Talk:Gospel of Thomas/Archive 1

message: The list of Twelve Disciples are not mentioned, although Peter, James, Thomas, and Matthew. Curiously, two women, Mary Magdalene and Salome, are listed as Jesus' women disciples. The New Testament emphatically denies Jesus had any female disciples...
This is actually a common confusion. 'The Twelve' are call 'Apostles'; the 'disciples' of Jesus was a much wider group, since disciple just means a follower. Several women are listed in the canonical New Testament as disciples of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene and Salome almost certainly were by implication. Does the Gospel of Thomas list these two as Apostles or disciples? DJ Clayworth 20:35, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. You appear to be right. The Gospels do indeed refer to the twelve as disciples throughout. However Luke 6:13 says "he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles". And Acts (esp Acts 6) uses the term more inclusively. Possibly the term can be used to mean either group. Can the article say something like "The New Testament does not list any women among Jesus' inner core of disciples"? DJ Clayworth 22:26, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of whether women were included in the inner core of disciples is one you can't solve by stating a negative. Just because you can't find a quote to support women in Jesus' inner circle, it does not mean that there were none. In fact, a negative is never proof of anything.86.4.59.203 00:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The canonical "Twelve" 

message: :"The Gospel of Thomas is mystical— it emphasizes a direct and unmediated experience of the Divine. Jesus is presented as a mystagogue, a teacher of Divine mysteries, much as he is presented in the Gospel of John. While the emphasis in John is a balance between his miracles and his words, the emphasis here is exclusively the words of Jesus."
If the GT presents "exclusively the words of Jesus," how do we know that it "emphasizes a direct and unmediated experience of the Divine?" NPOV, being the divine dogma of deities here, if applied, would mean that the leap between 'plain words' and 'unmediated divine mystical experience' is a bit large. Me? I would, but Im busy. Stevertigo 02:26, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This speculation is a bit wild. Mysteries are only mysteries if you don't understand them. The author of the Gospel probably wrote down sayings as he/she heard them, and simply decided not to write a proper narative explaining the background to the parables or similies.86.4.59.203 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flowery language, (put politely) 

message: Having four parables next to each other is interesting, but this part should have some commentary or be removed all together, IMO. What are we to understand about GOT from the much shorter and somewhat stronger phrasing of the parable? Thomas says "The kingdom is like a shepherd" but in John it says Jesus is the shepherd. What are we to conclude from this?
:Any commentary should simply draw attention to the quoted texts, like a caption to a picture. What we are to conclude is up to us in a NPOV. I agree the format is clunky? Any editors? --Wetman 23:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can conclude that different authors interpreted the parables (heard things differently, or interpreted what they read and wrote their interpretations). Who know's which came first, the GoT or the Gospels in canon. One could have copied the other, or two seperate people could have heard the same thing and written it down differently.86.4.59.203 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parable of the lost sheep 

message: The following text is not just inaccurate, it is actually untrue: " Proponents of the early theory are inevitably forced to piece apart Thomas and recreate the "real," earlier, and supposedly non-Gnostic version.  This is a methologically subjective exercise that essentially creates a document that never existed, and can never be proven to have existed without substantial evidence (the "Q" document is a good example of a non-existent document that has been recreated from substantial evidence - but there is still much debate about its form, whether or not it was one or many documents, and other issues.  See Synoptic problem)" The Coptic text is complete. Who has been "piecing apart" Thomas and recreating an earlier version? What "proponents"? This rhetorical device is called  a "straw man": indeed it might be a "methologically subjective" exercise— if it were being done. I did  enjoy "methologically" though and am sorry to see a word so full of the essence of these arguments leave this section of text ;) --Wetman 08:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Second that. Seems like the author of said creation wants to shove his own views to discredit the GoT. Actually most speculation about documents that have never been found are complete imagination and speculation and entirely irrelevent.86.4.59.203 01:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GoT as "Gnostic" 

message: The article incorrectly refers in a couple of places to "transliteration". If used correctly, this would refer merely to representing the orginal Greek (without translation) in the Roman (or some other) alphabet rather than the Greek alphabet, but this is clearly not what's intended. It ought to be corrected, but I'm at a loss to know what the writer actually had in mind. rossb 16:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. The author appears to be incorrectly using "trasliterated" when he means "interpreted." --Goethean 17:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Transliteration" 

message: I moved this here: "The Gospel of Thomas and other secret gospels from the 2nd and 3rd century were regarded as the works of heretics by contemporary Christian writers who championed and preserved the apostolic tradition of earlier Church fathers and Christian writers.( It was for this reason a specific group of books constructing the Bible was canonized.)"
:Nothing secret about the "lost" GoT; date might be checked by reading Wikipedia or anywhere; the development of the idea of heresy is worth reading about; the development of the canon likewise. No one knows how contemporary Christian writers "regarded" this text; the apostolic tradition was defined by the winners in 4th and 5th century disputes. This is raw POV. --Wetman 21:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uninformed POV 

message: "::::This debate about Marcion has nothing to do whatsoever with the Gospel of Thomas. Its place is somewhere else.86.4.59.203 12:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marcion 

message: Can we get a more sophisticated assessment on why the Gospel of Thomas was not included in the canon? Or can we delete this coloring-book blurb?
:had it actually been written by the apostle Thomas, they argue, it would have been at least seriously considered by those in the century immediately following Jesus' death.
This is too naive for Wikipedia. Its author has no conception of how the New testament was arrived at.  --Wetman 16:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with including the views of clueless fundamentalists, as long as the views are clearly charcterized as such. — goethean ॐ 16:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is "they", it looks like a passage written by a fundamentalist expressing their own views/original "research". --User talk:FDuffy 13:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith in talk. A sophisticated assesment could probably have its own article. Perhaps there should be a page on wiki devoted to the compilation of the NT and the politic surrounding it.86.4.59.203 13:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coloring-book "History"? 

message: The article refers to "the four synoptic Gospels." Are there not only three synoptic Gospels, including Matthew, Mark, and Luke (with the absense of John)? In some places, the article, I believe, should read "the three synoptic Gospels," such as when mentioning the Diatessaron, which did not include the Gospel of John. In others, perhaps the article should read "the four canonical Gospels? "Aiden 01:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are, of course, correct. I fixed the sole remaining instance of this. Graft 08:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synoptic Gospels 

message: I see the link to the Gthomas gets deleted by minds set in stone regularly. Please explain this is not prejudice. in detail.
:If we kept every home page link that was inserted, Wikipedia would contain more links than content. The fact that you added your link to many articles made it much more likely that the links would be deleted. — goethean ॐ 22:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of geocities link 

message: I'm not sure, but I don't believe that the verses in Matthew and Thomas refer to the same thing. Thomas' quotation is more akin to that about the discovery of the kingdom of heaven by someone. Analogous verses are previous to this, in Matthew 13 44-46. Could someone replace it? Homagetocatalonia 11:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gospel of John is packed with metaphor, simile, and other such gramatical jigery pokery. GoT is also quite similar in style, although there seems to be less structure in the GoT. The GoT is a collection of sayings by Jesus which one is left to interpret one'self. It is almost like someone's notes from a lecture. Anyway, as you seem to be able to spot errors, why not go ahead and change the thing.86.4.59.203 23:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of The ''Gospel of Thomas'' to the New Testament 

message: This was an interpolation into the late-camp argument:
:It should be noted that the Gospel of John is replete with statements that involve a rejection of the physical world (see John 6:63), and all four gospels state "this world" belongs to the "devil".
I thought that it should have begun with something attributive, like, "Opponents of this view note..." or somesuch. However, I noted the reference to John 6:63 and thinking it over, pulled the whole thing to think about it some more.
"Rejection of the physical world" is a very Protestant/fundamentalist reading of this passage. The Orthodox and Catholic understanding of this passage is quite different. In these traditions, John 6:1 ff is very much an embrace of the sacramental goodness of the Created world, and the spiritually and physically nutritive value of the flesh and blood of Jesus.
Plus, I only find one reference to "this world" belonging to the "[Dd]evil" with a quick egrep of my RSV. Mark does not refer to the "devil" at all, though "Satan" is. The closest are two references in John to the "ruler of this world." Hardly all four gospels. So I think this yank stays on the Talk.
→ (AllanBz ✍) 08:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early/late camp unattributed bit 

