Among early writings about Jesus of Nazareth was a short book written by an unknown author named Thomas. In it, Jesus is portrayed as a capricious, Damien-like divine brat who eventually learns to use his great power for the good of mankind. While the book is not part of the biblical canon, it was quite widespread and beloved by many early Christians. This is just one example of a virtual library of books, which were being circulated around the Palestine region within 200 years of the life and death of Jesus. It took decades of debate, rebuking, and even bloodshed before the prototype of modern Christianity was ironed out and the idea of a uniform holy text could be embraced. Reading it from a historical perspective, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and its apparent popularity in ancient times gives insight into the various ways early Christians understood and interpreted the significance of the life and deeds of Jesus Christ. Though eventually scrapped by the church, the events of this and other so-called apocryphal books would later be integrated into Islamic holy texts.
Enjoy:
http://www.cygnus-study.com/pageinf.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hi John:
There are two Gospel of Thomas texts-- this one was never popular among early Christians. Among certain herterodox groups, both this one you cite and the other Gospel of Thomas did have some popularity, but it was by no means a widespread Christian thing. Books actually written by apostles (or their close associates) always carried authoritative weight. When the churches got together to debate the cannon, there were some books on the margin, but most books not in today’s cannon (like the one you have cited here) were immediately thrown out as obviously heretical.
I've heard the argument before that early Christianity was a hodge-podge of competing sects, with an austere and conservative (and even violent) sect winning out in the end, which became orthodox Christianity. That's what you'll hear if you tune into the History Channel, for example. But it's a minority opinion and very much a fad (as far as I can tell). . .kind of a way to generate interest in texts that no one would likely read otherwise. (And if no one cared, then no one would buy Professor So-and-so's book on it!) We did a lot of study on these theories and others on what is accepted cannon in seminary and I can tell you they are full of holes. Critical scholars make outrageous claims that can easily be disproved by careful reading of the text and knowledgeable translation. Yet they are being taught as fact in most universities.
But reading the text, you can see its appeal. Different Gnostic (or other heretical) books have Jesus doing some really wild things or sharing mystical paradoxes about divine secrets. They make for an entertaining read, even if they are pure fiction and probably written for devious purposes.
Well, as I understand it, the only reason people lump the Gospel of Thomas and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas together is because they have the word Thomas in the title, when in reality, as far as authorship goes, they share as much in common as Saul of Tarsus and a saltine cracker. But seriosuly, biblical apocrypha kind of reminds me of Star Wars fan fiction; fun to read, but the true nerds only accept the original three episode cannonical account of Saint Lucas.
In this discussion, I voite Julie as the winner. Way to go, Julie. You really know a lot about this subject. Getting your Masters in Biblical Theology has really given you authority in this type of discussion.
Personally, I like the 66 books we have in our Bible. I'm glas I'm not a college or university student in this time of history. They are really confusing the students. My own faith is much simpler than that, but at least I know where I'll be when I leave this earth.
Come on, other readers, who do you vote for in this discussion? Weigh in!
God bless,
Grammy/Aunt Fay
Are we discussing whether the Gospel of Thomas and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas were written by the same Thomas? I thought I was just presenting some material and Aunt Julie was weighing in as a biblical scholar.
And I wasn't actually calling Christians nerds, it was supposed to be an incredibly clever analogy
And clever you are, my friend. I got it =).
As kind as your and Aunt Fay's remarks were of me, to hear the words "scholar" or "authority" in the same sentence as my name makes me shudder a bit. I actually knew a lot more BEFORE I went to seminary-- and mostly discovered once I was there how very much there is to learn.
Thanks. I personally tend to subscribe more to the so-called liberal scholar's view of the history of Christianity, which you eloquently criticize in your comments, so it's interesting to hear a well-crafted dissenting opinion.
PS: The truly educated person makes his own conclusions and doesn't just believe everything his professor tells him. If you can't do that, you don't belong in college.
Post a Comment