RE: [GTh] review of WATSA booklet on Thomas, part 3 of 3
On 2012-04-12, at 4:04 PM, Judy Redman wrote:
[Judy:] Actually, that was Bill agreeing with me. J
But whether one buys the argument or not, as you note, it is clear that a more sharply (and narrowly) delineated "gnosticism" does NOT include Thomas.
According to Pearson's criteria, it most certainly does – particularly on the soteriological front. "Gnosis saves" is hard to avoid in Thomas.
[Judy:] Well, yes, and there is a significant ascetical emphasis, but no evidence of the cosmogeny that has the earth created and overseen by a secondary divine being. While I agree that Thomas is a text that could well have been used by Gnostics, it is also amenable to use by people with other emphases, whereas Judas has the unmistakably Gnostic cosmogeny.
I found it useful indeed. When I was in seminary (graduated 1990) the
Gospel of Thomas was not even mentioned. And since the textbook we had there for New Testament studies was by Luke Timothy Johnson there was no mention of the Jesus Seminar, either. So, I've always felt there were some big holes in my knowledge concerning these areas.
Ever since I ran across Mike Grondin's Gospel of Thomas site several
years ago, I've become very interested in Thomas and Thomasine studies. Your book has been very helpful to me in showing me the breadth and variety that exists in the current scholarship on the Gospel of Thomas.
Honestly, I think you brought it all together very succinctly. I
especially appreciated the way you were to discuss all the many theories equally and quite fairly and with respect.
So thank you for publishing this book for me and the many, many others
of folks who want to learn what's going on in Thomasine scholarship.
Chaplain, Indianapolis, IN
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Christopher W. Skinner"
> Tim, many thanks for reviewing the book in this forum.
> I hope you found it useful.