message: I renamed it, cuz i clicked on it thinking it was an eastern or oriental orthodox comment; its too ambigous. I would also object to saying for a prety specific view like advaita vedanta, that its simply 'eastern', as a practicing buddhist. Such comparative study may be an interesting endaveour, im certanly not sad to have found that site; still, I wonder about the wisdom if its unverified inclusion in an encyclopedia - anyone more knowlegabe about wiki policies know when links are to be included in an article? --Aryah 06:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's spam that an editor keeps re-adding to several articles and should be deleted. — goethean ॐ 14:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: wouldt that be then some form of abuse of wikipedia? what can wiki do in its selfdefence then??--Aryah 19:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  geocities advaita vedanta 

message: Why is there a cleanup tag on the article? — goethean ॐ 14:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup tag 

message: Please explain these NPOV issues, per the guidelines for tagging pages.--Andrew c 21:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV issues 

message: Can I ask if anybody else finds this statement problematic?
"It should be noted that secular biblical scholars and Christian fundamentalists offer very different dates for key New Testament documents."
Seems like weasel-words and is really saying: "Clever people think like me - Stupid people think the other way - I of course am completely unbiased"
Or am I wrong?
83.217.181.236 20:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "secular" should be replaced. There are many non-secular religious scholars who are not conservatives and who side with the secular scholars on NT dating. — goethean ॐ 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While this sentance is true, as Goethean mentions, it needs some tweaking. It would be more fair to say that traditionalists and modernists (or some similar distinction) disagree on the dating. Still, it's a hard statement to work with without a direct source. Vassyana 01:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should avoid NT dating issues like the plague. The dating estimates are based upon carbon dating old documents (of which we have no idea if the one's we date are the originals) or they are based upon unqualified opinion and heresay prevalent around 3rd century AD. Dating speculation is wild nonsense used to promote one book over another in importance. As such it is not NPOV.86.4.59.203 13:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholars and Fundies 

message: The following statement in the article is vague. "However the church at large considers the Thomas gospel not as a reflection of "Christian diversity" but as an example of one of the early heresies that attacked the church". Firstly which Church is being refered to? Is it the Roman Church and its denominations, is it the Greek orthodox church, or the Church of the latter day saints etc? Secondly, the statement does not appear to be qualified with a reference. It would be better to show or reference comments from one of the Roman Church's council meetings to support the statement, if indeed heresy was the reason for its exclusion from the canon. As it is written, it sounds like a bit of original research/personal opinion which adds no value to the article. Also, heresy was only a percieved threat to the Roman Church. One should destinguish the historical Roman Church from modern views! For instance, what does the present Pope think of the GoT? Does the present Roman Catholic church fear diverse views?86.4.59.203 00:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsubstansiated comments 

message: "The historical and theological value of the Nag Hammadi library and its invaluable Gospel of Thomas cannot even begin to be evaluated. It should be realised that the contents of the texts are likely to challenge the very basis of Christianity"
Can somebody fix this? These sentences are a bit over the top. Sincerely, Wikipedia Walt.
::The first sentence is correct. As a find, the Nag Hammandi library and the Qumran scrolls show modern historians and theologians a glimse of Christian documents from sects that the Roman Church believed to have been sucessfully wiped out. For the last approx 1650 years, Christian history and theology has been in the sole stuardship of the Holy See. History that was written by Emporer Constantine's Roman Church who brutally suppressed the views of other early Christian churches. Those whom continued to teach against the will of the Roman Church in the middle ages were also wiped out of history during the inquisitions. Now in a more enlightened time in history, we are lucky enough to have scriptures that survived brutal Roman suppression. They are therefore justifiably invaluable to historical perspective. Its a glimse of history as written by the meek.
::The second sentence is a bit over optimistic. Those who are indoctrinated into one political view, generally defend their 'faith' like ants defend their nest(in a sense its party politics rather than open debate). It is unlikely that those whom work for denominations splintered off from the Roman Church will be swayed by alternative philosophies. However, for the historian and the objective neutral, the Qumran scrolls and the Nag Hamandi library scriptures highlight a difference in perspective of those schools of Christian thought in existence before 300AD. These scriptures allow a rational objective theist the ability to form a more balanced view about Jesus as now we have not only the Roman Church view but also the view of early Christian sects that were initially independent from Rome (such as those flurishing in 1st century India). The basis of Roman Christianity is the ethos that salvation is availible to anyone whom admits that Jesus died for the sins of humanity upon the cross. Whilst it is obvious that Jesus was prepared to suffer for his devotion to God, the Gospel of Thomas shows that Jesus clearly viewed salvation as attainable only by understanding his teachings and importantly, living one's life by them. The two philosophies both highlight different aspects of Jesus' life; the conviction that allowed him to risk martyrdom, and also the strong emphasis in his teachings that salvation is not easily obtained by simple belief. An alternative sentence might be: The contents of the Gospel of Thomas provide an alternative view to that of the 3rd century Roman Church view concerning the path to salvation.86.4.59.203 22:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uhh, what? 

message: I have not applied a lazy bumpersticker to this article, but I have started a Notes section. Statements that aren't simply axiomatic or familiar commonplaces need to have a source in a footnote, as elsewhere now in Wikipedia. The unnecessarily stultifying "late camp/early camp" dichotomy that's been a feature of this article from early versions, is not a source: "the late camp says..." etc. --Wetman 23:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting some in-text notes 

message: Luke and Acts refer to the Twelve as apostles. The other gospels don't; the other supposed reference to "apostles", in the English versions of one verse each of Matthew and Mark, comes after Jesus is said to have "sent" them; in those two isolated verses it means simply "the sent ones." Most of the references to the word "disciple" in the Gospels, and all of the references to the word "disciple" in Acts, use the word to mean any believer in (and/or follower of) Jesus. Paul uses the word "apostle" to include himself along with James the Bishop of Jerusalem and the other brothers of Jesus, plus at least two other Christian leaders, Andronicus and Junia (the latter, interestingly, being female). The most correct statement the article could make would be "The Gospels do not list any women among the Twelve." 
However, there are discrepancies in the three synoptic gospels' listings of the tenth and eleventh of the Twelve, although the other ten are identical in all three. Number ten of the Twelve is called "Thaddeus" in Mark and in some manuscripts of Matthew, "Lebbeus" in some other manuscripts of Matthew, "Lebbeus called Thaddeus" in still other manuscripts of Matthew, and "Judas of James" in Luke;  number eleven is called "Simon the Cananaean" in Matthew and Mark, and "Simon the Zealot" in Luke. Why the inconsistency? Was number ten originally Mary Magdalene? Was number eleven originally Salome the wife of Zebedee, who was also the mother of James and John? According to the Thomas Gospel, those two women were intimate disciples! Were those two female names scratched out of the three canonical gospels by women-hating patriarchalists and replaced haphazardly by male names? Shucks, "Salome of Zebedee" actually resembles "Simon the Zealot" in its sound. Tom129.93.17.195 01:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Apostles" vs. "Disciples" 

message: The preceeding is wrong. The last logion (114) is followed by the words "the gospel according to Thomas". Those words complete the manuscript, and seem to be a title. Tom129.93.17.195 02:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, ''Gospel according to Thomas'' is the ancient title 

message: ...Apparently at some recent time a Christian priest came through and littered this article with roughly fourteen billion "citation needed" tags. This seems excessive. 128.2.247.61 06:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, I could have deleted about half the article, as being unsourced original research (or in many cases, simply as gratuitous assertions), but I thought before doing so it was only fair to give those who put those unsourced assertions an opportunity to source them first. If you have a problem with any given example in which I have identified an unsourced assertion of fact, then please lay them on the table. Frjohnwhiteford 11:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Citation Needed" 

