Apocrypha/extra-biblical text

[Kelly]

I'm reading the Gospel of Thomas, really just a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus, and having a very difficult time comprehending some of the sayings.

I can recognize a lot of the parables that made it into the NT gospels, but others totally confuse me. Has anyone else tried to study it?

[LJSGM]

There's a reason it wasn't put into scripture. But if you want to read it for fun, then sure. I sure didn't get anything out of it, and I don't think anyone cares about it either because there's nothing there. There's just the sensationalism of the possibility of "another" biblical text missing from scripture that intriges people (in my opinion anyways).

[LJSGM]

There's also the fact that is contradicts itself and other scriptures, you might want to look into that.

[andross77]

I'm reading the Gospel of Thomas, really just a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus, and having a very difficult time comprehending some of the sayings.

I can recognize a lot of the parables that made it into the NT gospels, but others totally confuse me. Has anyone else tried to study it?
I haven't yet, but it's on my shelf and i want to read it along with other apocryphal texts (1 & 2 Esdras, Bel & the Dragon, 1 & 2 Maccabees, etc). I think it is good to study these texts to understand, but be careful.

You can go from thinking the Canon (66 books; 39 OT, 27 NT) are the Inspired Words of God, to thinking the Canon + the Apocrypha (Catholic) is the Inspired Word of God, to thinking that all texts that have the word "Gospel" in front of it are God's Word, to thinking many, many spiritual texts are on an equal plain (Book of Mormon, Koran, Urantia, Apocalyptic texts, etc).

Be careful in your study. The reason i haven't got to the Gospel of Thomas or the others yet is b/c i have been so occupied with reading the Bible (when i'm not too lazy that is...)

[BeckyH]

It is considered the Gnostic gospel, I am really interested in reading it. I havent done so yet thoughj.

[Thomas74053]

I would think very hard before reading them. I read some of them and wish that I hadn't. They could confuse your image of God.

My interest was driven by a show on the history channel, banned from the bible. Most of what the show said wasn't in the texts. The history channel doesnt seem to be constrained by real facts.

[SWigton87]

As the council of Nicea proposed, I consider them uninspired. I obtained a copy yet when I read them I don't feel God revealing anything to me.

Of course I have heard that 1+2 Maccabees is at least a somewhat accurate account of Israel's history? As accurate as it may be, accuracy =/= inspired scripture.

[SWigton87]

In response to the gnostic Gospels:

The LORD rebuke thee

[PaladinGirl]

Isn't the Gospel of Thomas a Gnostic gospel?

[Kelly]

Example:

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter the kingdom."

[Merciel]

There are great books that didn't make it into the Bible for one reason or another, but the book you mentioned is a gnostic gospel. Gnosticism is definitely not Christian! Quite heretical. One of the major heresies that the Church fought. Just keep that in mind when reading it.

[stray bullet]

There seems to be a bit of confusion here that I though I might clear up.

The "apocrypha" texts are not the same as the "apocryphal", historically. The apocrypha is what people nowadays, particularly in English-speaking nations call the Deuterocanon. These are the seven Aramaic Old Testament books, which are in contrast to the Protocanon, which are Hebrew texts.

The Apocrypha/Deuterocanon are historically accepted by the Catholics, Orthodox and Coptics churches. These books are not accepted within protestant circles. They instead use only 66 books.

The "Apocryphal" generally refer to any texts which are not part of canon. These include Gnostics as well as non-Gnostic texts that were excluded from scripture.

In short:
66 books are part of Reformationist canon. They do not accept the seven Old Testament Aramaic texts.

The Aramaic texts are not excluded from Coptic, Orthodox and Catholic canon.

Gnostics reject the Old Testament and the God of Abraham entirely- so they go by non-Pauline texts and Gnostic texts. These include Thomas, Phillip, et cetera

There is also another category, books like the Acts of Peter and Paul and various Epistles, Acts and Apocalypes, which are neither Gnostic nor considered inspired by any Christian group.

[Artificial Intelligence]

Isn't the Gospel of Thomas a Gnostic gospel? That is correct, it was probably used by false teachers in the first century that the apostles mentioned was happening.

[OldChurchGuy]

I'm reading the Gospel of Thomas, really just a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus, and having a very difficult time comprehending some of the sayings.

I can recognize a lot of the parables that made it into the NT gospels, but others totally confuse me. Has anyone else tried to study it?

As stated in the other posts, yes the Gospel of Thomas is among the Gnostic writings.

The Gnostics were a group who preached that essentially there was the public Jesus and there were a lot of secret teachings of Jesus and only when you joined the Gnostics could you learn these secret teachings.

They were the first to come up with a list of writings for people to read that could be identified as a canon. As a result, a counter list was created which was essentially the New Testament canon we know today. Amazingly, not one gnostic writing made it into the New Testament canon. :)

It is my understanding the Gnostics were never able to sway a majority of public opinion because they were too fragmented. Each Gnostic group had it's own unique set of beliefs and refused to consider another Gnostic groups beliefs. If memory serves me correctly, one exception to this was that almost all Gnostics believed that the reason for evil on the earth was because the earth was created by an inferior god. Jesus came to enlighten us and serve as a bridge to the superior god that created this inferior god.

Long story short, the writings of the Gospel of Thomas may seem confusing but that is because (in my opinion anyway) one would need to join the Gnostic group and attain enlightenment as to the true meaning of the saying attributed to Jesus.

There is speculation among some Bible scholars (AND I EMPHASIZE IT IS ONLY SPECULATION) that those sayings of Jesus which are found in both the Gospel of Thomas and the NT Gospels were put in as a way to appease the Gnostics. Others speculate that those sayings were put there along with explanation to show the error of the Gnostic teachings. Still others wonder if both the Gospel of Thomas and the four NT Gospels took the sayings of Jesus from a document known as "Q" which stands for "Quelle". Quelle is a German word meaning "source". This "Q" document is only a speculative theory as no evidence of it's existense has appeared to date.

If you want to read the Gnostic writings, there is an excellent book entitled "The Nag Hammadi Library in English", edited by James M. Robinson. I have the 3rd edition and it is in paperback. The nice thing about this is the fact they translators leave blanks where the information is non-existant (due to holes in the manuscripts, for example) and also show clearly where they have inserted words or phrases based on the sentence structure.

For me, reading the Nag Hammadi Library has given me insight to a group of people who had an alternate understanding of Jesus and his message. I have no doubt they were sincere but I also find nothing that makes me want to abandon the New Testament we have. I suppose this means I wouldn't make a very good Gnostic. :)

Finally, the word "Gnostic" is from the Greek "gnosis" meaning knowledge. Since they preached having a secret knowledge of Jesus and His teachings, the title makes sense. Add the letter "A" which means "without" (as I recall) and you have "agnostic"; i.e. "without knowledge". "Atheist" means "without theism", by the way.

Enough lecturing for now. This is probably way more than you wanted to know but it isn't every day the topic comes up.

Another post did a superb job of clarifying the difference between Gnostic and Aprocraphyl writings. Thanks to that person for doing an excellent analysis.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy