At 12:54 PM 3/9/2010, Michael Grondin wrote:
I made over a dozen changes to the Wikipedia article "Gospel
of Thomas" last week, including changes to the external links
that were initially blocked. The current version can be seen at:
Three article-tabs of interest:
"discussion": The talk page for this article.
"history": A complete list of changes to the article, in date
(my changes are identified as 'mwgrondin').
"watch/unwatch": A click-tab to add this article to your
or remove it, if it's already there.
The watchlist turns out to be less valuable than I first thought.
Since it only lists the *latest* change to whatever articles you're
watching, I've missed some edits that other users put in while
I was working on my own. The bottom line is that one has to
check the full article-history from time to time in order to make
sure that one is aware of all the changes to the article. (It would
be far better if there was a way to email all changes to a given
article as they occur to whoever was interested, but I can't
find any such functionality.)
To give you all an idea of the kind of changes that random users
make, here's one that I had to fix:
The original wording read:
"[GTh] lacks references to the crucifixion of Jesus, his
or the final judgement..."
The editor changed it to read:
"[GTh] mentions a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but
mention his resurrection, or the final judgement ..."
... with a footnote indicating that the "prophecy" was in
(i.e., the parable of tenants in the vineyard, who put the owner's
son to death). Other than changing the wording so that 'or' is used
properly, this change doesn't have much to recommend it. Obviously,
L65 doesn't allude to crucifixion, but more than that, there doesn't
seem to be any basis for calling it a 'prophecy' (which I think has
occur *before* the event in question :-). The parable is in all the
synoptics, but Thomas lacks the afterthought of those versions
that the tenants will all be killed in retaliation - probably (IMO)
allusion to the Jewish Rebellion of 66-75 CE.
Anyway, I wanted to incorporate a little something about L.65, but
also remove the implication of the original wording "his
that in fact there was such a thing. What I settled on was this:
"[GTh] contains a probable allusion to the death of Jesus in
logion 65 (parable of the tenants in the vineyard), but doesn't
mention crucifixion, resurrection, or final judgement ..."
Now for something completely different:
It should be noted that the section of the Thomas article on
the dating controversy is long and ragged. I did a little editing of
the part of it that had to do with possible John-Thomas interaction,
but other than that I've so far left it alone. It drew a lot of
on the discussion page back in January, and I would recommend
that those of you who are interested in this issue take a look at
that section of the article and the discussion about it. You may be
able to come up with some improvements in organization, wording,
etc. Whatever changes you make, though, be sure to conform to
the NPOV (neutral point-of-view) standard.
Thanks, Mike, for these important efforts. :IMHO everyone on this
list should monitor the Gospel of Thomas wiki to make sure it summarizes
the best consensus of scholarly opinion about the gospel, as it
evolves. That can be an important legacy of this discussion group,
and Mike has set a good example.