The Gospel of
Thomas
Engelse vertaling van Het Thomas Evangelie – Bram Moerland
vertaald door Rogier Buurman en Mariska de la Rambelje
Was Thomas written before of after the New Testament?
Since the rediscovery of the Gospel of Thomas, a fierce struggle ignited on it’s date of origin. The dating is major importance, because it is what gives the document meaning to the history of the becoming of christianity.
How old is the text, which is the subject of this book? It appeared to be an oppressive question, which has been the subject of much controversy. But Why, what are the stake of this fight? Why all the vicious anger from the church’s direction?
It all started in 1945. It is the year in which a few farmers found a clay jug, close to Nag Hammadi in Egypt, containing old texts from early christian times. Since then, the collection of writings was named after the place it was found, the Nag Hammadi codex.
One of the writing in the clay jug was a version Gospel of Thomas.
Yes, we already knew there had to be something like the Gospel of Thomas, not because we already had the text, but because it had already been subject of controversy during the first few centuries by the church-fathers. (not the church mothers? [mva])
That haggling had been preserved.
That is why the existence of the Gospel of Thomas was until 1945 was nothing more then hearsay.
The writings had already submerged during the struggle in the first few centuries for what was true in christianity, and as it appeared to be vanished for good. Then, all of a sudden, the text emerges form the Egyptian dessert sands. And almost immediately the old struggle ignites again, as if there had only been a long lasting pause, after which the struggle was to be continued in full severity.
Of all the writings that have been found at the Nag Hammadi site, the Gospel of Thomas has proven to be the one that speaks most to ones imagination and is at the same time the most controversial.
What was all the controversy about? Mainly about the dating of the gospel.
When was it written?
The question matters. The dating is major importance, because it is what gives the document meaning to the history of the becoming of christianity and even on religion’s present day guidance.
The role that Thomas ascribes Jesus is quite different from the church’s tradition. As is different from the gospels in the New Testament, , the Gospel of Thomas does not contain any life history of Jesus himself. The crucifixion and resurrection do not appear in the writings and have no meaning to Thomas.
That difference is of crucial importance, because the crucifixion of Jesus play in important role in traditional christianity, the leading role even.
Was it not Jesus that died on the cross to redeem all OUR sins? Non of that appears in the Gospel of Thomas.
The original teaching of Jesus?
Was Thomas writes as a short summary, long after the New Testament was written, poorly constructed, a deliberate forgery even? Or is the other way around, and does the Gospel of Thomas date before the New Testament writings? Could the Gospel of Thomas contain the original teachings of Jesus could the New Testament be a ‘diluted’ version these teachings?
Those are the corners of the arena in which the battle on dating the Gospel of Thomas is taking place.
If Thomas would have been written much later than the gospels in the New Testament, it would be a simple rejection of Thomas’ deviating vision as late heresy, a deviation from the original, the true teachings. Still, if Thomas was off an earlier dating, it is cause for all kinds of compelling questions to arise and this one in particular: does ecclesiastical Christianity coincide with the primordial teachings of Jesus?
It should be clear that a late dating of the Gospel was supported by those in traditional vested circles.
One example can be found in a book written by Schippers that was published in 1960. Shippers repeatedly talks of how Thomas mutilates the texts in the New Testament. Still, that conviction seems to lose its support over time.
On the other side of the spectrum is being claimed that Thomas represents a completely independent tradition from early christian times, completely separate form the Gospels in the New Testament. It is that last conception that has been gathering recognition as being valid.
By now it is probably clear to all that dating the Gospel of Thomas is more than a historians interest. It matters with regard to the following question: what does it mean for being a christian?
The primal text
So, what is it? What was first? Who was first?
The answer to that question does not come without problems.
Even when assuming the text found in Nag Hammadi would predate those in the New Testament, another question remains: is the text found in the Nag Hammadi dessert equal to the primal text of Thomas?
The copy that was found dates from the fourth century and it is by no means certain that we possess a complete and unaltered version of the primal Thomas. This coptic version is a translation from Greek, and in the process of that translation, it is more than likely that redactional changes were made, with or without intent. What would those changes have been? It will be hard to gather assurance in that regard.
