Gospels of St. Thomas.

I was watching stigmata the other day, and afterward I went online an looked up several translations of the gospel of St. Thomas.

For those who are unfamiliar with the gospel, it is written in Aramaic (the language of christ) and it is regarded as the closest publication ever to the true words of Jesus Christ himself.

www.misericordia.edu...

The problem for the church is that this gospel basically proves/says that the church is complete bunk, and that God is within us, not within the walls of a church. And that your body is the only temple. This being very important to the teachings of Christ, why has it been left out of the bible? Moreover, why has the chhurch surpressed this document, do they fear it will destroy the church?

You mean you actually understood all of that? Wow, I'm impressed.

Originally posted by Eyeofhorus
I was watching stigmata the other day, and afterward I went online an looked up several translations of the gospel of St. Thomas.

There are several ancient texts which claim to be the 'Gospel of Thomas' and more existed in antiquity I think. The one to which you refer is the Coptic Gospel of Thomas.

For those who are unfamiliar with the gospel, it is written in Aramaic (the language of christ) and it is regarded as the closest publication ever to the true words of Jesus Christ himself.

This is inaccurate. The extant text is written in Coptic, the final form of Ancient Egyptian. It was found in some 4-5th century manuscripts at Nag Hammadi ca. 1950. It is only mentioned by one ancient writer, Hippolytus, who dismisses it as a fake used in Egypt. The text itself is gnostic in character.

The work was originally written in Greek, and fragments of this version were found at Oxyrhynchus ca. 1900. However the Coptic and Greek versions differ in some areas, suggesting reediting.

There is nothing to connect the text with Jesus and the apostolic circle. The production of 'real gospels' has been a cottage industry since the second century AD down to our own times, to make money or gain advantage. No-one actually connected to the apostles ever refers to it.

The problem for the church is that this gospel basically proves/says that the church is complete bunk, and that God is within us, not within the walls of a church. And that your body is the only temple.

That is, it teaches something different from that which Jesus is known to have actually taught. Most of the fakes do, since they were forged in the interests of some non-Christian group hoping to obtain converts from Christianity.

This being very important to the teachings of Christ, why has it been left out of the bible?

The bible only contains documents with some legitimate claim to derive from Christ and his apostles. As you yourself reflect, this in fact offers a different set of ideas. They may be right or wrong; but the teaching of Jesus they are not.

Moreover, why has the chhurch surpressed this document, do they fear it will destroy the church?

In what way has the church suppressed this document?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thanks for the extra information, good post. I understand the differnce between the coptic and greek texts now, but considering how the romans/greeks (Emperor constantine) basically composed the new testament in order to create the new religion for the ages, I still cannot accept the document as complete fiction. What if the document WAS rewritten, and re-translated? It has been known to happen in the past. Wouldn't that just mean that someone may have translated the original document into a diffent form/language? Just like the bible. The books of the apocrypha were written in the same time period as the bible, by the same people, as a complete representation of the "missing books" of the new testament; why were these texts omitted fom the final product? And why are there two versions of this text (greek and coptic)? That suggests that they may have both been derived from the same text at their creation, maybe the original is written in another language completely (aramaic?), and possibly not even written on paper. Have we even found what could be considered the "original" text?

Originally posted by roger_pearse
There is nothing to connect the text with Jesus and the apostolic circle. The production of 'real gospels' has been a cottage industry since the second century AD down to our own times, to make money or gain advantage. No-one actually connected to the apostles ever refers to it.

I agree, it would be easy to slip a "gospel" in every now and then, but I seem to be having trouble validating this point, finding only speculative evidence, that is somehow or another tied to the church. If you have any sources to help me out, please share. And as well, how did the rumor start that these were the words of jesus?

[edit on 26-5-2005 by Eyeofhorus]

[edit on 26-5-2005 by Eyeofhorus]

Originally posted by Eyeofhorus
Thanks for the extra information, good post. I understand the differnce between the coptic and greek texts now...

You're welcome! One other point about the difference; one of the Greek fragments parallels one of the overtly gnostic passages in the coptic. But the Greek text is not overtly gnostic. So it is conceivable that the complete Greek text (now lost) wasn't either.

but considering how the romans/greeks (Emperor constantine) basically composed the new testament in order to create the new religion for the ages...

This is not correct, tho. The phrase 'Novum testamentum' originates with Tertullian, the first Christian writer working in Latin.

...I still cannot accept the document as complete fiction. What if the document WAS rewritten, and re-translated? It has been known to happen in the past. Wouldn't that just mean that someone may have translated the original document into a diffent form/language?

Of course you're right. These things could have happened. But then, they could have been written by Martians, or forged by the excavators, or all sorts of things. It's easy enough to use such a theory to ignore what the evidence says. But we then end up with whatever theory we can imagine. It's not that long ago that Eric von Daniken used the same method for spacemen gospel writers, is it?

The only way to avoid wild speculation that I (as an amateur) can see is to stick to what the data actually gives us.

The books of the apocrypha were written in the same time period as the bible, by the same people, as a complete representation of the "missing books" of the new testament

Had they been, they would have been included in the NT. In fact the NT apocrypha were written by others, almost always outside the church, from the second century on. It's still happening, even now. The motive is to confuse Christians and obtain money or converts.

And why are there two versions of this text (greek and coptic)? That suggests that they may have both been derived from the same text at their creation, maybe the original is written in another language completely (aramaic?), and possibly not even written on paper. Have we even found what could be considered the "original" text?

We don't know why there are two texts. But the reason is probably that Christianity came to Alexandria first through Greek-speaking Jews. Thus it would first be spread in Greek, and forgeries likewise be composed in that language. However as it spread through the country, and into the Egyptian subject population, all sorts of works were translated into Coptic. No doubt the GoT was done by someone at this time.

I don't know that there is any evidence of an aramaic version, although there were close links between the Syriac (late aramaic) and Coptic worlds.

All the best,

Roger Pearse