Gospel of Thomas

Although this book does report some aspects of Jesus's teachings and life that are in agreement with the traditional gospels, it features some very unbiblical concepts such as pantheism and misogynism.

Probably in light of the recent media attention given to The Jesus Seminar (they include the gospel of Thomas in their book, The Five Gospels), this book was the subject of a the movie Stigmata.

Also see: What's wrong with the Jesus Seminar?, The Five Gospels

The most popular theory of Biblical origins holds that Luke and Matthew combined the Gospel of Mark and a second source, now lost (this second source is called Q). Q would have been a collection of the sayings of Jesus, probably without any connecting plot or history.

As you can see, many of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas match--or nearly match--sayings in Luke and Matthew. It seems likely that Thomas represents a third witness to the lost Q source.

Thus, when Thomas differs from Luke and Matthew, it raises the tantalizing possibility that Thomas is a better representative of the original than the canonical gospels. However, Thomas shows strong Gnostic influence and dates about 100 years later than Luke and Matthew, so it's difficult to argue that Thomas is generally more accurate. However, there is at least a decent chance that Thomas records some real words of Jesus that aren't recorded in any other source. As you might guess, Biblical scholars love to argue about these issues...

The Kingdom in the Gospel of Thomas

The Gospel of Thomas(Layton, Bentley (Tr.) The Gnostic Scriptures, Doubleday, New York, 1987. Unless otherwise noted.) deals with the kingdom in essentially two different ways: what the Kingdom is (or more usually what this kingdom is like) and how one can get there. The former type of statement is usually in the form of a parable: an allegorical story describing something that the kingdom represents. The second type is usually more straightforward, at least in the sense that it includes descriptions of the types of people and behaviors that enters the kingdom. Unfortunately, these directives are usually hard or impossible to decipher making them little easier to read than the descriptions of the Kingdom. Still, certain themes seem to run through the methods of attaining the Kingdom and through the descriptions of what exactly that Kingdom is and by tracing these we can begin to get a sense of the Thomasine Jesus' meaning.

Three major themes seem to run through the gospel in general and in specific in through descriptions of attaining the kingdom: something untapped or unnoticed but omnipresent, detachment from the traditional meaningless aspects of life, and the dichotomy between dualisms and singularities. Sayings three and 113 are the most direct examples of the first major theme in passages about finding the kingdom. Saying three talks about the fallacy of looking for the kingdom in space, "If those who lead you say to you, `See the kingdom is in heaven,' then the birds of heaven will precede you/ If they say to you, `It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you./ But the kingdom is inside of you. And it is outside of you." Likewise, saying 113 talks similarly about looking for the kingdom in time as well, " `It is not by being waited for that it is going to come. They are not going to say, "Here it is" or "There it is"/ Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out over the earth, and people do not see it.'" The important thing about these two sayings is that the solutions are compatible: in saying three, the kingdom is within and without you and saying 113 takes that a step further saying that the kingdom is spread out over the entire earth but it is not seen.

Harold Bloom (Bloom, Harold. "`Whosoever Discovers the Meaning of these Sayings' ... A Reading. from Meyer, Marvin (ed.) The Gospel of Thomas), in his interpretation of the gospel, takes these sayings to mean that in order to find the kingdom, it is, "required ... that we bring the axis of vision and the axis of things together again. The stones themselves will then serve us, transparent to our awakened vision." The second sentence of that phrase alludes to saying nineteen: "Jesus said, `Blessed is that which existed before coming into being. If you exist as my disciples and listen to my sayings, these stones will minister unto you.'" The concept of existing before coming into being is an important one to the gospel and, indeed, to gnosticism in general; this concept of the unworldly self, free from the corruption of having actually been brought into being, this inward divine element is present throughout the text. But what does having this uncreated element have to do with the omnipresence of the kingdom? Consider the phrasing that Bloom uses: `axis of vision' and `axis of things.' The world is the axis of things and the axis of vision is what you use to interact with that world of things, the interface between one's uncreated self and the axis of things. Thus one's uncreated self and the uncreated universe MUST be independent of the world of time, space, and matter.