So, what about the Gospels in the New Testament? It might be quite a surprise that for dating those, the exact same challenge applies to those as well. Of the gospels in the New Testament the oldest complete manuscripts date from the fourth century, which is the same as that by Thomas. An although some fragments have been proven to be older, what they especially demonstrate is the multitude of versions that were circulating in early times. The gospels in the New Testament have been tinkered with, that we know for sure.
For both Thomas as well as the gospels in the New Testament, the oldest complete manuscripts date from the fourth century. There is a resemblance there.
Nevertheless among scientists there is the prevailing view that Thomas is independent text, instead of being a summary made afterwards from New Testament Gospels.
The primal Thomas is expected to be written down 10 years after Jesus’s death. It is even is plausible to assume that Thomas had known Jesus and was one of his followers.
That is not the case for the authors of the gospels in the new testament. They are of a later generation and they never knew Jesus in person. They write down what they have heard others say en by doing so create their own story.
Marcus was the first that wrote about Jesus’s life. Lucas and Matteüs used that story for the most part, and then added individual statements of Jesus to the text.
Those individual statements by Jesus in Luke and Matthew are often almost identical to statements by Jesus in Thomas. And that also feeds the assumption that Luke and Matthew, in addition to Mark, also drew from another existing collection of separate sayings from Jesus, exactly as they occur in Thomas. And that is why the prevailing view is that the primal Thomas is in any case older than Luke and Matthew, and most likely also then Mark.
Two text sources with different visions
So, we do not have the primal Thomas text. Any more than we do not have those of the New Testament.
That’s apparently what we are dealing with: toe sources of text with differing perspectives, the manuscripts of which both date from the fourth century.
The question that we could all first ask our selves is: what is the difference? What does one say and what the other?
For, the notion that the blissful making truth should be found only in the New Testament, that certainty of faith has undeniably been severely dented by the discovery of the gospel of Thomas.
At least now, with Thomas a different vision from the churches has been narrated.
That vision is clear, much clearer then I initially suspected.
The widely held view is that the sequence of Jesus sayings in Thomas is completely arbitrary. To my great surprise, while studying the Thomas Gospel, I discovered that the order of the texts shows a careful didactic structure. As a whole, they exhibit a remarkable spiritual coherence. That coherence appears to be greater than I originally expected it to be.
The Gospel of Thomas is not just a collection of ‘loose’ statements. It turns out te be a carefully constructed handbook for spiritual growth. That is first and foremost what I wanted to make clear in this book. It is my whole hearted addition to the ongoing debate.
It is the vision I would like to clear up and present to the readers of this book.
Still, the most important question that is wants to be answered is: Who was Jesus? Who is the Jesus in the gospel of Thomas in comparison with the New Testament?
Surprisingly, it is the Gospel of John that provides a clear answer.
The question that Salome asks in logion 61 of the Thomas gospel:
“Man, who are you?”
So she emphatically addresses him as a human being not as lord. That is already quite remarkable. Then, what kind of a human is he?
Salomé already gives a preliminary answer:
It looks like you’re on behalf of someone. “
To her, it is as if he is not himself, but as a kind of ambassador, he discards himself to speak on behalf of a superior, on behalf of God, for example, like the Jewish prophets. Perhaps Jesus is also a prophet.
But Jesus makes it immediately clear that it is not like that. He says:
“I come on behalf of an equal.”
An equal! That is quite something for Jewish ears of the time. Prophets are not God, they are not God’s equal. They are merely a mouthpiece of the divine. This Jesus is not a mouthpiece. He is similar to the divine, he says.
Becoming like Jesus
Now that won’t sound strange to traditional Christians. Of course, Jesus is God himself. That’s how it is in the Nicene Creed:
“True God from true God, one being with the Father.”
So far, as far as Thomas is concerned, there is nothing new to report.
The really different is only in logion 108. Jesus says there:
“Whoever drinks from my mouth will be like me and I like him.”
Can it be even clearer?
It would have been clear enough if he had said “Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me.” But he adds to that unnecessarily:
“And I like him.”
As a human being you can become like Jesus. And that is exactly what this Jesus wants. That equality is at the heart of the message of the Thomas gospel. That is a very different Jesus from the one we may have become accustomed to. Or rather: as the image of him we were used to in the Christian West. This Jesus is not superior to the people. He wants people to be equal to him! That is why we always have to keep in mind when we read Thomas: everything Jesus says about himself always applies to each of us. There is essentially no difference between us and Jesus.
