The Apostle Thomas in the Gospel of John and the Thomas Tradition

The Apostle Thomas in the Gospel of John and the Thomas Tradition

COURSE: Religion 517 “Studies in John”

Dr. Francis Fallon

Eleanor M. Cooley

April 18, 1979

In this paper I am proposing the hypothesis that John, in writing his gospel, was polemicizing against the Thomas tradition as it has been preserved in the Gospel of Thomas and subsequent works. The Gospel of Thomas, as found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in its complete (Coptic) form, is a sayings source much like many scholars have proposed for "Q".[i] As a result, serious study has been done comparing it to the synoptic gospels, with little reference to the Gospel of John. A few efforts have been made to see echoes or similarities in some of the Logia of Thomas to John,[ii] but all the arguments go on the presupposition that Thomas had, or was aware of, John, not the other way around. I propose to show that the position of the Apostle Thomas which John presents in his gospel is consistently detrimental to the image of Thomas as presented in the Thomas tradition and furthermore that John knew this tradition and was attempting to refute it.

Around 1900 three Greek papyrus fragments of sayings of Jesus were found at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. These were credited to early gospels known only or primarily by name (Hebrews, Egyptian, etc.) until the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas in 1946 at Nag Hammadi. These Greek fragments date from the end of the second or early third century and have been copied from an earlier manuscript, as can be shown from slips of the pen.[iii]

The Coptic text found at Nag Hammadi had a separate history of its own before it was copied in the fourth century. Even with the little that we have in the Greek, one can see rearrangement of the text between the Greek and the Coptic. Papyrus Ox. 1, lines 24-31 read:

“Jesus says: <wh>erer there are

…..without? God, and

where one is alone,

I say: I am with

Him. Lift up the stone

and there thou wilt find me;

cleave the wood, and I

am there.”[iv]

In the Coptic text this double saying is divided into two logia which appear in different passages. Logion 30 says:

"Jesus has said:

Where there are three gods, there

they are gods; where there are two or one, there I am

with him.”[v]

While Logion 77 attaches the second saying to a different or expanded form:

"Jesus

has: said: I am the light that

is above them all. I am the All: the

All has emerged from me, and the All

has attained to me. Cleave a piece of wood - I

am there: lift a stone up

will find me there."[vi]

This one example should show us that we cannot say the Coptic text is a copy of the Greek but rather that "both logia bear upon them clear traces of recasting at second hand."[vii]

By the time the Coptic version of the Gospel of Thomas was written there was a clear move in a Gnosticizing direction when compared to the Greek fragments. The opening lines of the Greek read:

"These are the words which < ….. these words …… >

Jesus the Living One spoke and <… will he not taste.”[viii]

and Thomas and spoke <….

Logion 1 of the Coptic version reads:

"These are the secret words which Jesus the Living One

has spoken and which Didymus

Judas Thomas has written. And he has said: He who

has found the interpretation of these words will

not taste (reach) death."[ix]

There is an evident shift towards esoteric and Gnostic ideas in using the word "secret" as opposed to simply "words" in the Greek.

By the same token Pap. Ox. 654, lines 27-31 read:

"Jesus says

lies (before) thine eye and ….

from thee, will be revealed …. nothing

is hidden that will not be mani fest,

and buried that will not be raised up(?)”[x]

Line 31 "and buried that will not be raised up (?)" is totally left out of the Coptic text. The completion of line 31 is suggested by the first part of the line in the Greek and by a 5th or 6th century Christian burial shroud found also at Oxyrhynchus.[xi] The Coptic edition of this saying, found in Logion 5, shows the concept of that which is buried being (as it is conjectured) raised up, as being totally dropped, in line with the gnostic idea of the evil nature of the body.[xii]

To conclude, by comparing the relevant Oxyrhynchus fragments with the text of the Coptic manuscript only small differences are shown, but the divergences are significant. It seems probable that sometime between the Greek and Coptic versions, the Gospel of Thomas had been altered in a Gnosticizing direction.[xiii]

Henri-Charles Puech writes: "I should say that the Gospel of Thomas does not seem to me to be either exclusively or originally the work of a gnostic. Undoubtedly some passages have a gnostic ring, and there is scarcely anything which could not be adopted, or has not been adopted, to gnostic doctrine. Nevertheless we must take account of a fact which I have been able to establish on the basis of certain indications, slight but of sufficient weight: there existed at least two recensions, two versions, of this work, one of which was read by orthodox Christians--as late as the 5th or 6th century, while the other circulated in Gnostic and Manichean circles.”[xiv] He goes on to point out that the heterodox' version differed from the 'Christian! in changes of detail and certain omissions (see above) to remove the inconsistency between a saying attributed to Christ and Gnostic' dogma. The copyist at Nag Hammadi, however, allowed certain things to stand which would be difficult to explain if the document had originally been composed by a pure gnostic. For example, the position of James the Just, several Jewish-Christian traits, (see below), and maybe the statement in Logion 28 that Jesus "appeared in the flesh." Even with the gnostic revision it seems probable that the heterodox' version of the Gospel, as presented by the Nag Hammadi manuscript and the Manichean quotations, is only a revision of the 'orthodox' or 'more orthodox' versions and must therefore be later. Puech also says that there is ground for associating this first version with a group which professed a rather bizarre Christianity, strongly tinged with Encratism, which was widespread in Syria and Egypt in the second century.[xv]

