The Gospel of Thomas

By Dan on Sep 7, 2006 | 1812 views | 9 feedbacks »

What is it? The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings, attributed to Jesus of Nazareth.

How was it discovered? 1945 in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, and written in Coptic, an Egyptian form of the Greek language.

Who wrote it? We don’t know.

When do liberals claim it was written? Before the canonical Gospels.

When was it really written? 150-180 A.D. at the earliest, many years after the canonical Gospels.

So what’s the problem?

1. It's not a gospel. This so-called “Gospel” is not a gospel at all . It is a seemingly random collection of sayings, without historical narrative like the authentic accounts of Christ’s life. It is far easier to fake quotations of a historical person since it is much more difficult to check for errors. Historical narratives such as the canonical Gospels contain sayings as well as background details that can be checked for accuracy.

2. It's nonsensical. Many of the sayings don’t make a lot of sense.

3. Late date. As noted above, the Gospel of Thomas was composed well after the canonical Gospels.

4. No apostolic authorship. Thomas was not composed by an apostle or by a close associate of an apostle.

5. Inconsistency. The Gospel of Thomas is inconsistent with the known, authentic accounts of Jesus Christ.

6. Lack of church usage. The early church did not use the Gospel of Thomas nearly as much as it used the canonical works, if at all. Church fathers never referenced it authoritatively, primarily because it wasn’t written yet and/or no one used it!

9 comments

Comment from: Jason [Visitor]

Wow. I was wondering, but now I see, you guys are really leaning to the far right on this site aren't you?! I don't have a horse in this race, but clearly, from a non-biased POV, you guys need to do some research and pay closer attention to your explanations when trying to whisk some real things to the convenient side. Your simple use of the word "liberals," first of all, is very telling and unprofessional, not to mention "nonsensical." Who are these "liberals" anyway? Some evil group out to prove Jesus didn't exist or that he was some giant spagetti monster from another planet, a term we frequent in our religion courses. I'd correct that usage. Second, your "nonsensical" remark is void, to whom does the Gospel not make any sense? Who's the judge of what does and does not make sense? And, based upon what information, the canonical texts? Well if so, isn't that a tad convenient? I believe you could say compared to what is "generally accepted" they may be inaccurate, but not "nonsensical." Though there are many out there sayings, they are quite a few that do fall in line with the New Testament, and what we generally accept. And lastly, its been proven the documents are not fakes. This is not simply generally accepted either, its down right accepted. There is mystery to them, but just because a book doesn't hold quite the cloat of some that can be backed up by other accounts outside of itself, like those within the canon, doesn't mean it should just be scoffed at so quickly or easily. There's just as much we don't know as there is we know. And, scholarly speaking, if we don't know every detail as solid fact, we should be careful how quickly we come to conclusions and close off our minds. To do so is simply injecting your own personal bias.

03/25/08 @ 22:42

Comment from: Dan [Member]

"It's not a lie if you believe it."--George Costanza

03/26/08 @ 07:35

Comment from: Cory Montgomery [Visitor]

i believe in it 100 percent and do not critisize my beliefs i believ in all of them because it is ver possible

03/26/08 @ 17:32

Comment from: Dan [Member]

I didn't realize lobotomy patients were allowed to access the internet so soon after surgery. Here's to your speedy recovery!

03/26/08 @ 17:57

Comment from: Julia [Visitor]

I don't think George Costanza is the most reliable person to be quoting for some sort of insight. But to each his own I suppose.