In other words, it is the same meaning as Jesus’ response to a comment from Thomas in Logion 13:
“Master, my mouth doesn’t allow me to say who you look like.”
Jesus said, “I am not your master.”
You can learn a lot from the Jesus of the Thomas gospel. He is a teacher, for sure. But he is not essentially different from you and me. He has discovered something as a human being, and he wants us to know that we also carry with us the same treasure that he has found as a human being in himself, with the exception of no one.
What then is special about becoming like Jesus? What does it mean to be like Jesus?
Two natures
Ecclesiastical Christianity usually confesses that Jesus had two natures. He was human and God. These two natures of Jesus were a fierce point of contention at the council of Nicea in 325, which laid down the dogmatic foundations of ecclesiastical Christianity. Against the opposition of the monophysites, those who believed that Jesus was only divine, or only human, so had only one nature, it was decided that Jesus was both God and man, so had two natures.
Thomas would have totally agreed with that, but on the understanding that the same applies to everyone, and not just to Jesus. Here too we are equal to Jesus and he to us.
The essence of the spiritual message of the Thomas gospel is that every person, with the exception of no one, has the same two natures as Jesus, man and God in one.
But that is not everything. It is not enough to know that. It is about making those two natures, man and God, one in ourselves, connecting with each other. The Thomas gospel calls for that unification in ourselves. That is the spiritual development path that Thomas outlines.
Still, what is meant with humans having two natures? How should we understand that? And how can we make the two one?
Christ nature
As human beings we are aware of out temporal existence between birth and death. That is the awareness of our personal nature. The personal nature is the human with a history and a personal identity. That identity comes with a name.
The second nature of a human is called ‘Christ of ‘Christ nature’ in gnosis.
As an example in the letter to the Colossians in the New Testament it is said: “The secret is this: Christ dwells in you,” then it is clearly understandable to a Gnostic. Yes, that is the secret that Gnosticism is about. “The Christ” dwells in every person. In other words, every person is a Christ.
There is a great affinity here with the Buddhist concept of “Buddha nature.” Every person, all beings and all things have Buddha nature, Buddhism teaches. The spiritual path of Buddhism aims to unite the consciousness of the individual human being with his own timeless Buddha nature, which is also the Buddha nature of all reality.
Hinduism also speaks of the two natures of man: Atman and Brahman. Atman is the personal self, Brahman the cosmic self. There too, it is about acquiring cosmic consciousness, the union with Brahman. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna (the divine personification of Brahman) says to Arjuna:
“I am throning the Self in the hearts of the people.”
In Gnostics, the same is said about the Christ. Every person has Christ nature, every person is a Christ. That conviction is also the foundation of the Thomas gospel.
What are you saying, Christ nature in every human being? You need to realize that the word Christ nature, is only a word. It’s a name. Still, is there something in reality to which that name refers?
The word Christ-nature refers in Gnosticism to a universally human possibility of experience. Within gnostics it was given the name given Christ-nature. In other spiritual traditions, it has been given another name. It still is the same human potential. That is not part of a monopoly by one of the spiritual traditions. It’s not something of a human, but of all human kind.
Those spiritual traditions are nothing more than a vinger pointing to the moon, they are not the moon itself.
The same goes for the word Christ-nature in gnosis.
So, what does it point at?
The experience of the personal nature of every human being and the Christ-nature are to be understood as two different states of the one human consciousness.
We can experience out personal nature when connecting with our every day life, the temporary existence between birth and death, as this one human being that you are, in the ‘situation’ that you are currently in. That’s what you call ‘I’.
The Christ-nature is a name for another state of the same consciousness in which we experience ourselves as being part of the ‘All’, as gnosis would say. Instead of Christ-nature one could call it unity-consciousness.
The name does not matter that much. Essential is that the word Christ-nature refers to an experience potential of every human, nobody excluded.
The problem being outlined in gnosis is that most humans usually just identify themselves with their temporal existence, with their personal nature. Then they are from their own christ-nature. They will not recognize and even accept that. The human consciousness can be opened up to that bigger dimension in ourselves. Why should you? Why would it matter, or, in gnostic terms: what are the riches of the hidden treasure within ourselves?
