influenced the canonical Gospels which was originally written in Greek.

4. There are no known earlier Gospel of Thomas even though it contains ancient elements in its text.

5. The “Thomas Christians” thrived during the second century and not the first.

6. The very existence of Q can’t be proven and even if it could, Thomas wouldn’t fit the category because it was written much later than the hypothetical Q.

7. It has an anti-semitic and anti-women flavor to it which contradicts the view of the canonical Gospels. It also has a very Gnostic element to it.

These are just several points I've listed out of the above article that I've written. In short the Gospel of Thomas is simply not authentic and it's not written earlier than the canonical Gospels. It seems to be just another fraud. If anyone wishes to argue otherwise, they should present the evidence to go with it.

Notes:

(1) The sayings found in The Gospel of Thomas can be read here: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
(2) More can be read about the Jesus Seminar here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
(3) Saying 12 as found in the Gospel of Thomas
(4) The Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, NIV Archaeological Study Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005), 1685.
(5) Glenn Miller's entire response can be found here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gthomas.html
(6) To read the Diatessaron: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diatessaron.html
(7) Strobel, Lee. The Case for the Real Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2007), 37-38.
(8) Craig Blomberg writes a good article on the Coptic Gospel of Thomas:
http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2903895/k.74EC/Coptic_Gospel_of_Thomas.htm

For further reading on this:

Strobel, Lee. The Case for the Real Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2007.

Other websites worth visiting:

For those interested, here is The Gospel of Thomas Homepage:
http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html

A picture of the Coptic version of the Gospel of Thomas:

The Real Antman Chronicles

Friday, July 2, 2010

My thoughts on the sporting world

The Gospel of Thomas: Authentic or fraud?