G. Quispel goes farther, believing that the Gospel of Thomas is definitely an Encratitic document, based on the definition of encratism as found in the third book of the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria.[xvi] According to Encratitic belief, which was one Christian approach to the problem of love, sex, and wholeness, the male is only half of the human being. Eve was taken out of Adam while he slept, so he lost completeness. The fall, then, is the differentiation of sexes, but Christ has come to restore this primitive unity.[xvii] In this view, only the unmarried can be saved, marriage is fornication, bearing children is to bring death, and only the true Mother regenerates them for eternal life. There is also the idea that resurrection has already taken place (this John and Thomas have in common).[xviii] "The activity of Tatian in Eastern Syria and the Acts of Thomas attest to the existence of Encratites in the Syrian Church of Edessa. The Gospel of Thomas proves that they were already there about 140 A.D.”[xix]

Bauer was the first to recognize this heterodox nature of the Syrian Church. "The investigation of these beginnings for the history of Christianity in Edessa has made us aware of a foundation that rests on an unmistakably heretical basis.”[xx] Since the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas, Koester has proven to his satisfaction "that the Thomas tradition was the oldest form of Christianity in Edessa, antedating the beginning of both Marcionite and Orthodox Christianity in that area.”[xxi] Quispel maximizes the bounds in time and place of these heterodox tendencies. "We must consider the Aramaic-speaking Christendom of Palestine and Syria as a special unity with its own traditions, strongly influenced by it Jewish surroundings and not very interested in the ontological interpretation of Christianity which developed on Greek soil. This isolation explains, for example, why the concept of the Holy Ghost as a mother, a concept well attested in the Jewish Christian Gospel tradition and quite understandable in a religion of Semitic language, continued to persist everywhere in Syria even into the fourth century.”[xxii] Koester draws narrower boundaries than Quispel concerning the church in Syria, yet has "no doubt that for several centuries Christianity in Edessa was dominated by the controversies between several major heresies.”[xxiii] Thus a heterodox Facratitic Christianity is widely acknowledged at an early date in Edessa.

In the midst of the heterodox milieu of the church at Edessa there appears to have been a strong Jewish-Christian element. The Interpreters Dictionary points out these elements as being: (1) the belief that James the Righteous and not Peter would be great among Christians after Jesus' death (Log. 12 preserved in the Gospel of Thomas), (2) that the sabbath should be observed (Log. 27 preserved in the Gospel of Thomas), and (3) that the pharisees have received the keys of knowledge, i.e. the oral Jewish law which makes possible the application of the written law (Log. 39 preserved in the Gospel of Thomas).[xxiv]

The placing of the Gospel of Thomas at Edessa as place of origin is certainly not unanimous. Bertil Gärtner says, "The difficulties of trying to determine the date at which the Gospel of Thomas cane into being, and the place where it happened, are almost insurmountable. . .There exists no absolute criteria for determining the definite milieu which produced the Gospel.”[xxv] Koester has pointed out in considerable detail the close or identical milieu of the origin of the Gospel of John in his extensive work on the name Didymos Judas Thomas which is confined to the Thomas tradition and the Gospel of John (see below). I believe the Edessa vicinity is the only viable proposal for both the Thomas tradition and the Gospel of John.

From this Syrian heterodox milieu come three documents which use the name of the Apostle Thomas. The first was the Gospel of Thomas which "is not a 'gospel' in the proper sense, or at least it is not a work of the usual type of the canonical, apocryphal or Gnostic gospels. It is no other and no less than a collection of 114 logia, the most extensive collection of sayings of Jesus, or sayings attributed to Jesus, that has yet come down to us independently of the New Testament tradition.”[xxvi] The Greek fragments, which are a poor second hand copy made in Egypt of a document originally composed in Eastern Syria, date from around 200. A commonly accepted dating for the written Gospel of Thomas, as it now stands, is ea. 140 A.D.