The other dimension of human consciousness can sometimes manifest itself in all its purity in shape of a mystical experience that breaks through all of daily experience, like a beam of licht that suddenly appears from behind a cloud and illuminates all of existence. That experience happens. That happening has completely unique characteristics.
Above all, it’s a realisation of connection with all-that-is, as being submerged in love.
That experience of connectedness in a liberation of love of every ‘though shalt’. In that state of consciousness there is realization of total liberty, a liberty that is inseparably connected with love.
It’s also an experience of being. It provides an awareness of unshakable ground beneath your existence. What ever happens, you will not fall off deck.
Another characteristic of the mystical experience is the timelessness. It is like the mystical experience is without time, or all temporality has disappeared.
And all that is contained in an unmistakeable realisation of ‘this is it’, this is what it is about.
Making the two one
After the greatness of the mystical experience, there will always be the downfall to the ordinary earthly existence.
The contrast with the unobstructed goodness of the mystical experience can be experienced as poignant.
This is a reason that some spiritual traditions aim for transpersonal unity-consciousness, as if that is the only thing that matters, and as if we should have to let go of everything that has to with our temporal existence, or even despise, as if we need to be redeemed of it all.
It is what some call detachment of ego-lessness or selflessness. These are no options in the Gospel of Thomas.
It is not the intent of the Gospel of Thomas to strive to remain in a permanent state of unfettered bliss that belongs to the mystical experience.
The uniqueness of the Gospel of Thomas in comparison with other spiritual traditions is that it calls for unity of two different states of awareness, to make those two into one.
But how does one do that?
A premise of the Gospel of Thomas is that the qualities of the mystical experience are permanently present in a human as an inner knowing. It is about learning to understand its voice. The goals of the spiritual path of Thomas is not to detach from all that has to do with our physical and temporal existence, not even being without ego or selflessness, but the unification of every unique individuality, de personal nature, with the timeless and all encompassing unity consciousness, if you want to call it that.
We will call it Christ-consciousness. And that is not without meaning. What does the word Christ mean anyway?
Prologue: The Inner Twin
These are the secret words
who spoke the living Jesus
and they are written down by Judas Thomas the Gemini.
The gospel of Thomas has an exciting start: “These are the secret words …”
Are we entrusted with the disclosure of a hitherto hidden secret?
Why is ‘the living’ Jesus written here?
Because Jesus spoke these words during his lifetime?
Or is “the living” just a secret word whose meaning we have yet to learn to understand?
And why is Judas Thomas called “the Gemini”?
Because he would be a true twin of Jesus?
That does not seem very likely. Then what does it mean?
The main riddles have been given: secret words, living Jesus, the Gemini.
What are the answers?
If we only knew the answers to all these questions, then …
Twin
First, let’s consider the word “twins.” Thomas in itself already means twins, so there is a double meaning if “the twins” is added to it. (gemini)
The writer of the Gospel of Thomas is actually called Judas. And here this Judas is called twins twice. Apparently that is important. Why?
In the Gospel of Thomas, “twins” is also a secret word, that is, the meaning is not commonplace, but symbolic.
What is it about then?
It’s about the two natures of man. They form twins together.
As humans we have two natures.
The one nature is the personal nature, whereby one experiences oneself as placed in time, with a birth and a death. That is the person with a history and a personal identity. This includes “personal awareness”.
Man’s second nature is its timeless core. This timeless core of man is called in Gnosticism “the Christ” or “Christ nature”. “The Christ” dwells in every person.
The goal of Gnosticism is to connect the personal consciousness with the Christ consciousness. In Gnosticism this is called symbolically: “the union in the bridal chamber”.
Looking for your inner twin
But what about those twins now? Well, Judas, the writer of this gospel (whom we will continue to call Thomas from now on because that is the custom) is a man in history. As a person in history, he has a personal nature. But he also has a timeless core, the Christ in him. His personal nature is the twin of his Christ nature, and vice versa.
So Thomas, the writer of this gospel, is actually saying here, ‘ I know I have twins in me, and I’m going to tell you how you too can get to know those twins in yourself. Connect the personal nature and Christ nature, and how to make the two one.