message: I think enough time has passed, and since much of the claims in this article remain unsourced, they should be deleted as original research. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added citations to some of the material. I have also changed some things that were inaccurate. I wish I had more time and resources to really do this article justice, and I apologize that these have been tagged for so long and still I hadn't worked on it earlier. Hopefully my recent edits have improved the article.-Andrew c [talk] 17:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations not forthcoming 

message: The issue of the date is really inconsequential in comparison to the teaching of the 
Gospel of Thomas which is in fundamental opposition to the apostolic teachings. It is much more of a theological argument that is broader than the erroneous philosophical assumption that the most precedent event is somehow the source of truth concerning written material. One can not take the precedence of God as the sole validity of His authority and/or especially make a false analogy between God as original source and original source document and subsequently ascribe theological validity to the source because of its place in time. There were plenty of religious writing before the Christian gospel but it would be erroneous to ascribe them as the predecessor to the Christian faith. The Gospel of Thomas is apocrypha because the Church fathers did not accept it in the cannon; it is a matter of apostolic authority not literary precedence.Roman Catholic Books. The Complete Catholic Handbook.  To avoid human authority on these matters, i.e. those selected via divine grace to pastor the faithful is to be in rebellion according to Catholic tradition. No literature can stand apart from the living. In many instances it is simply easier for Gnostics to deal with 'dead letters' rather than a living human authority placed over them namely the Catholic bishops. Obedience to authority is a fundamental trait of humility and piety found in many religions without which theological scholarship is vain. The significance here is to remind the reader of the necessity of staying cognizant of the philosophical comprehension of the Christen and Catholic position in regards to these matters.  The Nicene Creed for instance which is still recited in every high Catholic Mass reads in part "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life , who proceeds from the Father and the Son, with the Father and the Son he is worship and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets."World Library Publications Subsequently to discredit the canon gospels is to go against God to ones own detriment. It was written to consolidate the Catholic teachings in response to Gnostic and other heretical positions. This is Catholicism, the Bible is the Churches Book, one cannot dictate to the Church what will be cannon and what will not. It is worthy on behalf of the enterprising student of Catholic teachings to keep in mind two very important points. One is that the Church is held accountable for the souls i.e. "lives" in their charge, thus heretical teachings that can lead souls astray are very dangerous. Second, many so called scholars of Catholic theology are dismissive of the Catholic or Christian faith due to a presumption of familiarity with faith which is prohibitive due the largeness of the subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.251.140 (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but what is the purpose of this comment? Does it support the Catholic Church as the orthodox determiner of canon or not? I can't figure out what this comment is trying to say in reference to The Gospel of Thomas.  In my view, what the Catholic Church says about The Gospel of Thomas is mostly irrelevant since it is all baised against Thomas.Gregory Wonderwheel (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance of dated material secondary to philosophical underpinnings of the Church 

message: This article needs to be properly referenced, and many assertions of fact need to be identified as the opinions that they are. Frjohnwhiteford 23:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help when making comments like this to indicate specifically what you think is an "opinion" masquerading as an "assertion of fact." Otherwise I don't know if your assertion itself is a fact or an opinion. Gregory Wonderwheel (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified claims, and opinioins disguised as facts 

message: I am not seeing anything on this web site that would indicate that this is a reliable source.  Unless someone can show how it conforms to Wikipedia:Verifiability, these references, and the claims based on them should be removed.  Even the name of the web site is suspect, given the contents. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ecumenical Coptic Project's Metalogos Home Page a reliable source? 

message: Much of the article now has reasonably good citations.  I would suggest that anyone concerned about OR remaining in the article apply the tag to individual sections or sentences.  Cheers.  Grover cleveland (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing article-wide OR tag 

message: It doesn't make any sense to include the evaluation of the Jesus seminar of the text in this article.  That properly belongs under an article for the Jesus seminar itself.  It would be sensible to put this information in the article for the Jesus Seminar and note that the Jesus seminar had some thoughts and provide a link to that page.  As it is provides undue emphasis to a particular group of scholars, and thus is essentially POV.Ekwos (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus Seminar 

message: I've looked at the article, at this talk page and the archived talk page.  There is one entry in the archive about NPOV.  Nothing else in talkpage that appears to justify the tag on the article.  No doubt some scholars and experts might want to add some content or revise other bits, but at the very least, the NPOV tag should be removed from the start of the article and placed before any sections someone has concern about.  I am coming at this just as a reader of the article. I think whomever put the NPOV tag on should explain why, move it to the appropriate section, or it should be removed.  Let's give it a few days and see.  Fremte (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: I am a little concerned about this section, which seems to have no citations. I had difficulty drawing the writer's conclusions about GoT's theology from my own copy of the gospel. I'm new to Wikipedia editing and haven't yet found out how to enter the "citation needed" tag, so I apologise for just making this comment and not editing the actual text.--Guanche Lady (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many editors have struggled over this article for many months, as the page history will show you. It is not yet perfect. It is discourteous to pepper a section you disapprove of with demands for citations. Why not contribute a sentence or two summarizing a published article of which you do approve, with citations? It would show that you have a collegial side as well. --Wetman (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text: More than that, this section reads like an essay for an undergrad theology class, peppered with opinion and speculation and with entirely inadequate citation.  The fact that it includes a rudimentary bibliography at the end makes me think that it in fact was someone's essay. Thelatinist (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theology of Gospel of Thomas 

message: Which camp is larger?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.202.208 (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The late camp dominates - in both conservative and liberal circles. However, this is not the impression the article (or most peoples internet polemics) echoes.--Ari89 (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The late camp dominated early, but Thiessen and Merz survey scholars in the field, present both sides, and show the early camp to have the preponderance of evidence. Leadwind (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early vs. Late Camp 

message: The Gospel of Thomas is not generally acknowledged by scholars as a Gnostic text.  A number of scholars have made this assumption.  Critics from within Christianity have labelled it a Gnostic gospel, but this charge may have been merely an attempt to discredit it and label it as a heresy.  It is very possible that the Gospel of Thomas is a gospel that has a claim on par with that of the canonical gospels to being an accurate representation of the words of Jesus.  The text may have been rejected not because it was not accurate but rather because competing groups within Christianity sought to ensure that their perspective on Jesus would be the official one.  The Gospel of Thomas does not present Jesus as an immaculately-conceived, miracle-performing, death-defying incarnation of God, but rather as a wise teacher who sought to show his disciples their own inner divinity.
--Rabble Rouser  —Preceding undated comment added 06:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: About one third of the sayings are Gnostic, one third to a half parallel those found in the canonical gospels whilst the remainder are independent traditions that are not demonstrably unorthodox but could be read 'gnostically'. As it is generally seen by most people (in my opinion) as a gnostic gospel, and it exhibits gnosticism in what is probably a primitive form, I do not see an issue with the gnostic tag. With regard for your reason of rejection, it is a very weak hypothesis.--Ari89 (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: G of Thomas is close to gnosticism but isn't the full-fledged gnosticism of 2nd centuries writers. "Gnostic" isn't a "charge," it's a neutral, scholarly description. G of John is close to gnosticism, too, albeit in a different interpretation. Leadwind (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gnostic tag? 