The Acts of Thomas is a Christian-Grostie variety of the Hellenistic-Oriental romance.[xxvii] It appears to have been written in Edessa or as neighboring area in the first half of the third century. The Acts of Thomas echoes the prologue of the Gospel or uses something so similar that we cannot distinguish between it. "On the whole we may conclude that the Acts are dependent on the Gospel.”[xxviii]

The Book of Thomas the Contender (Athlete) also comes from Edessa in the first half of the third century. Its literary character is that of the Gnostic revelation discourse with Jesus giving special knowledge to Thomas.[xxix]

The Collective tradition of these three works would have appeared to have contained the following: All show encratitie tendencies which are more uniform and pronounced within the material than any Gnosticizing material which may be present. All give preeminence to Thomas as the recipient of special revelation. All three seem more intent on the conquest of lust and erotic desires than any rejection of either the physical self or the physical creation. sections of the life of Christ are essentially non-existent in all three. The sacraments of the Great Churek' are absent and the figure of Simon Peter is severely downgraded (Log. 13, Gospel of Thomas).

As late as Origen and Eusebius an unsettled category existed regarding writings from the early church which some accepted as canonical and some did not.[xxx] Other than the Apostolic Fathers, there is very little information from the 'Great Church' until the time of Justin Martyr (ea. 150). Koester is correct in insisting that "the early controversies, reflected in the New Testament may not be without relation to the great battle against heresy in the subsequent centuries. New sources from recent discoveries, first of all the (Coptic) Gospel of Thomas, must be considered on a par with the canonical writings, and they cannot be depreciated by reason of their non-canonical nature.”[xxxi]

In any attempt to compare the Gospel of Thomas with the Gospel of John certain intangibles of dating are encountered. Concerning the Gospel of Thomas Gurtner has observed that "there has been a fair measure of agreement over the date 140-150, and no one has shown any desire to refer it to an earlier period.”[xxxii] R. Wilson points out that a date not later than 140 is likely on the basis o both the Greek of the Gospel of Thomas and the lack of clear Johannine allusions.[xxxiii] With patristic evidence added to this assessment, "the nucleus of Thomas should probably be placed nearer to the time of Ignatius than to that of Justin Martyr."[xxxiv]

Though there is no direct quotation of the Gospel of John by the fathers before ca. 160,[xxxv] there are extant manuscript fragments, papyrus 52, that date from ca. 140.[xxxvi] Elder John of Ephesus and the letters attributed to him are known by Fapias and Polycarp from shortly after the time of Ignatius. Ignatius, however, does not attribute any Gospel to John, though he attributed Revelation to him. Certainly the Gospel of John was not connected to Ephesus by Ignatius. There are language motifs and themes of antype similar to John in Ignatius.[xxxvii] Certainly, for purposes of comparison, we can place Thomas and John in the same milieu and no more than four decades apart.

The Gospels of John and Thomas have in common the themes of living water, light, and eternal life now (realized eschatology). In leg 13 the concept of being intoxicated from the bubbling (living) spring measured out by Jesus is present,[xxxviii] and in Logion 108 Jesus says, "He who will drink from my mouth will become like me." These ideas are found in John 4:14,[xxxix] and John 7:37 concerning the living water given by Jesus. There are differences, of course, in how one chooses to interpret the meaning in the respective material. Light and darkness are common to both. Logion 77 has the strongest parallels with John where Jesus says "It is I who am the light which is above them all." This brings an immediate recollection of John 8:12, where Jesus says "I am the light of the world." The rest of logion 77 reads: "..it is I who am the All. From me did the All come forth and unto me did the All extend." This gives an echo of John's prologue.

A very strong similarity is realized eschatology. Logion 1 says, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death." In Legion 18 we find "Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning, he will know the end and not experience death." Logien 51 has this idea when, in response to a question, Jesus says "What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it." John has this same theme beginning with 3:18, "He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already." In John 8:51 and 11:26 we also find close parallels in that those believing in Jesus, or keeping his word will either never see death or have eternal life already. Again, the interpretation of the means of victory over death is different (belief and resurrected presence for John, knowledge for Thomas) but the presence of realized eternity is the same.

Another aspect both John and Thomas have in common is their use by Gnostics. Koester points out that the Gospel of John was rejected by Justin Martyr because the Valentinian Gnostics loved it.[xl] In fact, the first known commentary on John was written by a Valentinian Gnostic named Heracleon.[xli] With respect to the Gospel of Thomas, it is agreed by all scholars that it was used by Gnostics, and its very presence at Nag Hammadi is adequate proof.