And what does it mean that Jesus is called “the living”? More about that in the next logion.
The unbelieving Thomas
The writer of the gospel of Thomas, is that the same as the Thomas from the Gospel of John?
Who was Thomas? Is it the same person as the ‘the unbelieving Thomas’, that we know from the Gospel of John? The answer to that is important, because the question goes hand in hand with an more important question: who was Jesus? And: what was his message? Thomas and John give completely different and even apposing answers, and that is not a coincidence. Let’s compare the writings of both.
Mastery
It is essential to Thomas that Jesus tells him:
I’m not your master. (Logion 13)
John makes Jesus say on the other hand:
You always ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. (John 13)
This immediately makes a big differents, because it is about a relationship between Jesus and his discipels. What else do Thomas and John say about that?
Thomas makes Jesus say:
Whoever drinks from my mouth will become my equal.
and I myself to him.
John on the contrary makes Jesus essentially unequal to any human:
Jesus continued: you are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. (John 8:23)
That is a second big differents.
With that Jesus is equated with Jahweh.
Jesaja 45, Jahweh says:
I am God, equal to no one.
The saying of Jesus that you can become equal to him in a great and essential contrast.
The light
Both Thomas as John speak of ‘the light’. According to Thomas the light is present in every human an can only be found there:
Jesus said:
Light exists in a person of light and he shines on the whole world. (Logion 24)
And about that light Thomas says in addition:
Jesus said:
If you bring out what is inside you, it will save you. (Logion 70)
For John this is also completely different. Only Jesus himself, and only Jesus, is the light:
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life.’
According to Thomas you can search the light inside yourself. It does not involve belief. And it does not require for you to follow someone. According to John, Jesus is the light and salvation exists in believing in Jesus. Still, salvation of what? According to John Jesus is:
(…) the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.
But the whole concept of the salvation of sin does not appear in Thomas.
The essential and overarching differents is this: in Thomas Jesus is a rabbi, a wise teacher, a human with the people, that calls his fellow human beings for searching the light in them selves.
A human being that sets an example with his deeds.
According to John Jesus is a divine christ, who with his death on the cross has paid instead for the sins of men and that is what you must belief in order to be freed from sin as a sinful human. Sinfulness has no relevance in Thomas, the whole concept is not being presented there. Thomas, in turn, warns against the view of John that ‘the light’ is only present in the divine. Thomas says but the light that’s in them remains hidden in the image of the light of the father. That is strong language if you seek the light outside of yourself, in God the Father or in the defied Jesus, you will therefore darken the light within yourself. And that is what you do yourself. By believing in a God who is completely different from yourself, and likewise in a divine Jesus, you place yourself in darkness.
Thomas was not there, at least, according to John. And John also read a story about the blessings about the apostles by Jesus after his resurrection from the dead. John says Jesus blesses the apostles and sends them out to preach the Gospel. He delicately mentions that Thomas was not present. The meaning is clear: Thomas and his followers are not part of the apostolic succession. And in the same writing, John calls Thomas ‘the unbeliever’ (John 20:19-29)
John literally pushes Thomas out the door.
Rome has always based his power on the apostolic succession by relying on this passage of John, in order to exclude the Gospel of Thomas. It should be clear by now that Rome has had no interest in the message of Thomas at cost of every human being to find the light in him or herself.
The view shared with many historians of early Christianity is that Thomas was first and John consciously turned against Thomas. With that, how ironic, John unintentionally and most certainly unwillingly acknowledges the importants of Thomas. Because, by that it has become clear that Thomas must have already been a source text for an important movement among the followers of Jesus, important and influential enough to oppose it fiercely. It makes it easier to defend that Thomas represents the original message of Jesus, and not John, with his deification of Jesus and his humiliation of humans as sinful and incapable beings.
In the so-called synoptic gospels of Marcus, Lucas en Matteus, Jesus is just Jesus. As far as he glorified there, he is the Messiah of the Old Testament. Even as Messiah he is still human. John takes a substantial and big step further. He makes a divine appearance of Jesus from man, far exalted above man, and incomparably different as God. It is that vision that has won and that has been handed down in the ecclesiastical institutions, both Roman and Protestant. Now the full text of the Thomas Gospel has been found, with a distinctly different story about Jesus, John is nog longer so firmly in his shoes. And that is why the Jesus of John is nog longer as self explanatory as it first seemed. In another text in the New Testament we find very different location of Christ. It is more like Thomas’s. That text is listed as a letter form Paul, but it is unlikely that Paul himself wrote it. In the letter to the Colossians (1:27) states:
The mystery is this: Christ dwells in you.