message: Who were the Christians who looked to G. of Thomas as their record of Jesus' teachings? Gentiles, it would seem. If Gentiles, did they derive from Paul's Gentile mission? Or do they represent a Gentile branch of Christianity separate from Paul's missions? If they don't talk about Jesus being resurrected, they can hardly come from Paul's churches. But if they're separate, where did they even come from? Was there someone besides Paul who taught that you could join Jesus' church without converting to Judaism first? Leadwind (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gospel of Thomas Christians 

message: The film Stigmata, which was seen by huge audiences world-wide, should be included in this article. Calling it "off topic" is simply arrogant. Most people in the world sadly know about the Gospel of Thomas only from this film.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minutae (talk • contribs) 00:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not those who read Wikipedia. Few reputable editors throw about the word "arrogant": vacuous name-calling helps nothing. The fact is, the reference is marginal in that it adds nothing to the authentically curious reader's understanding of the subject: that is the criterion of "relevance". The use made of the Gospel of Thomas in the film Stigmata might render its inclusion  marginally useful, if it can be supported by a cited reference. --Wetman (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As it happens, you're own comment is so heavily packed with highfalutin phrases ("few REPUTABLE editors", "the AUTHENTICALLY curious reader", even claiming in God-like fashion to hold "THE criterion" of what is relevant), that you couldn't blame any man for using the term "arrogant" in response. But if we can get down to earth, please, Wikipedia is not a website for biblical scholars, it's also for normal people who have what you might term a normal background and a normal curiosity. Placing a subject within the scope of common experience is useful to most people, and certainly its place in popular culture should not simply be ignored. It you need a cited reference, a Google-search will yield several thousand to pick from, for instance http://www.happinessquest.com/stigmata.html. --Minutae (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At Amazon.com, one review of The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus starts: "This book is still on my shelf after many years. My mother is Catholic and I asked her to read it .. what got me to read the book was the movie Stigmata." Not a singular example, as a Google-search will reveal. --Minutae (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me that this is misplaced at the beginning of an article. Would it be better placed like this? Gnostic_gospels#References_in_popular_culture Plasmasphere (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stigmata 

message: ” Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem , though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, “What is the answer to this riddle?” 
Here is the answer to my question. The prophet Micah was an astrologer who lived in what is now Afghanistan. This prophecy, “among the thousands” refers to the stars in the heavens. Modern theologians throw out the baby with the bathwater, dismissing all the infancy stories as mythical.
The father of Astronomy, Johannes Kepler, in 1603, identified the Star of Bethlehem as a triple Conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces and said astrologers of that time would, in fact, would have interpreted that rare astrological phenomenon as signifying the birth of a very great king in the land of Israel. German archeologists in 1927 excavated the Magi astrology school at Sipper, near Babylon, and found the daily clay tablets that recorded their fascinated observation of that rare stellar event. The event occurred again, two thousand years later, October 12, 1940, as predicted by the astrologer, and Prophet Daniel, in this location. Dan 8:9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land
Johannes Kepler, proved the earth and planets circled the sun in elliptical paths and defied the false teaching of the Catholic Church, who claimed the earth was the center of the. Universe. Johannes set order to the universe and sailors could navigate by stars. They no longer sailed off the earth.
The Magi simply had to go to the land of Israel and inquire who was born at this time, in this place? As astrologers, They knew the longitude and latitude, or birth location.
They had seen the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces. Mars was also there. With the planets aligned they appeared as a large star that pointed to the birth site. Once found, they encountered a problem. Who was firstborn?
The Magi were surprised to find twins. Jesus was firstborn.
Mt 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. 
Christ Didymus Thomas  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.87.144 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Star of Bethlehem 

message: ::*As for my specific arguments, they are along the same lines as Andrew's, at least on the points I agreed with him. Text has to be a lot of things other than "fully referenced" to be relivant and encyclopedic. There are hundreds of thing we could say that in the lead about what the Gospel of Thomas is not that would still be true and WP:V. We don't need a list of what it is not or does not say. I favor one very clear statement to summarize all of what it is not-- and then add to that only if it were needed. There are/were many many apocryphal Gospels, and I don't think the other have a detail list of how they are not like the four canonical Gospels. I also think that if it reads as as strong anti-Gospel of Thomas POV-- it will just be discounted, changed, and fought over later by others. It should read as encyclopedic. 
::*Likewise, I think "The document is not considered canonical or "Biblical" by any Christian group" is a lot more clear and to the point than the current "This document is not approved by major Christian denominations and is not part of their Bibles."  21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *And I think "...and the theological views expressed in it are very different that of the four cannonical Gospel." is a lot more clear and a lot less equivical than the current "It is used by scholars for historical research, but not as part of Liturgy or worship by the majority of Christians. Most Christian authors view it as including material that conflicts with the New Testament. The views expressed in this document show no concern for doctrines such as "God", "original sin", "divinity of Jesus", "atonement", "final judgement" etc." Saying that "It is ...not as part of Liturgy or worship by the majority of Christians make it sound like there are some Christians that do use it for liturgy or worship. Also since "Liturgy" is not a word used even by all Christian denominations, it will be less than clear term.  21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: specific arguments

message: You liked "Although called a Gospel," as I did, so that is back and I used your sentence, and kept half of my list of items it does not mention to balance it. Can we move on to fix the harmony now? But this is still a low quality article as soon as one moves beyond the intro. The problems are not just in the "intro window" but further down throughout the text. Really needs a low quality flag at the top.History2007 (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Thanks for considering my view. 17:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Saying "Although called a gospel" is condescending in my opinion, as if this text bears this title incorrectly. In the early ages of christianity, however, there were many, many gospels. and even the gospels we know from the New Testament existed in various versions. Now living christians have become accustomed to the title of gospel as refering to only the so called four texts in the New Testament, but that does not reflect the original meaning of the word. Saying "Although etc." is therefor a biased perspective from traditional christians who have become accustomed to thinking that only the texts in the New Tetament are "true" gospels. So, saying "Although etc" is not a neutral point of view and should be rejected. abvanstallant (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The other noncannonical gospels are in the form (or genre) of a gospel. This is just list of saying without context and without other feutures of a gosel.  17:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Although called a gospel"

message: "This document was not written by Thomas the Apostle…."
"Although called a Gospel, this document is not considered…."
"Unlike the four Canonical Gospels, this document is not…"
Was not.., is not..., is not...
These sentences too seem to betray, in my opinion, a traditional christian perspective, as if it must be made clear beyond any doubt  -" is that clear?" - that this is absolutely not a christian text.
I consider these wordings as POV. abvanstallant (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean to say "seem" or "seam"... that is not clear. History2007 (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Eugnostos, althou some of this does follows the "traditional Christian perspective" it also follows the perspective of non-Christian scolars. Maybe you can give more detail on that else you want to see.  17:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand partially what Eugnostos is saying. Part of the issue is trying to define something, not by what it is, but by what it isn't. We should try to focus on affirmative statements, not negative statements. While it is important to describe the differences this book has from some NT texts, and to state that the vast majority (virtually all) modern Christian groups do not consider to canonical. But I think Eugustos was pointing out the excessive use of negative statements to beat a point over our heads. But as I am typing this, I notice the lead has changed once again, and a lot of that stuff has been taken out already. So... maybe I shouldn't post my comment ;) -Andrew c [talk] 19:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Affirmative is good, and so is direct naming. Suppose you have a car that is named a boat, then you have to say it is not a boat. This doc is not by Thomas, so it needs to be said, and is probably not what people think of as Gospel.... History2007 (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The gospel of Thomas is not...

