Please i would like to learn more about the gospel of St.Thomas found in Nag Hamagi which the church reected as heresy.THANKS

-- Esan Dominic A (tops@scientist.com), October 20, 2003

Answers

Jmj

At the "Bible Review" Biblical archaeology) site, the following is stated:

"In 1945 a whole library of texts was discovered in ... Nag Hammadi. That is in Egypt, where the monks who likely preserved this library ... spoke and wrote Coptic. So, our only surviving copy of Thomas is in Coptic. Originally it was written in Greek —- not Latin or Aramaic. ... The Gospel of Thomas was discovered in 1945, but it wasn't actually published until 1957. This might lead some to suspect a conspiracy —- but if there was one, the church played no role in it. The problem with getting texts to scholars, and then to the broader public, has to do with how manuscripts are usually discovered and handled. Churches seldom come into play. In the case of the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, the finders did not immediately realize the value of their discovery and so did not move quickly to dispose of it. Antiquities dealers and speculators soon entered the picture. Some of the texts were sold, only to be smuggled into private collections. Others were nationalized and taken into custody by the Coptic Museum in Cairo, which led to a series of legal battles over their ownership. Then came the Suez crisis of 1956, which delayed work even further. Once scholars finally got hold of the texts, the issue of intellectual property rights came into play. The work soon fell into the hands of a small cartel of scholars, who denied others access to them. The translation and publication of the texts slowed to a snail's pace. Eventually the cartel was broken, and the texts were expeditiously published. Today all of the Nag Hammadi texts are widely available. ... At no point did the Vatican or any other church authority factor into this story."

As the above says, a full (possibly faithful-to-original) Coptic version of the "Gospel" of St. Thomas was not made public in modern times until 1957. I think that it had been lost for many centuries, but it had been available to the popes and bishops (probably in its original Greek) in the 4th Century, when the Catholic Church determined the canons (lists) of inspired books of divine revelation. It was then judged not to be inspired, and that will never change.

The old Catholic Encyclopedia, from which the following paragraph is quoted, was put together almost 100 years ago, when the Nag Hammadi text of "Thomas" was not yet available (but only partial versions were available):

"Gospel of St. Thomas -- There are two Greek and two Latin redactions of it [heavily edited versions], differing much from one another. A Syriac translation is also found. A Gospel of Thomas was known to many Fathers. The earliest to mention it is St. Hippolytus (155-235), who informs us that it was in use among the Naasenes, a sect of Syrian Gnostics, and cites a sentence which does not appear in our extant text. Origen relegates it to the heretical writings. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says it was employed by the Manichæans; Eusebius rejects it as heretical and spurious. It is clear that the original Pseudo-Thomas was of heterodox origin, and that it dates from the second century; the citations of Hippolytus establish that it was palpably Gnostic in tenor. But in the extant Thomas Gospel there is no formal or manifest Gnosticism. The prototype was evidently expurgated by a Catholic hand, who, however, did not succeed in eradicating all traces of its original taint. The apocryphon in all its present forms extravagantly magnifies the Divine aspect of the boy Jesus. In bold contrast to the Infancy narrative of St. Luke, where the Divinity is almost effaced, the author makes the Child a miracle-worker and intellectual prodigy, and in harmony with Docetism, leaves scarcely more than the appearance of humanity in Him. This pseudo-Gospel is unique among the apocrypha, inasmuch as it describes a part of the hidden life of Our Lord between the ages of five and twelve. But there is much that is fantastic and offensive in the pictures of the exploits of the boy Jesus. His youthful miracles are worked at times out of mere childish fancy, as when He formed clay pigeons, and at a clap of His hands they flew away as living birds; sometimes, from beneficence; but again from a kind of harsh retribution."

The subject of the Gospel of Thomas was previously discussed at this forum.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 20, 2003.

The "Gospel of Thomas" was not necessarily eliminated from scripture due to heretical content. It was rejected, as were a couple of dozen other gospels and over a hundred epistles, because the Holy Spirit did not reveal to the Church Councils responsible for compiling the Bible that these particular writings were divinely inspired. Some of the rejected works may indeed include statements which directly conflict with revealed truth. Others may not.

Among the other gospels which, along with the "Gospel of Thomas", were not accepted into the Canon of Scripture were the Gospels of ...

Philip; Bartholomew; Peter; Nicodemus; Mary; The Holy Twelve; The Infancy of Christ; The Savior; Judas; Truth; Signs; James; The Egyptians; The Hebrews; The Nazoreans; The Ebionites

... and a few others.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 20, 2003.

Esan, adding to What John G and Paul M said, after analyzing this Gospel of Thomas in its coptic and Greek forms, one can see about 40-60 sayings of Jesus found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, mark, and Luke) in a brief format.

This , I believe, was an argument from the early Church to reject it. Another, the it was used by Gnostics.

I still believe,Esan, Thomas contains some of Jesus original sayings, since they tend to be brief.before they were inserted and expanded into the Gospels we know.

The argument of the Gospel being Gnostic only could work for about 12 of Thomas sayings. They are truly Gnostic. They deal with knowledge. The only saying of knowledge to enter the Gospels is the one that says search... As we have it now, there are 110 sayings.

The last one, 110 is kind of interesting, since Jesus says that women could be like men, if properly trained.