The second major theme, as the first, is prevalent throughout the text. The concept of removing oneself from the weight of your earthly obligations in order to gain something else is clearly important in this text. Saying sixty-four, which is a parable about a man who holds a dinner and those who he invites to dinner declining his invitation because of more pressing business, concludes with Jesus saying, "`Buyers and traders will not enter the place of my father.'" While this seems like a fairly blunt statement, the parable illustrates why traders and such cannot enter the places of his father: they are too preoccupied with their own business, too tied to the world, to be able to answer when they are called. He states the same thing much more plainly in saying twenty-seven: "`If you do not abstain from the world you will not find the kingdom.'"

Closely related to these is saying forty-nine: "Jesus said, `blessed are those who are solitary and superior, for you will find the kingdom;/ for since you come from it you shall return to it.'" Those who are solitary have less connection to that which is around them than those who are not solitary, they are less invested in the world and more able to abstain from it, to walk away from the things.

Saying twenty-two, one of the more enigmatic in the gospel, bridges the gap between this theme of removal from the world and the odd duality/singularity dichotomy that runs through this text. Starting simply enough, Jesus makes the claim that infants, or "little-ones" as the text calls them, nursing resemble those who enter the kingdom. However, when his disciples ask if they should become like little ones Jesus gives a long winded and obfuscated reply:

"When you make the two one and make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside and the above like the below, and that you might make the male and the female be one and the same, so that the male might not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye and a hand in place of a hand and a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image - then you will enter the [kingdom]."

Following the trend of detachment being a path to the kingdom, the little ones resemble those who enter the kingdom because they have so few worldly attachments - nothing except the milk that they must have to support themselves. But if this is the reason then why must the disciples perform these seemingly impossible tasks in order to enter the kingdom Look at the tasks that Jesus gives again; most of them have some analog somewhere else in the gospel. Both making the inside like the outside and making the above like the below resemble saying three's statement that the sea and the sky are equally void of the kingdom and the inside and outside are equally full of it. The eye is referred to in sayings twenty-five and twenty-six, both using the eye as a metaphor for interacting with one's sibling. Thus, making eyes in place of an eye could well refer to in some way becoming one's own sibling, something that would sound absurd if not for the prevalence of dualistic personalities and Thomas' nature as Jesus' twin; Jesus' sibling. And note that the word is sibling, not necessarily brother or sister; perhaps becoming one's own sibling is necessary to make the male and the female one and the same or, more in general, to have two natures simultaneously - to be able to pluck both the mote and the beam from one's own eyes. Making the hand in place of the hand, if referring to right and left hands (right and left hand dichotomy used in saying sixty-two), in this light once again shows this process of becoming one through becoming two, uniting two opposites into a single whole, balancing but not canceling each other. As to making the image in place of the image, look at saying eighty-four:

"Jesus Said, `When you see your resemblance you are happy. But when you see your images that came into existence before you and are neither mortal nor visible, how much you will have to bear!'"

It now seems that this saying offers a fairly clear outline of how to achieve the kingdom: first recognize that the kingdom is everywhere, next recognize that it cannot be sought physically, and then to reach out to one's own soul, to become both the worldly body and the divine soul separately and equally, and with this mixture to finally seek the kingdom. And thus, infants resemble those who achieve the kingdom because they are the closest to having equally developed ethereal and mortal natures, having few connections to the world and few confusions in their perceptions.