message: * 1 Corinthians 10:27 eat whatever is set before you and Thomas 14:4 eat whatever is set before you
32.178.56.115 (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Parallels with Paul's Letters 

message: I feel a bit uneasy about saying that the gospel of Thomas has no reference to the divinity of Jesus, for various reasons, which I want to share with you.
:•In the sentence in which this is said, this negation of the divinity is combined with the absence of the crucifixion and the final judgement in Thomas. It is true without doubt that the crucifixion and the final judgement are not mentioned in Thomas. But is this equally true for the divinity of Jesus? There are sayings in Thomas which may be explained as referring to the  divinity of Jesus, for instance logion 77: “I am the Light…”
:•Saying that unlike the canonical gospels there is no reference to the divinity of God in Thomas, suggests that this is as clear a difference as with the crucifixion and the final judgement.  But, strange as it may perhaps seem, there is no text in the canonical gospels that states unequivocally that Jesus is God. There are many texts in the canonical gospels that have later been explained as saying that Jesus is God, but this is a theological interpretation of the texts. We all know that the divinity of Jesus has been hotly debated in the first centuries of Christianity, so it is not that obvious at all. It is only with the council Nicea in 325 that this debate has been closed and that Jesus has ben proclaime both God and human.
:•So, saying that, in contrast with the canonical gospels, there is no reference tot the divinity of Jesus in Thomas,  is in my opinion questionable. Eugnostos (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact the references say that not in those exact words, but in similar terms. I will look up the references again and get the exact wordings therein. The long and short of it is that GT sees Jesus as a "nice man" and that is it, the canonicals have a different view. History2007 (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)Koester mentions, when discussing the differences between Thomas and Q, that there is most strikingly no mention of Jesus' death and resurrection. Next, he mentions that Thomas is "an almost total absence of christological titles, such as "Christ/Messiah," "Lord" and "Son of man." But he argues that is because those things represent a later tradition, and perhaps there were multiple revisions of Q, and Thomas goes back earlier than the synoptics (and points out various saying where he believes Luke added or changed things to say "son of man". With that said, I think we'd probably need a source arguing that Q contains christological titles. It seems like original research for you to find something in the text, and then have us change the Wikipedia article based on your interpretation (I'm not saying you are doing this, but you haven't cited a source yet). It appears we do have sources currently backing up our phrasing, and we'd need to consider other sources before considering altering our text. -Andrew c [talk] 17:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Andrew, who is the "you" you are advising to do original research. is it me or History 2007.  It is of course clear that there are no Christological titles for Jesus in Thomas. I know Koester and most of the literature here mentioned in this article. My point is that the divinity of Jesus is not explicitly stated in the canonical gospels and that therefore the sentence :. You do undoubtedly know that there were men different interpretations of the nature of Jesus: wholly and only human as an inspired prophet, wholly and only divine, a spiritual messenger from God but not himself God, and at last both human and divine at Nicea. Even if Marc, Matthew and John call Jesus "Christ" then this does not yet have the meaning of Him being divine. Christ just means "anointed", like the kings of Israel, and these were fully human. That the word "Christ" has become synonymies with "God" is a late development; it is Christological theology. But I do not intend to remove the reference to the divinity of Jesus from the introduction if there would be no agreement here to do that. I only wanted to present my reservations. If you and others do not agree, then that is ok with me. That's all. I do not think we should start a lengthy discussion here on the physis of Jesus. And I do not dispute that GT is different form the canonical gospels. Regards, Eugnostos (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

text: GT is in my opinion not as 'really different" from the canonical gospels as History2007 claims. Yes it is no narrative, like the canonical gospels, so it is different, but the absence of Christology does not mean that it is in opposition to or contradicting the canonical gospels, as History2007 appears to think. Don’t forget that almost half of Thomas is also in the canonical gospels. And I consider it nonsense to say that it is loaded with hatred of women. It is not Jesus who says that women are not worthy of life,but Peter.Jesus even rebukes Peter for saying that. Eugnostos (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Eugnostos, the OR advise was directed towards you. I can understand having reservations, but unfortunately, without sources, we shouldn't be editing the article to account for your personal feelings. Do you know of any scholar that argues that Thomas isn't so different in these regards that we could cite? I think getting the sources down can lead us in the right direction. I can understand where you are coming from, and the rationale behind it, for sure. But on Wikipedia, we are supposed to be compiling and summarizing stuff that is already published. That's all. :) -Andrew c [talk] 21:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements in blockquotes were not mine. They were word by word from the books. History2007 (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divinity of Jesus and doctrines of Thomas vs Canonicals 

message: To say that "no" scholars consider the apostle Thomas to be the original author is incorrect. While the text has been modified and added to by latter authors, a good number of N.T. historians do accept that Thomas "the twin" refers to the Apostle Thomas, and that a large portion (60-70%) of the sayings were recorded by him as Jesus spoke.
99.20.133.172 (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help if you named names, and cited specific sources. -Andrew c [talk] 00:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it to say most scholars anyway, and added refs also to body of article. Article needs a REAL clean up, the more I read, the more disappointed I am in what there is now. History2007 (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to help clean up this article. I have a number of books that discuss Thomas here at home, and I have access to a university library. Do you think you could perhaps state a few of your biggest concerns, and what has been disappointing you in this article, so I can have a starting place to guide my improvement drive! Thanks. -Andrew c [talk] 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I am sorry to say so, History2007, but your recent contribution, in which you say that the citation of Ménard is a "summary of the academic consensus" is just not true. This may perhaps have seemed so, soon after the discovery of Thomas, but no serious scholar will nowadays follow Ménard. If you insist on citing Ménard, his opinion belongs elsewhere in this article under 'Date of Composition," in "The late camp". Eugnostos (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote came directly from the ref I cited. And the Cyril statement is already in the article elsewhere above. History2007 (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship 

message: After adding the table, I have had to temporarily remove the image as it just didn't seem to work at the top. I would suggest putting it under the Corresponding Oxy. Papyri if it were to stay, however, I haven't as I am on my Eeepc so the page may not appear on my screen as it would most other users.--Ari (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I will fix it. History2007 (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temp Image 

message: Why? I am unaware of any other articles that simply contain a list of experts and authors who have written about the subject. My proposal is that we drop the section, and clean up the references to reflect reputable scholarship on the issue. I will start on the bibliography now and  have no hesitation to clean up the scholars list asap. --Ari (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the least of the problems. The key problem is structural, that time and space are mixed in the origin discussion... And the junk table up there did not help. History2007 (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that a list of Thomas scholars could easily be converted to a "Further reading" section, if we aren't already citing them (which, I would think, we should be using them as references as is). -Andrew c [talk] 14:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gospel of Thomas Scholars 

message: I have no idea what I can do to remove the "factual accuracy is disputed" tag, because I have no idea why the editor who placed it there believes that. Warning tags like this should be accompanies by talk page discussions. We are discussing the problems with the infobox above. I believe an inline tag would be much more appropriate if the dispute is still open, then tagging the entire article. History2007 restored the tag, saying As I said on talk, th ebox is junk, and so is much more inside but box is main objection now.... as a start.. And I'd maintain that problems with the box do not warrent flagging the entire article, and if there are factual issues with the entire article, they need to be spelled out so I can start addressing them. We can't willy nilly throw on tags like that, if we aren't going to start working towards specific improvements. Please take the opportunity now to outline specific factual inaccuracies in the article that, if fixed, would satisfy the user enough so that we can remove the flag at the top of the article. If the objections cannot be sufficiently communicated to other users who want to help, then the flag has no business being on the article (and again, if it's just a problem with the infobox, then use inline tags or a section flag, not an entire article flag). -Andrew c [talk] 17:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If specific problems are not listed on the talk page, the tag can be removed. — goethean ॐ 17:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My objection is mainly to the box... and Ari seems to be starting  a revert cycle. I explained my objection above. The issue is that it is misleading. If one of you supports me to clarify the box, we will have the tag off in 30 seconds. Can you put a tag on the box alone? If so, please do, and remove main tag. History2007 (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed some values of the box, made the box invisible, and removed the tag. — goethean ॐ 18:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaaaaaaaaaaaah, thank you. At last a straightforward comment. But the Nov tag about improve was there before, so please restore that one. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  factual accuracy is disputed. 

