Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Gospel of Thomas not Gnostic???

Expand Messages
  • ErnstStrohregenmantelrad
    Reply to Hey Market s post #5627 >>>Seeing the Gospel of Thomas as Gnostic may be premature, but to see it as anything less than
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 8, 2002
      Reply to Hey Market's post
      #5627<br><br><br><br><br>>>>Seeing the Gospel of Thomas as Gnostic may be premature,
      but to see it as anything less than gnostic is
      immature.<<<<br><br>And I would ask what is the definition of "gnostic"?
      Or should I say by whose definition? Again, I see
      your point in utilizing the capital letters and lower
      case letter. If I am to interpret as you saying "G"
      "Gnostics" as a certain religious phenomenon in the 2nd
      century and "g" "gnostics" as any group that process
      "Gnosis" then my statement is in agreement with you. It is
      just that I was not using that convention but instead
      to use my own "esoteric" adaptionalists. If that is
      the sole problem, them we just have a differing
      nomenclature.<br><br>>>>To be sure, there is no absolute proof that the
      Gospel of Thomas was Gnostic (though there are strong
      arguments). <<<<br><br>Again, you statement is valid
      if we see through "Gnostic" eyes. One thing I forgot
      to mention is that because the GTh was found with
      other "Gnostic" document, it could went to heavy
      redaction by a Gnostic
      scribe<br>.<br>>>>Nonetheless, it is undeniably gnostic, which is all that
      matters to Gnostics.<<< <br><br>The point here
      is that I am seeing it from the etic point of view.
      If we take it emic then of course the GTh is Gnostic
      but then so is the Gospel of John, some Pauline
      Epistles and Acts of Thomas etc... If we are to take the
      origin of Gnosticism/Christianity as such that Gnosis is
      at the core then we must more or less see all the
      scriptures, save the one that not used by Gnostics and those
      that have obvious "orthodox" polemic style such as the
      first and second Timothy, as pre-Gnostic in
      origin.<br><br>On related issue, if we are to use this criteria
      then can we also state that the GTh is a Manichaean
      writing? There is circumstantial evidence that points
      toward Manichaeans using the GTh. It is not clear
      whether this GTh is the same GTh as one found in the Nag
      Hammadi but it is plausible that Manichaeans used the GTh
      with heavy Manichaean redaction. I wonder if we will
      say the GTh is a Manichaean writing if we discovered
      it NOT in Nag Hammadi but Tufun?
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.