Another point of contact between John and Thomas is the Hellenistic discourse style. It would be obviously untrue, according to Gartner, to say that this style of sayings in a question-answer pattern between Jesus and the disciples is to be found only in Gnostic literature. It has counterparts in other literature (beginning with Plato, also found at Nag Hammadi) and was used by both Matthew 28:21-22 and John 13:36-14:24. The Gospel of Thomas shows a marked preference for the dialogue form of expression favored by Gnostics, which may indicate that it came out of a Gnosticizing milieu. John, by the same token, could have used this form also so that his gospel would make its impact in a similar milica.[xlii]

In Logien 43, in response to a question about who he is, Jesus says. "You do not realize who I am from what I say to you, but you have become like the Jews…” In legion 77 Jesus said, "It is I who am the light...It is I who am the All." In legion 61 Jesus says, in answer to Salome, "I am He who exists from the undivided." These statements sound much like John's 'I am sayings, though this is weak in Legion 43. Also in Logien 43, Thomas refers to "the Jews" in quite the same fashion as John does in 9:18.

A final point of contact is the use of the name Judas Thomas or Didymes Judas Thomas. The only Gospel which knows this tradition for Thomas' name, and uses it in all but one time in referring to Thomas, is John's Gospel. Keester points out that, "the author of the (Coptic) Gospel of Thomas is named "the twin (Didymos) Judas Thomas," and in the book of Thomas the Contender Jesus' words (written down by Matthew) are being spoken to Judas Thomas. This unique appellation of the Apostle Thomas has parallels only in the tradition of the Osrheene (Edessa).[xliii] Koester also says it would be misleading to speak of "Syria" in general since Matthew, from Western Syria, knows any the simple name Thomas for this Apostle (Matt. 10:3, following Mark).[xliv] Nowhere in the New Testament is there any obvious connection between the names Judas and Thomas. However, in relatively late Syrian manuscripts, instead of "Judas, not Iscariot," in John 14:22 there appears in Syrian "Judas Thomas," and in Syrian "Thomas." In an area other than Edessa, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas refers to the writer as "Thomas the Israelite.”[xlv] From this it can be assumed that the Judas Didymes Thomas tradition is a peculiar part of early Christianity in Edessa.[xlvi] Hence John referring to Thomas consistently as Didymos Thomas, indicates that he knew and shared this tradition, however narrow in local. All these points of contact are to varied and numerous to be explained by random chance. Their relationship requires a causal explanation. If John is not present in Thomas, and many scholars have attempted to show this, with very limited success, the converse must be considered.

Some consideration has already been given (see above) to various problems inherent in dating the Gospel of John. There appears to be a considerable area of disagreement among scholars on this topic. More precisely, "in critical scholarship, decisions regarding the questions of authorship, date, and place of writing have always been related to conclusions concerning the religious background and purpose in writing."[xlvii] The elements of Johannine style in Ignatius could be just as easily credited to either the work of the Elder er to the 'Great Church speaking out against developing heresies as they can be credited to the Gospel of John. It is very interesting that, while Polycarp and Papias both know the Elder's writing, neither one show any direct knowledge of the gospel attributed to John."[xlviii] It is difficult to conclusively prove the use, by the Fathers, of John's Gospel prior to the time of Justin Martyr, despite the demands of faith se te de.[xlix] This does not deny the accurate knowledge of Jerusalem and Judea of the mid-first century which contribute part of the source material for this gospel.[l]

"The Gospel of the Hebrews was known to Hegesippus and therefore must have originated in the first half of the second century."[li] Yet saying number four of the Gospel of the Hebrews is in a shorter and less polished form in Pap. Ox. 654 (Greek Thomas) which usually indicates the more original form. The Coptic gospel of Thomas presents a different chain with its own separate history at this point.[lii] On this information Koester prefers the Gospel of Hebrews depending upon the Gospel of Thomas. In addition he prefers the priority of Thomas because the Gospel of Themas migrated from Syria to Feypt before its apparent use in the Gospel of the Hebrews.[liii]

In Matthew 18:3 we have a saying of Jesus, "Truly I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven." This is the only synoptic gospel which preserves this idea of being converted, or becoming like a child in this way, though Mark and Luke use the child motif also. In the Gospel of Thomas, in response to a question about Jesus being revealed to them (the disciples), Jesus says "When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then will you see the Son of the Living One and you will not be afraid (Log. 37). In this the concept of becoming a child (innocent) has been developed and defined as being unashamed of nakedness before God (i.e., 2 return to the innocence of Adam before the fall (Gen 2:25). In the Gospel of the Egyptians, as quoted in Clement of Alexandria's "On Continence or on Castration" it says, "When you have trampled on the garment of shame and when the two become one and the male with the female (is) neither male nor female," the question Salone (a figure who also appears in the Gospel of Thomas) asks will be answered.[liv] There appears to be a literary progression from the innocence of the child (Matt.) to the sexual innocence of a child (Gospel of Thomas) to the shameful nature of the garment itself (whether seen as physical garment with Matthew and Thomas or as the garment of the physical self, which is a Gnostic interpretation). W. Schneemelcher gives the time of the composition for the Gospel of the Egyptians as most probably the first third of the second century.[lv]