message: The gospel of Thomas is a text. This text, as a text, contains sayings of Jesus. One is free to doubt whether these sayings are originally from the historical Jesus, as you may doubt whether the corresponding sayings of Jesus in the New Testament are from the historical jesus, or whether Jesus has even existed, or whatsoever. But that is a totally different subject than the description of the contents of The Gospel of Thomas. As a description of the contents of GT it just contains 114 saying by Jesus, allegedly contributed to Jesus or not. Adding "allegedly" is not a neutral point of view. It is a point of view from outside the text. Eugnostos (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ascribed is NPOV in reflecting the document(as a sayings document) and scholarly discussion.  --Ari (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Contributed" is by far preferable over the pejorative "allegedly". Still I do not  agree but I rest the case as a compromise. I am quite aware of the scholarly debate about the historicity of GT.  But a description of a text should be neutral and not contain a reference to the doubts that have been raised about this text. And even "contributed to" is not neutral.  If there is a scholarly debate about any text, these doubts should be added separately, and not as part of the description of the text. Eugnostos (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

text: It's all about method. The description of a subject in Wikipedia should not contain an opinion about the subject. Even "attributed" is not POV. But, as I said before, I rest the case. Regards. Eugnostos (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see allegedly being problematic, but attributed works for me. If Eugnostos is willing to rest the case, I think we can all live with "attributed".-Andrew c [talk] 14:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ari, I humbly apologize for citing "attributed" wrongly as "contributed". English is not my native language. But I hope my knowledge of GT transcends my knowledge of English. Yes, Andrew, I can live peacefully with "attributed". Eugnostos (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

text: No, overall I am also unhappy with muscle flexing by Ari... to many reverts... So I can not agree either.... History2007 (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Muscle flexing because I refused to change the attribution of the Gospel from Thomas (which the gospel clearly makes, as evidenced above) to anonymous? Such an edit would have been factually incorrect as it is not a formally anonymous document such as the canonical gospels. I understand your concerns that no scholar believes that the work was composed by Thomas, but that is an entirely separate issue from what the document claims to be. --Ari (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Junk table, junk discussion, chat chat chat rvert revert for ever... waste of time... History2007 (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I do, of course, fully agree, Goethean, that "sayings of Jesus" is the better and correct formulation.  What about Andrew and History2007? Eugnostos. 80.101.85.163 (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will vote with what Andrew thinks should be done. History2007 (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Allegedly contributed to Jesus" 

message: This article is plagued with references that do not properly support the statements made in the article. Some claims are patently false on their face. Some portions are direct quotations from the sources without indication that it is a quotation. Some statements are highly selective in cherry-picking information. This entire article needs to have the references checked. It may even be necessary to re-reference and rewrite significant portions of the article. As but one example of the problems, I removed a claim that the Gospel of Thomas was written by a second century disciple of Mani. Mani was active in the mid-third century and his disciples did not active produce literature until the late third century. As such, the claim was obviously false on its face. Vassyana (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quality problems? You are not kidding us? Actually the Mani fact was one of the few correct refs except 2nd century! But I do agree with the quality problems by and large. I added the exact quote and ref now... History2007 (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good stuff. Thank you. Vassyana (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious verifiability issues 

message: The Gnosticism tag seems to be in a very unusual place- everywhere else I see links like that at the top of the article. Is there any reason for it being where it is? Plasmasphere (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gnostic Tag 

message: Well, well, Ari has now identified my effort to improve the neutrality of Wikipedia as vandalism. It is, to say the leas,t a very original value-judgement. I will of course be back. Eugnostos (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defending neutrality of Wikipedia defined as vandalism 

message: It said in the lead ' The document most probably originated within a school of either Early Christians, possibly Gnostics, who claimed Thomas as their leader'  It didn't read right. I took out the 'either'. Then I thought , maybe it meant to read 'either Early Christians, or possibly Gnostics...'  since I'm not sure what was intended to be said I'm just going to leave it.  Secondly  it said in the lead, ' nor does it mention the messianic meaning of Jesus. This seemed too emphatic, party political  to me , so I changed it to  'nor does it mention a messianic understanding of Jesus'. . Just wanted to explain the minor changes to the lead I made. Sayerslle (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two minor changes to lead 

message: Someone had removed the coptic text in the lead, leaving only the reference. I have removed the isolated reference and tried to restore the whole original coptic title , but I am not sure whether I have succeeded. If you do not have the coptic lettertypes on your computer, the coptic title will now appear as a range of small squares. This does not mean that something is wrong. You can only check this if you have the coptic on your computer yourself. Eugnostos (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coptic title 

message: Regardless of the disputes (and I do not see Eugnostos as a vandal) this article seems to be improving. There is a long way to go, but overall, I think the quality is improving, the flow is getting better, etc. The early vs late camp separation is still too dominant, but I think it is clear that the efforts are paying off. To all readers of the article: please mail your payments to the latest editors involved here. History2007 (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, History2007 for not considering me as a vandal. Let's go on improving it. Eugnostos (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandal? I don't think so. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting better 

message: I re-edited Finds an Publication. The contents has not much  changed, but the text is now more clear and orderly composed. Most references are maintained, some are added. Eugnostos (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the following paragraph: "Although it is still generally assumed that the "Gospel of Thomas" was first composed in Greek, there is growing evidence that the Coptic Nag Hammadi text is a translations from Aramaic. On comparing the Greeks fragments from Oxyrhynchus with the fuller Coptic version, the differences can be attributed to the reliance of both on a common Aramaic source. [17]"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugnostos (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finds and Publication 

message: In the "Late camp" I read:
"Craig A. Evans argues that Thomas is dependent on Syriac writings, including unique versions of the canonical gospels. Many sayings of the Gospel of Thomas are more similar to Syriac versions of Jesus' sayings than Greek canonical gospels' versions. As an example, saying 54, which speaks of the poor and the kingdom of heaven, is more similar to the Syriac version of Matthew 5:3 than the Greek version of that passage or the version in Luke 6:20.[42]"
I do not understand why the Syriac origin is seen as an argument for a late date. In fact, it would better serve as an argument for an early date.  I know that Evans defends a late date. But the Syriac origin can hardly be Evans' main argument. Will someone please explain? Eugnostos (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: From the text, I assume the later date for Syriac origins is because he believes it is dependent on a stream following a later Syriac translations of the gospels. He isn't the only one who makes reference to the old Syriac versions, so as you find it ambiguous it probably needs some sort of expansion/rewrite. --Ari (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course, Evans is not the first to refer to the Syriac origin of Thomas. See also the last paragraph of "Finds and publication" and the reference to Perrin. But as I said, this is more an argument for an early date than for a late date. I know Evans is an emphatic defender of a late date, and I am sure he must have better arguments at his sleeve. So, to do him justice, someone should come up with a better citation. You are welcome. Eugnostos (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

text: In order to understand the controversy between "late" and "early" camp, and especially the strong opposition to "early", one must know what is really at stake here. What is the real conflict? In Thomas all the dogmas of the Nicean creed are absent. No crucifixion, so no atonement of sins. No resurrection, no ascension, no second coming, no final judgement of the living and the dead at the apocalypse. If Thomas is late, that is from after the canonical gospels, Thomas can be understood as a stripped version and even heretic aberration of the earlier New Testament gospels. In that case Thomas provides no danger to the traditional Christian dogma's. But, if Thomas is early, and even from before the canonical gospels, it might represent the original message of Jesus and in that case the canonical gospels could be seen as a heretical aberration. Now it is not difficult to understand why the opposition of traditional christians to "early" is as heavy and emotional as it is often presented. An early date of Thomas could be understood as gnawing at the roots of the traditional christian faith. In any way, the late camp deserve a respectful representation here at Wikipedia. But at the same time the impact of the different views should be made clear as well. Eugnostos (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Eugnostos, not sure what this has to do with Syriac origins and I don't see the point of making statements to the effect that the majority late (that you personally oppose) is dominated by apologetic zeal, especially when it is held by people from across the spectrum. I agree that the possible interpretations of how this may affect other things - and we already have a section on historical Jesus studies - should be included, however, what you presented above is rather simplistic. For example, a short sayings document doesn't contain a narrative therefore Jesus had no narrative to his life? --Ari (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syriac origin 

message: Actually, I think this article is quite good. If there are any difficulties, please list them here. I do not have any strong feelings . . . except all material must have sound references. Ret.Prof (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been reading the back and forth, and as an outsider it is good stuff. The article has improved. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is much better than a few months ago, but still really hard to digest for a newcomer, because information is still scattered all over the place. I think good efforts directed at improvement paid off to some extent, but it is still in need of help. The Date & Place issue and the relationship and philosophy sections still need help I think. History2007 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The content is good, but it is not very readable. A newcomer to the topic would have difficulty . . . and thanks for not adding more tags - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