So one can achieve the kingdom by removing oneself from the trappings of one's life, by developing their unseen preexisting image equal to one's mortal image, but what is this kingdom that is achieved We know that it is spread across the earth and that it is both inside and outside of everyone but we don't know what it is. What it isn't is an afterlife; while many passages in the gospel speak of "not tasting death", it is fairly clear that the kingdom of Thomas is something that can and should be achieved during life, unlike the kingdom of the canonical gospels which is fairly clearly an afterlife. Unfortunately, most of the descriptions of the kingdom in the gospel are in the form of parables making them harder to decipher. What's more, most of these parables compare the kingdom to a person who performs certain actions which leads one to ask if the kingdom itself has some sort of spirit of its own. These parables have some common points that can be looked at to give us a better picture of what exactly this kingdom is. Most importantly in many of them there is either a hidden, a lost, or a seemingly insignificant object of great value. In 107 it is the largest sheep who has gone astray, in 109 it is a treasure that is buried and forgotten. In ninety-seven it is meal lost along the road. While with what we know this hidden or secret treasure would be consistent with the kingdom itself only in saying twenty where the kingdom is compared to a sprouting mustard seed is the kingdom described as the obscured object. Rather, in most of them the kingdom is identified with the person who loses or has no knowledge of or makes use of this treasure. This, along with the kingdom being described as over the earth and inside and outside of people, leads to a reading of the kingdom as more a state of being than anything else and these parables are meant to illustrate various states of those within the kingdom. In this reading, the woman in saying ninety-seven has finally achieved the kingdom and in so doing realized that she wasted all of her life and spilled all of the meal, the time, the resources, that she had because she never knew the proper path before.

So the kingdom is a state of being, a state of knowledge that is not necessarily happy, (saying two states that upon finding one will become disturbed), but that is a way to experience things in a more direct manner, by distancing oneself from the false rituals of daily life and brining oneself closer to one's spiritual nature. It is a sort of objectivity born of unattachment that removes the beams from ones eyes and allows one to see things for what they are. The kingdom of Thomas is merely the world but man cannot see it because his eyes are clouded. Only through a either complete lack of knowledge (as a little one) or true knowledge, the ability to see seemingly contradictory things as similar and valid, can one see the kingdom for what it truly is: truth and therefore, as Keats would argue, beauty.

The Gospel of Thomas
and the Historical Jesus of Nazareth

"Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him, according to the Jesus Seminar." (1993 Funk: 5) This startling fact grew out of the distinction between the Christ of faith, and the Jesus of history. Only the liberation of theology from strictly religious circles has allowed the modern historian to view these personages as completely separate. The synoptic gospels and the Gospel of John speak about the Jesus of faith, but one can find the Jesus of history hiding between the lines. It is a comparison of the gospels that brings the pieces of the puzzle together. Such study has led to the precedence of the Gospel of Mark, as well as establishing proof for an even earlier source based upon the oral tradition, Q. In similar fashion, the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas proves to be highly valuable not only as a new source, but also as a new lens through which to study existing material. Its history, the history of its followers, and a direct comparison to the synoptic gospels unearth information about Jesus and his time that is less than a half-century old.

The discovery of the Nag Hammadi codex in Egypt is arguably the single greatest event in the pursuit of early Christian history this century. 1945 marked the year, but it was not until 1957 that the text was translated as is, and even later still until English audiences would read it. (1993 Patterson: 218) Even then, it was dismissed as a later Gnostic interpretation of the synoptic gospels, not a wholly different Christian kerygma. "The realization that Thomas, with its own kerygmatic claims, represents a tradition that is both independent of, and roughly contemporaneous with the canonical gospels would have meant the recognition that early Christian claims about Jesus were quite multiple and diverse." (1993 Patterson: 219) That being said, it is less valuable to ascertain whether Thomas or the synoptic gospels represent the historical Jesus most accurately, and much more edifying to use each as a lens to view the other. All of the gospels are at least based upon a historical tradition, but it only through comparison that we can begin to base the historical Jesus in fact.