The homily known as II Clement quotes materials used in the Gospel of Thomas as scripture.[lvi] The section quoted is what we now have in logion 22 dealing with "When the two shall be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male with the female, neither male nor female." Clement then goes on to exegete it with an orthodox Christian interpretation. In the same homily the author quotes canonical material from the Old Testament, the synoptic gospels and the Pauline letters, and exegetes them in the same way. Commonly only very short quotations are used. Therefore, the fact that only one fragment of the Logion of the Gospel of Thomas is quoted has no bearing on the completeness or uncompletedness of the Thomas tradition available to Clement. To be noted is that Clement is quoting it as scripture and that he speaks on behalf of the 'Great Church.' Before the discovery of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas at Nag Hammadi, scholars assigned this quote in Clement to the Gospel of the Egyptians.[lvii] With the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas it appears as his source. Clement has to be dated toward the middle of the second century,[lviii] probably from Rome, though that is really not certain.

Thus in terms of dating the Gospel of Thomas we have it used by II Clement around the middle of the second century on behalf of the Great Church; used by the Gospel of the Hebrews (a Jewish-Christian Gospel from Egypt) as quoted by Hegesippus probably before he arrived in Rome (ca. 154?);[lix] and used by the Gospel of the Egyptians (an Egyptian Gnostic work) in a more fully developed Gnostic direction, possibly as early as the first third of the second century. Thus, the Gospel of Thomas traveled very rapidly in all branches of Christianity and was in circulation earlier than the generally assigned date of 140 AD. The respective uncertainty of the date of the Gospel of John and the formation of the Gospel of Thomas have an overlap in time of some four or five decades. For the following section of the paper I am going to assume the priority of the Thomas tradition.

APPEARENCES OF THOMAS IN JOHN

In chapter 11 of the Gospel of John, at the raising of Lazarus, Thomas appears for the first time. In this passage, after a discourse on walking in the light (John 11:9-10) and the explanation that Lazarus is dead, vs. 16 reads: "Thomas, called the twin, said to his fellow disciples, 'let us also go, that we may die with him." Bultmann has the suggestion that Thomas' statement, which was directed to his companions, shows blind devotion and that it represents the first time the truth emerges that the disciples must accept the destiny of Jesus, a theme later developed in the farewell discourses.[lx] The converse, I believe in fact, is true. In the discourse of Jesus with Martha which fellows it is clear that rather than showing Thomas as heroic it shows Thomas as completely misunderstanding who Jesus is and what is involved in being his follower. The heart of the kerygma (for John's Gospel) is presented in John 11:25-27. "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and who ever lives and believes in ne shall never die." After this Christological statement Martha makes her confession of faith (vs. 27). Even though Thomas has a realized eschatological outlook as John does, the crucial issue is the requirement for not tasting death. For John, victory over death is through belief in Jesus. The power of the resurrection is for all who believe. In the Thomas tradition there was a definite set of requirements in order to have eternal life, i.e. interpretation of Jesus words (Leg. 1), celibacy (Log. 49 & 75), and perhaps esoteric knowledge as well (Leg. 108 & 111). In all of the Gospel of Thomas, even the raising up of the flesh apparently preserved in the Greek fragments, there exists no reference to Jesus' physical resurrection. The realized eschatology is personalized for the learner without regard to the saving act of Christ. For instance, in Logion 51: Jesus' disciples ask, "When will the repose of the dead come about and when will the new world come?" He said to them, "What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it." The book of Thomas the Contender follows in this same tradition. Both Ascension and the Day of Judgement are mentioned, but there is no mention of resurrection.[lxi] In this passage of John's Gospel there is a clear affirming of both the physical resurrection of Jesus and the openness to all who believe, in direct contradiction to the tradition of Thomas. Therefore John, having Thomas offer to die with Jesus immediately prior to Jesus' proclamation of the resurrection in both word and deed, is deliberately portraying Thomas and all who go with him, as going to death because they do not understand, have, or know the resurrection of Jesus or believe "in Him."