text: The section on "Date of Composition" could stand to be better organized.  It almost reads like two separate articles--one that argues for an early date, and one that argues for the later date, and the transition from one to the other is abrupt, with no explanation.Spiritquest (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarise the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence.
While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should be short, containing no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.
This is easier said than done, therefore I welcome improvements to my attempt to to accomplish the aforementioned. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to the correction mentioned below in my note(s) on Translations and External Links, I would suggest a minor change to the description of Eusebius' views. He did not, as the content implies, single out the Gospel of Thomas for his quoted remarks. He was talking about a group of books which included but wasn't limited to Thomas, and I think that this can be made clear with a very minor rewording. -- Mwgrondin (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I re read the sources and you are correct. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

text: When we get around to rewriting that material, I would suggest that it be shortened (since Eusebius is only an example) and that either (1) quoted English words be avoided, or (2) that the specific translation being used be indicated in the footnote. The problem is, of course, that there are different English translations of Eusebius, and if we are going to depend on a particular one for the point being made (which is risky business IMO), then we need to at least inform the reader which translation is being used. Mine (Williamson) for example, has different wording than what is quoted. - Mike - Mwgrondin (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Lead section]] 

message: What early church documents say that Jesus had a twin brother named Didymos Judas Thomas?  None of the Gnostic or apocryphal gospels I have read make this assertion, none of the canonical gospels make this assertion, and none of the Church Fathers or leaders of Gnostic movements make this assertion.  In fact, I have never even heard this until I read this article.  So, if no gospels (gnostic, apocryphal, or canonical) make this assertion and no early commentators make this assertion, where is this coming from?  
Also, even if (hypothetically) one group did maintain this assertion, what evidence is there that it was ever widespread or traditional in early Christianity to hold such a belief?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.132.160 (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus' "twin brother" in early church documents? 

message: This note is occasioned by a disagreement between Goethean and myself concerning my attempt to delete two external links: (1) a translation of Thomas at Sofiatopia, and (2) a spiritual webpage run by Hugh McGregor Ross. IMO, neither of these is either factual or informative, but rather are promotions of certain spiritual views about the text. (In the case of the Sofiatopia translation, this comes out in the capitalization of pronouns referring to Jesus, which is not a reputable translational technique.)
As to translations, there were many links to good ones which were deleted in January for reasons unknown to me. However, the external link to Gnosis.org, which is not in question, provides access to several good translations. Therefore, the link to Sofiatopia is at least unnecessary. If we are to keep that link, however, I would wish to add a few more to reputable translations.
Please be aware that I am not a skilled Wikipedia editor, but I do have an interest in this particular wiki due to the fact that I have maintained a scholarly site devoted to the Gospel of Thomas for over ten years now, and am the owner of a scholarly discussion group (GThomas) at Yahoogroups. Goethean has not told me what his interest or expertise in this wiki is. I would appreciate the advice of interested parties in how to proceed.
Mwgrondin (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked at your webpage and it is great stuff. I would suggest you be "bold" when you edit this article. You can count on my support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted his attempt to remove the current external links, as his rationale was not valid. — goethean ॐ 13:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Goethean - There is a difference of opinion between you and I as to whether WP:EL suggests that NPOV is applicable to external links. On your page, I cited some material from it to justify my position and you provided none. Even if we leave that aside, however, there are other reasons supported by WP:EL that would justify removing the two inferior links (note that I have no objection to the Gnostic.org link). Let me suggest now that in addition to the Davies website mentioned above, we also include http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html, which is a reputable website containing links to many good translations and other informative material. That would give us three links to factual and informative material. No link to a single favored translation (in particular, an inferior one) would be needed. In light of the fact that you directed me here in order to seek consensus, and that the consensus of contributors on this point is 2 to 1, and other participants are unlikely to show up in the near future, will you now accept this change, please? - Mike Grondin - Mwgrondin (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In looking at the list of translations at the earlychristianwritings site above, I see that the vanden Dungan translation at sofiatopia is linked to from there. I still think it doesn't conform to good translational practice, but at least it's available from the external link that I recommend, so there's no reason to have it be a separate link by itself. - Mike - Mwgrondin (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to "second" Grondin's suggestion re: including reference to the Davies website, which was one of the first reliable scholarly websites regarding the Gospel of Thomas, and has been relied on by Gospel of Thomas scholars for years. The Davies website is far superior to the two "inferior" links that Grondin refers to. BobSchacht (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations and External Links 

message: My understanding is that they were Gentile, but the gospel says Christians should follow James (not Peter), so maybe they were Jewish. Anyone know? It should be in the article either way. Leadwind (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's reasons to believe that they were ethnically Jewish, but I've yet to see any strong arguments one way or the other, so how can that be put in the article? BTW, what do you have against Maurice Casey? - Mwgrondin (talk) 06:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were the Thomas Christians of Syria Jewish or Gentile? 

message: I have satisfied two 'citation needed' tags that Leadwind put in the article tonite, but I don't know what to do about a third such tag, which has been in the Jesus-Mythers paragraph since January. I'd like to eliminate the tag, but since I don't have the books in question, I can't supply a page ref. Unless we can find someone to fix up the paragraph (including missing refs to the works in question), can we get rid of it? - Mwgrondin (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Lacking a response to this note, I've proceeded to remove (but saved) the Jesus-Mythers paragraph. In addition, I did some rewording to remove the final remaining tag. As an apparent result, the negative Wikipedia comments (that the article was on four lists of articles lacking something or other) that used to appear at the bottom when one was doing an edit are now no longer there. Some small progress, one hopes, but unfortunately too easily rolled back at any moment by any random edit in this wild-west environment. Mwgrondin (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do about the Jesus-Mythers Paragraph? 

message: The third paragraph under the section entitled "Philosophy of the Gospel of Thomas" describes as "a Pauline position" the idea that "what goes into the mouth will not defile a person, but what comes out of the mouth will."  Actually, this is not from the writings of Paul, but is found in the Synoptic gospels (reference Mark 7:18-19 and the parallel verses in Matthew 15).Spiritquest (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect attribution to Paul 

message: In the article, the suggestion is that Valantasis is ambivalent about dating but he clearly defines his position thus:
"It is certain that some of the material of the Gospel of Thomas comes from the first stratum (30-60 CE)and there is always the possibility that one of the copyists of the Coptic version included sayings other than those contained in his archetype. With both these provisions, I would date the Gospel of Thomas to 100 - 110 CE."
From "The Gospel Of Thomas" by R. Valantasis P.20
The quote given in the article is from earlier within the introduction and I feel it misrepresents the views of Valntasis:
"Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned.  Scholars have proposed a date as early as AD 60 or as late as AD 140, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature."
I will include the former quote in this section as a counterpoint to the latter but I will not remove the former, as I assume good faith. - JackWild  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.138.52 (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jack I modified your edit and removed the quotation that you added. The section that you added it to is about dating Thomas generally, and I think that the quotation is inappropriate to that section. You may re-add the Valantasis quotation under a more appropriate section if you'd like. — goethean ॐ 17:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that you have added the information as part of the flow in order to clarify Valantasis' view, which is all I was concerned for. I am happy with your modification without the need to include the quote, thank you. - JackWild  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.138.52 (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date Of Composition 

message: What is the criterion for determining whether one miracle is more credible,than another. Miracles tend to have the trait of being an act or feat which most of what is considered science is at a loss for explaining means and method for the results. Sochwa (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credible? 

message: It was my understanding that while those of Gnostic belief used the Gospel of Thomas, it was not solely used by Gnostic belief, nor did it directly promote Gnostic belief.  However, it had nothing contrary to Gnostic belief either.  If I recall, it's origins predate Gnostic philosophy, so it cannot really be considered to be a Gnostic work.   If I had to place it somewhere it would be in the New Testament Apocrypha, simply on the basis that it is a non-canonical gospel.--Robert Wm "Ruedii" (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the Gospel of Thomas really be under Gnosticism? 

