... From: Michael Grondin To: email@example.com Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 7:12 PM Subject: [GTh] At WikiAnswers ... By my count, there were fourMessage 1 of 3 , Sep 12, 2010View Source----- Original Message -----From: Michael GrondinSent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 7:12 PMSubject: [GTh] At WikiAnswers> The Gospel of Thomas, although originally of Gnostic origin, was> apparently modified for use in the proto-Catholic-Orthodox Church,> where it enjoyed wide popularity. In spite of support for its inclusion> in the New Testament, the Gospel of Thomas was also rejected.By my count, there were four claims in these two sentences that, ifnot plainly false, were questionable at best. I decided to have a goat cleaning up this little corner of the vast cesspool of misinformationabout Thomas on the Net.<SNIP>On the third attempt, I filled out my profile with a referenceto my website, added a detailed discussion note specifying my objections,and replaced Harfield's claims with a sentence of my own, rather thansimply deleting his remarks. This time it worked. Harfield has apparentlynow accepted the change. He did delete my second note, but he left thefirst, apparently now in agreement with it. The current Q&A is here:<SNIP>What does this all mean? Probably nothing. Just another of countlesssuch little stories of how and why folks do things on the Net. I do wish,though, that Harfield had indicated the source of his comments. Someobscure Thomas book with which I'm unfamiliar - or maybe a reputableone that he misinterpreted? An Internet site? His own guesswork? I wouldhave liked to have known that, because I would then have learned somethingabout where folks get their Thomas info, but that's apparently not to be.Mike GrondinMt. Clemens, MI
The source is probably the section on the Gospel of Thomas in the Apocrypha article at:
This comes from a c. 1907 Encyclopedia and regards what we now call the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas" as an expurgated and Catholicized version of the original Gnostic Thomas mentionedby the early Fathers but since lost.It was only with the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts that it became clear that the Gospel of Thomas mentioned by the early Fathers is an entirely different work than the Infancy Gospel.Andrew Criddle
... Thanks, Andrew. Great detective work. This is a wonderful example of how scholarship can go badly awry. One can almost see the mental contortions as theMessage 1 of 3 , Sep 12, 2010View Source
> The Gospel of Thomas, although originally of Gnostic origin, wasAndrew C. wrote:
> apparently modified for use in the proto-Catholic-Orthodox Church,
> where it enjoyed wide popularity. In spite of support for its inclusion
> in the New Testament, the Gospel of Thomas was also rejected.
> (Dick Harfield, Answers.com)
> The source is probably the section on the Gospel of Thomas in theThanks, Andrew. Great detective work. This is a wonderful example
> Apocrypha article at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm
of how scholarship can go badly awry. One can almost see the mental
contortions as the author tries to explain why the Hippolytus quote is
so very different from what we now know to be the Infancy Gospel.
Still, he says nothing about his supposed text being popular or receiving
support for inclusion in the Canon, so I think Harfield must have got
at least that part of it from somewhere else (if not pure speculation).