The next passage in which Thomas appears is in John 13:36-14:7. In John 13:36 Simon Peter says to Jesus, "Lord, where are you going?" Jesus says, "Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you shall follow afterward." Next is Peter's expressed desire to follow and a prophecy of his denial (13:37-38). In John 14:1-5, Jesus speaks of preparing a place and coming again to take them (the disciples) to himself and says, "you know the way where I am going" (14:4). At this point Thomas says, "Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?" Jesus answers, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; ne one comes to the Father, but by me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; hence forth you know Him and have seen Him." (14:5-7). In the above passage, Jesus answers Peter, saying he will follow later though new he cannot. Peter's response is accepted, even though denial lies ahead. There is a distinct misunderstanding credited to Thomas. Right after Jesus says "you know the way where I am going," Thomas says, "we don't know where, how can we know the way.' The answer Jesus gives Thomas is quite different than that given to Peter. He says, "I am the way, the truth and the life," indicating that exclusively within his own person lies the way to the Father. Jesus goes on to imply that Thomas does not know Jesus or the Father, and that henceforth he will know him (vs. 7). This stands over against the Thomas tradition which believed that, as Legion 3 points out, "When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known." The stress in the Gospel of Thomas is with the person's own efforts for liberation, but in John 14, as throughout John, the emphasis is in belief in Jesus himself and his showing the way to the Father. According to Bultmann, Thomas' question makes it clear that the disciples knowledge of his own way depends on knowledge of Jesus. Jesus' answer corrects mythological thinking.[lxii] In this insight, Bultmann is right in seeing John's Gospel as correcting the mythological thinking which Thomas is sharing. Bultmann lacks only the awareness of the Thomas tradition prior to John and to which John is responding.

Next, Thomas is found in the second account of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus (John 20:24-29). The first resurrection appearance Jesus makes to his disciples (vs. 19-23) includes his showing them his hands and side without their asking and, most importantly, giving them the Holy Spirit in the 'Great Church' understanding and the authority to forgive sims. In vs. 24, however, it is pointed out that Thomas was not present when Jesus appeared. Thus, it is to be noted that Thomas does not receive the Holy Spirit and the authority to forgive sins. In the Gospel of Thomas, the Holy Spirit is never referred to other than in Legion 101 where Jesus says: "My true Mother gave me life." In the Acts of Thomas when inviting to the Eucharist the "Holy Deve that bearest the twin young" (Jesus and Thomas?), the Spirit is invoked by saying, "come, hidden Mother."[lxiii] Thus the two understandings of the Holy Spirit are in tension with each other. The only reference to what might remotely be called ecclesiastical authority in the Gospel of Thomas is in Legion 12, where the disciples are told, "Wherever you are, you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being." It can be assumed that John is fully aware of the tradition first cited by Paul in Galatians that James the Righteous was not present in the initial resurrection appearances to which John is alluding. Thus John and Thomas are in clear and obvious contradiction for their sources of authority. The implications of. John's Gospel against. Thomas are heightened by any Gnosticizing interpretation given to John as Gärtner gives in John 20:22: "After the resurrection, when he breathed the Spirit into the Apostles, he blew away and separated the earthly like ash, and kindled the spark and quickened it. Not until they had been changed in this way could the apostles receive and mediate the true Gnosis.”[lxiv] Clearly the Gospel of John intends to make quite certain that whatever special words, knowledge, er authority given by Jesus in his first resurrection appearance, Thomas did not receive any.

In verse 25 Thomas demands to see and touch Jesus before he will believe in the physical reality of his resurrection. In this passage there is a concern for Docetism and perhaps incipient Gnosticism. As Ray Brown points out, Docetism is not a heresy in itself, but an attitude found in a number of heresies. Ignatius directs some polemic against it, as dees the elder and Colossians, so it can be assumed that it was present when John was writing his gospel.[lxv]

The Gospel of Thomas is itself of a mixed nature. In Legion 28 is the statement "I took my place in the midst of the world and I appeared to them in the flesh…” This is rather unique in the Thomas tradition, and there is disagreement as to whether it is truly a docetic statement. Quispel feels it is not docetic.[lxvi] Gärtner sees a striking discrepancy between Legion 28 and the New Testament text (for example, John 1:14). He basis his argument on the forms of the word dfqhn, used in Legion 28, saying that whenever it occurs it is used to express the revelation of someone or something from the supernatural sphere.[lxvii] However this may be, John apparently understood the Thomas tradition as docetic, for John is using the passage to picture Thomas as needing to physically touch the risen Lord as an act (statement) of faith.

Beginning at verse 26 is the appearance of Jesus to Thomas. This is not a redactors afterthought, as Ray Brown theorizes,[lxviii] but a conscious and deliberate effort to downgrade the earliness and authority of Thomas. Bultmann mentions one hypothesis; the story is directed against the hostile objection that the disciples did not see the risen Jesus but his twin brother, who was the dead image of him, therefore Jesus had to appear to him also.[lxix] This would go along with the later Thomas tradition making Thomas the identical twin of Jesus, However, in light of the consistently polemical usage of the Apostle Thomas, such an awareness of the details that appear relatively late in the Thomas tradition (Acts of Thomas) is not needed here.