message: I am no expert but I am pretty sure the date of 1945 given for the discovery of the gospel of Thomas is very Eurocentric and inaccurate. The Gospel of Thomas is included in the bible of the Nestorian Church. In fact Nestorians are often called St Thomas Christians.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.194.129 (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not appear to be correct. See Peshitta. Rmhermen (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  That does not show anything... why-the-lost-gospels-were-never-lost - Philip Jenkins 
I read the gospel of Thomas while staying in Hualien Taiwan (Parkview Hotel??)... it was in the bible that was found in the hotel room. I may be wrong as it was some time ago but I am pretty sure it was the Nestorian Church that had placed the bible in the room to be read... which was what raised my curiosity to pick it up in the first place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.194.129 (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nestorian Church 

message: Removed embedded link - "Are the Coptic Gospels Gnostic?", could be a reference but metalog.org appears to be down. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed embedded link metalog.org 

message: A lot of the middle portion of this page, consists of the writer's opinion, with no citations of any references.
That material reads something like "The sayings in the Gospel of Thomas cannot be understood in the same way as the synoptic Gospels, so they clearly are talking about the Self vs the Ego."
It's classic Wikipedia that some person's eyewitness account of a small historical event is removed because it is not first posted to some web page, and then "cited", but when it comes to potentially important theological texts about the Meaning of Life, then some Wikipedia writer can write whatever he wants out of his personal opinion. (rolls eyes) 76.209.222.104 (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have removed it. If we need a "Philosophy" section, it will need to be written afresh from actual sources! Skyerise (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mostly unsubstantiated opinion (aka "original research") 

message: This quote is dubious. Proverbs and Amen-em-Opet are not saying gospels, like Q and Thomas are. It's hyperbole, not scholarship. 
Maurice Casey has strongly questioned the argument from genre: the "logic of the argument requires that Q and the Gospel of Thomas be also dated at the same time as both the book of Proverbs and the Sayings of Amen-em-Opet."
Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  dubious criticism 

message: In some parts of the article it is written that the author is not known. It should be understood that the knowledge base of the subject is small meaning only a few individuals my know the answer. So, rather than state the author is unknown I suggest allowing sources that can show common sense, common phrasing. So if two or more sources contain the same information, from millennias past, it is more likely the texts are truthful, and valuable to researchers and readers of Wikipiedia. 
There simply is not more information out there, to cite, and in this case the answers we seek remain hidden. The edit I would like to should be 
"According to The Talmud of Jmmanuel, there are two Thomases, one in the family of Immanu'el, and also one disciple. Upon research of the writings in the Gospel of Thomas and comparison of the Talmud of Jmmanuel scrolls, we find a very similar texting and phrasing. Most likely the author of the Gospel of Thomas was originally Thomas the brother of Immanu'el." Talmud of Jmmanuel by Judas Ischkerioth
Its not conjecture or original research but more apparent knowledge, to seekers of truth.Joseph1100 (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying the Author of the Gospel of Thomas 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gospel of Thomas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008055033/http://www.gospels.net/thomas/ to http://www.gospels.net/thomas/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160130132129/http://jdt.unl.edu/thomasbook.htm to http://jdt.unl.edu/thomasbook.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A sentence in the Role of James section as currently written:Moreover, there are some sayings, (principally log. 6, 14, 104) and Oxyrh. papyri 654 (log. 6) in which Gospel is shown in the opposite point of view to Jewish mores specially in respect to the circumcision and dietary practices (log. 55), key issue, in the early Jewish-Christian community led by James (Acts 15: 1-35, Gal. 2:1–10). reads as if it were composed or edited by a non-native speaker.  "Especially" and "a key issue" seem expected, but since I am unclear as to the writer's intent, I won't try fixing this.  Perhaps someone can address this obscure statement?  Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbled nonsense in '''The role of James''' 

message: In a general sense I think it would be fair to say that there is now a "consensus that Jesus must be understood as a Jew in a Jewish environment." Voorst 2000. p 5 (As to the importance of Aramaic, please see Talk at Oral gospel traditions.) Over the past ten years the thinking of Biblical scholars has undergone a radical transformation. Many scholars now believe:
# Jesus was a Jewish rabbi living in a Jewish society (Sitz im Leban).
# Jesus and later his disciples were active participants in the Oral Tradition of the Second Temple Period.
# Early Christians, up to the time of the creation of the first Gospels, sustained the Gospel message of Jesus, by sharing the stories of his life and his teachings orally. This Oral Tradition remained vibrant until the destruction of the Temple. 
#These 21st C. scholars generally agree that Mark was the first to write down the Oral Tradition in the form of a Gospel. They further agree that Matthew also wrote down the sayings in a Hebrew dialect. However, most modern scholarship agrees that the canonical Gospel of Matthew does not appear to be a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic but was composed in Greek. (ie Matthew's Hebrew Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew are two distinct Gospels.)
Three of the most notable scholars to join this new scholarly position have been Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, and James Edwards.
The majority of links that I have clicked in this talk leads to the previous millennium, and some links lead to only one or two articles, or nothing. 
The oral memory theory is used to explain the delay in decades with regards to writing down the stories about Jesus, and naturally can't be debunked nor proven
You say "new scholarly position" yet it is unclear to which points you refer. All of them? For the record, Maurice Casey died in 2014, 6 years ago https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Casey.
Markan Priority is supported by the vast majority of scholars today, yet exactly how Mark gathered his material remains debated. The part of oral memory entered that debate decades ago, and the theory in itself, like "layered tradition", is prone to cause a stalemate in and discussion: it can neither be denied nor confirmed, and the downside of it is that it is used to argue that e.g. the Gospel of Thomas is authentic exactly because it has so little in common with the Synoptic Gospels: oral memory is the key there, and I am still unsure whether such is argued in seriousness or merely to sabotage, yet the fact of the matter is that where written sources contradict or pose questions, oral memory enters the scene as some kind of panacea Sato21st (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Thomas, New Scholarship and the [[Oral gospel traditions]]

message: The Gospel of Thomas has almost no gnostic concepts in it and yet this article presumes it is gnostic in origin. There are many mentions of secret teachings in the cannon and this does not presuppose that there being secret teachings is gnostic in origins. In fact Ireneas states that there is orthodox gnosis as well as the heretical gnostic teachings. The concept of the body as a poverty is in the text, but this is also considered to be a miracle. I do not see any other Gnostic concepts here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.50.63 (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. When I read the Gospel of Thomas it didn't read as Gnostic at all. If anything, it appears to be some kind of pre-Gospel Christian literature. Maybe it would be better to fit it under "early Christianity" or "apocrypha". Bagabondo (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So what, precisely, does anyone wish to change? The article makes clear in the lead that "It is possible that the document originated within a school of early Christians, possibly proto-Gnostics.[8] Some critics further state that even the description of Thomas as a "gnostic" gospel is based upon little other than the fact that it was found along with gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi.[9]". (I'm going to re-write that sentence as it's just ugly). Should this be expanded on in it's own section (something like "Relation to Gnostic Texts")? If so, then Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" has a whole chapter on the Gospel of Thomas, as well as his arguments that it does reflect Gnostic teachings (Chapter Three- The Discovery of an Ancient Forgery: The Coptic Gospel of Thomas-specifically the subsection "Interpreting the Gospel of Thomas). And obviously we would have to balance this out with sources that argue the opposite. Remember, it is NOT our job to decide what is "right", but to present the RS and what they say. Vyselink (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proto Gnostic 

message: Recently added was , but I find this sentence unclear. What is this referring to? – Thjarkur (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the editio minor? 

message: Note 94 labels a significant section as "Trite" - is this someone's name or discrediting the content itself?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.96.170 (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trite" as a note?