How can we understand that?
In gnosis it is said that the Christ lives in every human, en even that every human is a Christ. What does that mean?
I once visited a meeting organised by Franciscans A person representing the diocese of Utrecht held a lecture. After this speech there was time reserved for questions. On one of the questions the announcer responds: ‘That smells like self-redemption’. A discussion ignites, that encourages others to join. The announcer makes a resolute end to it: ‘Yes, you see, that question was given a definite answer in the thirteenth century? I do not see the point of returning to that same question over and over again?
Knowing what actually happened in the thirteenth century, that remark seemed filled with cynicism.
Much blood was spilled in order to assure the churches version of what is right, especially in the thirteenth century. For example, in the year 1209 in the city of Béziers all were massacred. It was the beginning of a crusade against the Cathars in Southern France, which was called for by Pope Innocentius III. ‘But how do I distinguish a good catholic from a Cathar?’ one of the besiegers of Brezier had asked the papal legate. The answer: ‘Kill them all, God will recognise his own.’ That advice was followed with enthusiasm. The leader of the crusade proudly wrote the Pope that Gods revenge had miraculously struck, since in only a few days over 20.000 ‘heretics’ were killed! Self redemption apparently can be viewed as evil, worth a bloody crusade. What is it, self redemption? What could be wrong with it?
In ecclesiastical Christianity, the doctrine of atonement is the basis of faith. According to the Church, through his suffering and death, Jesus paid vicariously for the sins of mankind. According to the Church, through his suffering and death, Jesus paid vicariously for the sins of mankind.
All people are born in sin and thanks to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, people can straighten out their relationship with God. This ecclesiastical view is called the ‘doctrine of reconciliation’. For many Christians, the doctrine of atonement is still at the heart of Christianity.
The Catholic mass is entirely devoted to the doctrine of atonement. Mass begins with a collective confession of guilt:
Kyrië eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrië eleison.
(Heer ontferm u over ons, Christus ontferm u over ons, Heer ontferm u over ons)
Then the atoning sacrifice is celebrated in the Eucharist. The bread is symbol of the body of Christ, the wine symbol of his blood. The bread and wine together symbolise the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. After the Eucharist, the supplication follows:
Agnes Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, misere nobis, dona nobis, pacem.
(Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us, give us peace.)
Jesus is the ‘Lamb of God’, the sacrificial lamb. Bread and wine together symbolise the sacrifice of his life in order to atone vicariously for the sins of man. The bread is the symbol of his body, the wine the symbol of his blood, the ‘atoning blood of Christ’.
Through the atoning sacrifice man can be delivered from his sins. That redemption can be obtained by faith, and only through faith. “Only through faith,” said Paul. “Through faith only,” Luther repeated.
Yet another condition has been added, namely that the remission of man’s sins can only be given through the church. There is no redemption outside the church. For the church is God’s instrument of mercy.
And so the church appropriated the monopoly on redemption. Whoever believes that he does not need the church, and is engaged in self-salvation, therefore undermines the monopoly of the church on the distribution of God’s grace.
The Cathars were gnostics, the last ones in world history. With the mass murder of the Cathars in the 13th century, the problem of self redemption was permanently solved, so it seemed. The Cathars were not accepting the rule of the church, in particular with regard to the role of the church as God’s instrument of mercy.
The Cathars practiced self-redemption, just like the Gnostics of the first centuries.
Mystic Meister Eckhart (ca. 1260-1328) said the following:
The human in whom God’s Kingdom appears, and who recognizes it as near, no longer needs preaching or instruction: he/she knows enough from inner experience.
It is therefore very significant in this context that it is said in gnosis that the Christ dwells in man, and even that every man is a Christ. Why is that so meaningful? The word Christ is a Greek translation of the Jewish word “Messiah.” The Messiah, that for the Jewish believers the savior of the Jewish people. To Jewish ears it must have been very surprising and even shocking to claim that the Messiah dwells in man.