The Lord instructs Thomas (vs. 27) to touch his hands and place his hand in his (the Lord's) side. This is unique to John's gospel. Probably the intent is to emphasize the anti-docetic role which John has devised for the Apostle Thomas. However, it maybe part of a sacramental statement in which John is opposing the Thomas tradition rather than the figure of Thomas himself. John is quite precise in having both water and bleed flow from Jesus' side. This would correspond to the very ancient custom of mixing water and wine in the Eucharistic offering. The Gospel of Thomas (Leg. 28) criticizes Jesus' followers for intoxication with wine while they refused water offered by Jesus. The Acts of Thomas has communion in the bread alone or associated with a cup of water. Only in later interpolations is wine inserted.[lxx] Thomas, being asked to place his hand in Jesus' side, is being asked to affirm the source of water-bleed (wine) mixed, and thus affirm orthodox practice against the Thomas tradition.

Thomas' confession which follows (vs. 28) is a highly developed Christological statement belonging to the latest, not the earliest stratum of New Testament thought.[lxxi] In this confession John ironically has Thomas make the most anti- docetic statement with the highest Christology of the whole gospel. As Bultmann points out, and rightly so, Jesus puts Thomas to shame even though Thomas demanded no other proof than what Jesus had freely offered the other disciples.[lxxii] Therefore, in this passage, the teaching of the Thomas tradition and the figure of the Apostle Thomas are combatted by the highly developed and possibly sacramental Christology which Thomas both confesses and portrays.

The last time the Apostle Thomas appears is John 21 where he is listed as being present, along with Simon Peter, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee and two other disciples, at a pest-resurrection appearance in Galilee. This epilogue, which contains the tradition of the appearances in Galilee, has generally been thought to be a later addition, though coming out of the same Johannine community as the rest of the Gospel.[lxxiii] Thomas' presence in this epilogue confirms his presence when authority is given to Simon Peter. The point of this epilogue may have more to do with the single unique appearance (in John's Gospel) of the sons of Zebedee. The figure of James (Gospel of Thomas, Leg. 12) is widespread in later Gnostic literature without distinction as to James the son of Zebedee, James the son of Alpheus, or James the Righteous.[lxxiv] In this epilogue John is including Thomas along with others whose presence may be important to legitimatize the pre-eminence of Simon Peter.

In conclusion, John and Thomas have sufficient similarities in concepts, nomenclature, and vocabulary to have more than a causal connection. If Thomas used John there should be some indication, but "the fact that there is not a single verbatim citation of John indicates that this contact was not direct."[lxxv] If there is a connection as both Koester[lxxvi] and Brown point out, and the dependence is not of Thomas on John, then it is likely that the option completely over looked by these scholars exists; John was influenced by the Thomas tradition. I have shown that the role of the Apostle Thomas in John's Gospel has put Thomas in a detrimental light. Each and every appearance of the Apostle Thomas in the Gospel of John constitutes an illustration in direct contradiction to the materials of the Thomas tradition. Therefore I believe that John knew the Thomas tradition and was polemicizing against it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