In order to draw a comparison, it is necessary to know the history of the Gospel of Thomas. The codex unearthed at Nag Hammadi has been determined to come from the year 200 C.E.. (Patterson: 113) Of course, that only gives us an accurate date if Nag Hammadi was the provenance of the original Gospel of Thomas. Common interpretation has been to place the Gospel of Thomas and early "Thomas" Christians in Syria. The Gospel's author (Judas Thomas Didymus) has been located in eastern Syria most notably by the fact of his mention in the third-century Acts of Thomas, but also in other sources. (1993 Patterson: 118) Dating the Nag Hammadi at 200 C.E. leaves us with a big window of possibilities. One must assume at least a generation or two for the Thomas tradition to leave Jerusalem and become popular enough to be translated, maybe more than once, into the present Coptic translation. The lack of the Son of Man and other christological titles found in the synoptic gospels, as well as its tradition as a sayings collection, tends to date Thomas in the end of the first century. Helmut Koester has argued that the formative layers of Q (a common source for the synoptic gospels) did not include the apocalyptic Son of Man title attributed to Jesus in the canonical gospels. (1993 Patterson: 118) The disuse of the sayings tradition among Christians in the second and third centuries also tends to date Thomas in the first century. Finally, one sees no veneration of the `apostles' just for the fact that they were a part of the original twelve. Only James (other than Thomas) is attributed any special status, simply because he might have been the origin of what became Thomas Christianity. This lack of nostalgic respect, compared to the criticisms of the apostles as also seen in Mark, place the Gospel of Thomas in the first-century.

Now we have a picture of an independent branch of Christianity that developed close to the same time as the Synoptic tradition. If Paul is often seen as the father of second and third century Christian kerygma, the possibility of James (and then Thomas) leading another independent branch may be conjectured, if not proven. Who then, were these Thomas Christians and what did they believe? Early Christianity seems to include the belief that is was best to be on the move, a wanderer, or what is seen today as a missionary. "Get going; look, I'm sending you out like lambs into a pack of wolves." (Lk 10:3 // Mt 10:16a, Q) (1993 NTSV Funk: 317) The wandering ascetic tradition was common to all of early Christianity. Luke, in specific instructions that Jesus gave twice, points to this fact. Take no staff, knapsack, bread, money, and do not look for better quarters. Obviously early Christians found it necessary to travel in order to spread the `good news'. It is questionable though, in light of Thomas, whether Jesus gave this decree as a standard for living life day to day, and year to year. Yes, constant travel is necessary to spread God's word, but is it necessary to be a `good' Christian?

The synoptic tradition opted for settling down. Over time, the authority that was given to these "wandering radicals" (1993 Patterson) slowly shifted to local leaders in the Christian communities as they grew and progressed. Paul himself had to deal with correcting communities as they gained confidence in their understanding of Christian theology, and its place in their society. Eventually, all authority would naturally come into the hands of local leaders as bishops were established, and time left the `radicals' with no place and no heir to their tradition. Thomas Christianity however, followed the wandering radical's way of life not simply as a temporary mission, but the key to salvation. Their practices were to be ascetic, to be "passers-by" of the world around them, and to depart from economic enterprise. The Thomas Christians were only continuing a tradition that has as its beginning the very origins of Christianity! Another early Christian tradition that the Synoptic branch deviated from was the use of sayings as a means to express the words and life of Jesus of Nazareth. The synoptic gospels hold clues to this debate over authority between the early wandering radical and local leaders. Gerd Theissen's study of this phenomenon uses Q material that almost wholly reflects the point of view of the wandering radical. "The resulting stratification suggests a gradual development in early Christianity from an early period dominated by a wandering radical ethos (Q) to a later period of settling down, producing the localized communities whose views are reflected in the synoptic gospels themselves." (1993 Patterson: 164)

Thomas Christians were all wandering radicals. Like Jesus and they too were "homeless vagabonds (Thom 42, 86), who had given up possessions (Thom 95, 54, 36) and family ties (Thom 55, 99, 101)." (1993 Patterson: 163). Thomas Christians did not have the Son of Man in their dogma, but they did see themselves as revealers of divine revelation.

"Jesus said, `Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me, I myself will become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to them.'" (Thomas 108:1-3) (1993 Funk: 529)

When Thomas 77 and 113 are added to 108, a picture emerges that is comparable to the `imperial rule of God' in the synoptic gospels, but wholly different. Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

His disciples said to him, "When will the Father's imperial rule come?" "It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, `Look, here!' or `Look, there!' Rather, the Father's imperial rule is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it." (NTSV Funk: 515, 531)

The Thomas Christians were not awaiting some future glory, but had it now in the world around them. Their harsh lifestyle was designed to focus them on this point. This realized eschatology allowed for them to live apart from family, follow strict asceticism, and know that they were right. For them, the time was now. They were living as Jesus had, and had attained salvation in his words.