It means nothing more than that every man has his own ‘Messiah’ is, his own Savior. And it even means that every human being can be a savior of the world.
But from what should we redeem ourselves? No, that is not of sin, as in the doctrine of atonement. Of which then?
Only with your true self you are part of the Source, you are the in the Source.
Jesus said in Logion 106:
If you ma the two one,
you will become a son of ‘man’ (son of human)
The writer of the Gospel of Matthew calls Jesus the Son of Man several times. According to Matthew Jesus is the ‘Son of Man’, him and only him.
And that is the usual meaning assigned to that phrase.
In Thomas it says we are all to become a ‘son of man’. It means nothing more then simply becoming a human ourselves. Because that in origin is the meaning of the phrase ‘Son of Man’, or just human, nothin more.
In church tradition it is said of Jesus that became human. And that also applies to us according to Thomas, in the sense that each one of us can become human like Jesus did. That is the whole intention of the Gospel of Thomas. The meaning of ‘incarnation’ here is quite different from the meaning that is usually associated with it in relation to Jesus. Jesus’ incarnation is usually understood to mean that as God he has assumed the humble form of man. He became man as God, descended from heaven to earth. But you will not find that story in the Thomas gospel. This is about something completely different, namely that everyone could become a person. That’s strange, because we already are, right? What does it mean then?
I can explain that best, by using an example. A telling example is the following incident.
A Jewish and Palestinian mother both lost their 12 year old daughter on the same day. As a Jewess and as a Palestinian, these two women were at first each other’s enemies. They only saw in each other the image of the other as an enemy. The Jewess had learned from her upbringing that she was a Jewess. The Palestinian woman had heard from her upbringing that she was a Palestinian.
‘I am a Jewess.’
I am a palestinian.’
That self-image of these two women also included an image of the other. In this case, the other is an enemy. The self-image and the image of the other as an enemy determined the mutual relationship. For the Jew, the Palestinian woman is her enemy. The Jewess is her enemy to the Palestinian woman. They have each learned this as a member of the collective from which they derived their self-image.
But through this sad event, the death of one daughter, they recognized something of themselves in the other: the grief over the loss of a child. As a result, they remembered themselves and recognized the other in their humanity. They visited each other and fell into each other’s arms. As human beings with a fellow human being they could comfort each other. What had disappeared under the self-image and the enemy image had returned: man in himself and in the other. By seeing the human being in the other, they themselves also became human. They could now love their enemy by seeing behind the mask of the enemy the original man, the original face of their fellow man.
They had both become human.
That is the incarnation that the Gospel of Thomas means.
That is the liberation from Gnosticism, the liberation of a self-image that does not coincide with your true self and that takes away your humanity.
Sheep leaving the flock
A perhaps surprising logion is 107. That is about a sheep leaving the flock. We already know that story from the New Testament. There the shepherd finds the lost sheep and brings it back to the flock. There the shepherd searches for the lost sheep and brings it to the flock. He is the good shepherd, a symbol of God who watches faithfully over his little sheep.
Matthew calls the lost sheep:
One of the lowly that God does not want to be lost.
According to Lucas it is:
A sinner who has repented
But Thomas says that very differently.
Jesus said:
The kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep.
One of them, the biggest, ran away.
The shepherd left the ninety-nine
and searched for the one until he found it.
And after he had gone to all that trouble
he said to the sheep:
You count more to me than the ninety-nine.
The sheep from Thomas is not a small one like Matthew, and not a sinner like Luke, but is called ‘the greatest’ here. And it is not brought back to the fold, but praised for choosing to go its own way.
And logion 74 tells:
He said:
Master, many stand around the well,
but there is no one in the well.
When you read the word ‘many’ or ‘a multitude’ in a Gnostic text, it means a collectivity that imparts to its members a self-image that is not inconsistent with their true selves. Only with your true self you are part of the Source, are you in the Source, not with the self-image of collective identity.
Leaving the herd, you can only guts. Therefore it is also self-redemption. That is the way of the Gospel of Thomas. That seems like a lonely road. But with that you get into a connection that ties in with the sense of unity of the mystical experience and that is the primal source of charity. Because if you don’t belong anywhere, you belong everywhere.