There is one, the one that says lucky is the man that eats a lion...I still have a hard time understanding this one.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), October 20, 2003.

" Lucky is the man who ate a lion ... for the Lion did NOT eat HIM !" Stop and think about it a moment ... it means that the stronger one did not eat the weaker one . Instead ,the weaker one ate the stronger one . To me , it speaks of knowledge being used to defeat brutish strength . This is all I can get from the passage which was quoted . J.T.D.

-- J.T. Davenport (spectremudduck@hotmail.com), December 21, 2003.

I would like to get a copy of the text if possible to read it thanks

-- James G (jagsqueak@aol.com), December 21, 2003.

Hi J.T., you wrote:

"" Lucky is the man who ate a lion ... for the Lion did NOT eat HIM !" Stop and think about it a moment ... it means that the stronger one did not eat the weaker one . Instead ,the weaker one ate the stronger one . To me , it speaks of knowledge being used to defeat brutish strength . This is all I can get from the passage which was quoted . J.T.D. "

Actually, the stronger did eat the weaker. The man is stronger than the lion, when the man can eat the lion. The man has a soul; the lion does not. The man is greater than the beast.

.........................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 21, 2003.

does luck exist in scripture? it an unedited version available?

-- michael c. moore (woewithwhatcom@aol.com), December 21, 2003.

Would that be the King James Version? Sorry, I could not resist.

Oh, wait a minute, you said "unedited". Sorry, again.

...............................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 22, 2003.

I would like to read the gospel of Thomas in it's original text and all of the other "hidden" books. I don't know much about such books yet but I feel in my spirit(having faith of course) that there are great truths and mysteries that can be found in these books that can help the christian family and the entire world. God knows why he has permitted only 66 books to be aceppted and trust by us but there will come a time when the humand spirit will hunger for more and I pray that the Holy Spirit will guide us to the truth

-- Joshua Jimenez (joshua676.3@juno.com), December 26, 2003.

Joshua, There are thousands of good Catholic books that have been written over the 2,000 years of Church history. If you are hungry feast on these, don't go to places where we know there are errors.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 26, 2003.

Bill, Catholic books are not the only place to search or learn. Just because someone said that a book is acceptable does not make others unacceptable. Learning new things and looking for new sources of inspiration (regardless of 'errors') can be helpful in one's search for a stronger faith. To each his own. The Apocryphal books are very interesting. God Bless, Rebekah.

-- rebekah (steveandbecky2@sbcglobal.net), December 26, 2003.

Joshua,

God allowed 73 books to be accepted and trusted by us. The human founders of the Protestant tradition allowed only 66 books to be accepted and trusted by their followers. And the only way they know that those 66 books are inspired and trustworthy is by the authority of the Church which defined the 73 books. Pretty wierd, huh?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 26, 2003.

Learning new things and looking for new sources of inspiration (regardless of 'errors') can be helpful in one's search for a stronger faith.

From what I have seen, if you are seeking inspiration you should stick to Catholic texts. Non-Catholic texts can be read for historical purposes, but I would not look into them specifically for inspirational purposes. That is a very dangerous thing to do and I know of a lot of people who have waisted years wondering in the spiritual wilderness who though as you do. I would never advise it. I know it goes against the grain of Americans who think they can be objective about everyting... truth is, you can be convinced of a lot of errors if they are presented in a fancy way. Look at all the people who think there was a female pope, or who think Opus Dei is some kind of evil cult because of popular fiction. Look at all those who temporarily bought into spiritualism.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 26, 2003.

"you can be convinced of a lot of errors if they are presented in a fancy way"

obviously. look at all of the people who believe one thing wholehearteldy and then denounce everything else based on the one teaching or leader(who is human, by the way) that they choose to steer them in the right direction. Even a flawed text has its merits, if it brings you to a new understanding of your faith.

rebekah

-- rebekah (steveandbecky2@sbcglobal.net), December 26, 2003.

"Even a flawed text has its merits, if it brings you to a new understanding of your faith. "

A. That arguement would lead one to think that 'even the devil has merits if he brings you to a new understanding of your faith'. Obviously that is not the case. So a line is drawn. Neither you nor I know where that line is to be drawn, so it is better that, if you are looking for inspiration, you look at Catholic texts. It isn't as if we only have a few of them ;)

When you've read all this stuff, drop me a note and I will point you elsewhere ;)

That was the whole reason, by the way, behind the imprimatur. Imprimatur is Latin for "let it be printed." When a Roman Catholic bishop grants his imprimatur to a printed work, he assures the reader that nothing therein is contrary to Catholic faith or morals. This imprimatur is not given lightly; only after a thorough review process.

Again, if you are looking for information for a secular reason, be my guest and read whatever strikes your fancy.

By the way, you might wish to start here: http://www.catholicexchange.com/

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), December 26, 2003.

Just because something can be stamped 'Catholic' does not make it the last word or the chosen word.

There are a lot of documents worth reading and worth acknowledging. As long as the reader of such documents goes into the endeavor with a prior understanding and appreciation for the word of God, works that try to expound on that word cannot be dismissed, especially in total for the specific reason that the Catholic Church said so.

-- rebekah (steveandbecky2@sbcglobal.net), December 26, 2003.

Again, if looking for inspirational works, stick to Catholic works. Approach other works of spirituality skeptically.

We may be saying the same thing...

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 26, 2003.