And he (Jesus) said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." (Th 1 NTSV 1993 Funk: 471)

The key to salvation was already in their hands.

In the midst of multiple factions, multiple gospels, (even multiple versions of each!) and the fact that Jesus lived within an oral tradition, where is the historically accurate Jesus to be found? The varying words of Jesus, expressed from different points of view, at first seems to increase the confusion, but it is the duplicity of sources that narrows down the possibilities of who Jesus was. Thomas is a book born of the Jewish wisdom tradition and the resulting sayings tradition of Jesus, out of which the synoptic and Thomas gospels have their base. It has Gnostic tendencies, but is not a full-blown Gnostic text. Its Gnostic disposition is characterized by the author attempt to esotericize the sayings of Jesus. As it is in line with Gnosticism, and is unique to Thomas, it is a safe assumption to assume that this is not how Jesus preached. (1993 Patterson: 228) Conversely, the synoptic gospels have a tendency to allegorize the parables therein.

Compare the Parable of the Tenants (Mt 21:33-46; Mk 12:1-12; Lk 20:9-19; Th 65) and the Parable of the Great Supper (Mt 22:1-14 // Lk 14:15-24; Q; Th 64). In Mark, The Parable of the Tenants becomes an allegory for the death of Jesus. While adding their own nuances, Matthew and Luke follow this same idea. Matthew uses the Parable of the Great Supper to forewarn of God's impending judgment, while Luke drops the theme of doom and judgment and uses it as an allegory for the Messianic banquet. (1993 Patterson: 229). Thomas has his own secondary addition in the last line: "Buyers and merchants will not enter the places of my Father. (Th 64:12 NTSV Funk: 509). Yet Thomas doesn't alter the parable into allegory. He does not use it to forewarn of God's judgment nor does he even use it to represent the future. "It is not at all insignificant that the synoptic gospels have preserved the sayings tradition only by embedding it in a biographical framework that presents Jesus as the suffering martyr marching slowly and deliberately to his death on a cross." (1993 Patterson: 230) In contrast, Thomas and the early form of Q agree at least on a non-apocalyptic interpretation of Jesus' preaching.

The gospels all agree on one point: Jesus was a social radical. Jesus' call was often to leave home, abandon family and to refrain from having money. (Th 55, 101:1-2; Mt 10:37-39// Lk 14: 26-27,Q) "Utterly destitute, the wise sage is called upon to dispose of his or her money (Th 95; Mt 5:42// Lk 6:34-35a, Q), and to take no care for such necessities as clothing (Th 36, Mt 6:25-33// Lk 12:22-30, Q) or food (Th 69:2; Mt 5:6// Lk 6:21a, Q). Their poverty is to be a sign of blessing. (Th 54; Mt 5:3// Lk 6:20b, Q)" (Patterson: 234) Depending upon interpretation, Jesus may even be seen as politically subversive.

Jesus said, "I have cast fire upon the world, and look, I'm guarding it until it blazes." (Th 10 NTSV Funk: 478)(parallel Lk 12:49)

Both trajectories, Synoptic and Thomas, hold the belief that the world is evil and they, as righteous Christians, are at odds with everything around them. The Synoptic Christians responded with eschatology and the imbedding of the Son of Man sayings into Q, while Thomas Christians have their Gnostic proclivity, with all of its unique values.

Jesus was certainly a revolutionary in his time. He was marked a troublemaker by Herod and the Romans, but the usher of a new era for many others. He most likely knew he was subversive, but his preaching was not focused on eschatology and his own return of doom and judgment. Unfortunately, his ultimate goals and purpose will remain known only to him. For all Christians he was the key to salvation. While the synoptic tradition finds salvation in his forgiveness and divine resurrection, Thomas Christians are saved by his words as the incarnation of Wisdom. The focus of many scholars is whether Jesus knew of his fate and believed he was living in the end of days. Whether he did or not, he certainly did not know of the very real and tangible impact that he would have, and continues to have, in nations, cultures and religions throughout the world.