ARTICLES

Endnotes

  1. 1 Helmut Koester, "ΓΝΩΜΑΙ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΟΙ· The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity," Harvard Theological Review, (Vol. 58, 1965) 295-296. Hereafter footnoted as: H. Koester, "The Origin and Nature. ↩
  2. see particularly: Raymond E. Brown's article, "The Gospel of Thomas and St. John's Gospel," New Testament Studies. 9 (1963) 155-177 ↩
  3. Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. I (ed by Wilhelm Schneemelcher; trans. and Edited by R. McL. Wilson; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963) 98-99. Hereafter footnoted as: Hennecke, N. T. A. I or II. ↩
  4. Hennecke, N. T. A., I, 108 ↩
  5. Hennecke, N. T. A., I, 109 ↩
  6. Hennecke, N. T. A., I, 109 ↩
  7. Hennecke, N. T. A., I, 98, 108 ↩
  8. Hennecke, N. T. A., I, 100 ↩
  9. Hennecke, N. T. A., I, 100 ↩
  10. Hennecke, N. T. A., I, 102 ↩
  11. Hennecke, N. T. A., I, 300 ↩
  12. Hennecke, N. T. A., I, 103.306 ↩
  13. Hugh Mentifiere and H. E. W. Turner, Thomas and the Evangelists, (Studies in Biblical Theology, #35; Naperville, Ill.: Alec K. Allenson, Inc., 1962) 43-44 ↩
  14. Hennecke, N. T. A., I, 305-306 ↩
  15. Hennecke, N. T. A. I, 306 ↩
  16. G. Quispel, "Gnosticism and the New Testament," Vigliae Christianae (Amsterdam), #19 (Feb., 1965) 68 ↩
  17. Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, (Ed. by Keith Crim, Et. Al.; Nashville; Abingdon Press, 1976) supplementary Vol,, 905 ↩
  18. G. Quispel, "Gesticism. 69 ↩
  19. G. Quispel, "Gnosticism.. 69 ↩
  20. Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Farliest Christianity, (Londen: S.C.M. Press, Ltd., 1972) 43 ↩
  21. H. Koester, "The Origin and Nature..” # 293 ↩
  22. G. Quispel, "Gnosticism... #66 ↩
  23. H. Keester, "The Origin and Nature. .," 290 ↩
  24. Interpreter's Dictionary, Supp. Vol.,902 ↩
  25. Bertil Gartner, The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas, (Trans. by Eric J. Sharpe; London: Collins, 1961) 271 ↩
  26. Hennecke, N. T. A, I, 284-285 ↩
  27. Hernecke, N. T. A., II, 428 ↩
  28. Hennecke, N. T. A. I, 287 ↩
  29. James M. Robinson, Gen. Ed., The Nag Hammadi Library, (Trans. by members of the Coptic Gnostic Library Project of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity: San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1977) 188-194 ↩
  30. Hennecke, N. T. A. I, 39 ↩
  31. H. Koester, "The Origin and Nature. .." 283 ↩
  32. Gartner, Theology of the Gos. of Th., 271 ↩
  33. R. McL. Wilson, Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, (London: A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd., 1960) 146 ↩
  34. R. Wilson, Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, 147 ↩
  35. Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, (Ed. by George A. Buttrick, et. al., Nashville, N.Y.: Abingdon Press, 1962) Vol. II, 944 ↩
  36. Interpreter's Dictionary, Vol. IV, 595 ↩
  37. Interpreter's Dictionary, Vol. II, 934; See also: Ignatius to the Romans, 7 ↩
  38. J. Robinson; Nag Hammadi Library, II, 2, "The Gospel of Thomas," 118-130; hereafter cited in the text by Legion. ↩
  39. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, R. S.V., (ed. by Herbert G. May and Bruce M. Metzger, N. Y.: Oxford Univ. Press, 1973); Hereafter cited by verses in the text. ↩
  40. H. Keester, "The Origin and Nature. ., “ 304 ↩
  41. Interpreter's Dictionary, Vol. II, 944 ↩
  42. Gartner, Theology of the Gospel of Thomas, 26 ↩
  43. H. Koester, "The Origin and Nature..”# 291 ↩
  44. H. Keester, "The Origin and Nature. .” 291; see also: H-Ch. Puech in N. T. A, I, 286ff ↩
  45. O. Cullmann in N. T. A., I, 286ff ↩
  46. H. Keester, "The Origin and Nature. .” 292 ↩
  47. Howard Kee, Franklin Young, and Karlfried Freehlich, Understanding the New Testament, 3rd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1973) 341 ↩
  48. Interpreter's Dictionary, Vol. II, 944; see also: Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, 209 ↩
  49. The Jerene Biblical Commentary, ed. by Raymond E. Brown, S. S., J.A. Fitzmeyer, S.J., and Ronald E. Murphy, O. Carn. (Eaglewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, inc., 1968) 416 ↩
  50. The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 415 ↩
  51. Hennecke, N. T. A., I, 163 ↩
  52. Hennecke, N. T. A., I, 160 ↩
  53. H. Koester, "The Origin and Nature..” #294 ↩
  54. Hennecke, N. T. A., I. 168 ↩
  55. Hennecke, N. T. A., I, 178 ↩
  56. II Clement 12 as found in: J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (ed. and completed by J. R. Harmer, Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker House Books, 1956) 48 ↩
  57. Interpreter's Dictionary, Vol. I, 649 ↩
  58. Interpreter's Dictionary, Vol. I, 649 ↩
  59. A New Eusebius, (ed. by J. Stevenson; N. Y.: Macmillan Cemp., 1957) 73, 121, 401 ↩
  60. Ridolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John, a Commentary, (trans. by G. R. Beasley-Murray, ed. by R. W. N. Heare and J. K. Riches; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971) 400 ↩
  61. J. Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, II, 138, 23 and II, 143, 7 & 8 ↩
  62. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 604-605 ↩
  63. Hennecke, N. T. A., II, 470 ↩
  64. Gartner, Theology of the Gospel of Thomas, 80-81 ↩
  65. Raymond E. Brown, S. S., The Gospel According to John, Vel I (The Anchor Bible; Garden City, N. Y. Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1966) LXXVI ↩
  66. G. Quispel, "Gnosticism...." 70 ↩
  67. Gartner, Theology of the Gospel of Thomas, 142 ↩
  68. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Vol II, 1024 ↩
  69. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 694 ↩
  70. Hennecke, N. T. A, II, 438 ↩
  71. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Vol. II, 1032 ↩
  72. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 695-696 ↩
  73. Jerome Biblical Commentary, 464 ↩
  74. Gartner, Theology of the Gospel of Thomas, 57 ↩
  75. R. Brown, "The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John," 174-175 ↩
  76. H. Keester, "The Origin and Nature..." 296n ↩