What is left when we delete fear? Love. That is the core message of Jesus, nothing more, nothing less.
This applies to the New Testament and to the Gospel of Thomas.
Let’s put a few more texts next to each other. Thomas’s and that of the New Testament and see what atmosphere this conveys.
Fishing
In logion 8 of Thomas it says:
And he said:
Man is like a wise fisherman,
who threw his net into the sea,
and brought it up from the sea, full of small fish from the deep.
In the midst of them
The wise fisherman found a large, beautiful fish.
He threw all the small fish back into the sea
and chose the big fish without hesitation. ‘
It says here, “He threw back all the little fish.” Let’s compare that one sentence with a corresponding text from Matthew. Which reads:
“Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Do you see the difference? Thomas respectfully puts the small fish back in the sea. Matthew throws the inedible away. The real difference is in the explanation that Matthew provides us with later.
According to Matthew the inedible fish refer to the sinners that will be retrieved by the angels on judgement-day, in order to be thrown into a burning furnace. There they will cry and grind their teeth.
Matthew is spreading fear. Thomas is full of respect – and not just in this logion.
In the study of ancient texts, the following rule of thumb applies: if two texts from different sources resemble each other, then the simplest is the first Applied to Thomas and Matthew, Thomas is the simplest here and Matthew the more elaborate. Matthew adds a commentary, originating from a teaching.
Based on this rule of thumb you can conclude that Thomas was first and Matthew’s text a later extension. Thomas is then closer to Jesus than Matthew.
Let’s compare a different text, about becoming as a child. Thomas states:
A man, old of days, will not hesitate
to ask a little child of seven days old
about the place of life
and he will live.
For many first will be last,
and they will be one.
Why the seven days? On the eighth day, boys were circumcised in Jewish culture. On the seventh day such a child still has its ‘original face’, as it is each called in Thomas.
Matthew 18 says something very different about becoming like a child:
“Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
The difference in atmosphere is again unmistakeable. Thomas means to say that one can return to the uncircumcised child in you. But according to Matthew you have to become humble, humble as a child, and again he links that with a threat, namely that you can only enter the kingdom as a humble person. Otherwise…
The ecclesiastical creed established at the Council of Nicaea in 325 states that Jesus will return at the end of time, “to judge the living and the dead.” That is called ‘the last judgment’ or also the ‘apocalypse. You will not find anything about the latter judgment in Thomas, but you will find it in the New Testament. In the New Testament you will even find many passages with the expectation that the Apocalypse is near. Did Jesus himself claim that? That remains to be seen.
If you want to know what is new in an old text, thus representing the original view, you have to cut out everything that has been said before in other texts. You don’t make school by telling something that everyone already knows. You make school with a surprising new vision. So very simple, if you want to know what the new is, you have to remove the old.
Well, that whole story of the Last Judgment comes from the Old Testament Bible book of Daniel. So this is an old view. And that story was very popular in the time of Jesus. Also in the texts that were found back at Qumran and that date from the century before Jesus, we find the expectation that a final battle will soon take place between the powers of good and evil, whereby the evil will be driven out ‘for eternal destruction ‘.
That view is therefore not originally from Jesus. That those fish in Matthew refer to the sinners who will go to hell at all times, you can delete that if you want to know what Jesus really said.
But that you could become like a child of blessing days old, that was new, to Jewish ears even shockingly new, never said before.
It was nothing less than an undermining of the Jewish traditions. That must have attracted attention and led to protests. So that is most likely from Jesus. And so there is much more in Thomas that has never been said before, and of which it is therefore likely that it belongs to Jesus himself.
Like that New Testament stuff about the Apocalypse, and the threats of hell and damnation, those are later additions using older texts that have nothing to do with the original message of Jesus.
It is tragic and grave injustice that a man who called for charity, even for your enemy, was made in the New Testament a ruthless judge who, at the end of time, would send the majority of mankind into an eternal fire.
But if we delete that and thereby remove the fear of the final judgment, of hell and damnation, what is left? Love! That is the core message of Jesus, nothing more and nothing less. Darrin, there is no difference between the New Testament and the Gospel of Thomas.
Naastenliefde – Nächstenliebe – charity
Naasten – Geliebte – loved ones
Liefde – Liebe – Love