Cobb

This is interesting--and something I know little about.

Funny you should mention Thomas, because another gospel supposedly is showing up. I think you may like that blog.

I also read recently about a new technique that may be able to read or scan the burned scrolls in Vesuvius. I would love to know what comes out of that treasure trove.

Don't feel bad -- it's not just you. Contrarian or not, Thomas rectifies a few answers to nagging questions for me as well.

Then again, my inquisitive nature has gotten me in trouble more times than I can count over the years. I think part of that reconciling is more of a maturity level that some people find themselves coming to.

Contrary to what many evangelicals would insist (and I've been in my share of arguements over that), it certainly is not heretic to inquire and to seek.

There are dozens if not hundreds of non-canonical Christian texts. Of the ones we don't hear about, my favorite is "The Acts of Paul & Thecla."

BTW.
Faith is what you belive. For me, "God is Love and them that dwell in God, dwell in Love and God in them." 1 John

John is also what makes gnosticism possible. It is a powerful book, but it also skirts dangerously close to what was even then a profoundly troubling heresy.

There is a whole bunch of really great scholarship on the synoptics, but the scholarship on John (at least what I have found) stands, like the gospel itself, apart from the rest, and is difficult to find and even more difficult to read.

may i suggest authors karen armstrong, marcus borg (who has an interesting "portrait of jesus" website: http://www.united.edu/portrait/) and john dominic crossan. sellect titles as you're moved, and draw your own conclusions or heresy (choice)

Be Well

PS: love your blog. can a "liberal" do that?

Love is non-partisan. We try to keep Tom DeLay away from it.

Karen Armstrong was the first to challenge my orthodoxy, as it was. It is her understanding of the errors fundamentalism which informs mine. I'll check out the others.

I caught Pagels interview on NPR last week(Terry Gross's show, I think)and this subject really caught interest. I knew that there were other gospels out there that were not included in the canon, but I know nothing about who/what they are. Thanks for the links on this.

Synchronicity alert: Just as I click the link to see what Cobb has been up to for the last couple of weeks, the doorbell rings. I answer. Federal Express is dropping off my Amazon shipment from last week. Top of the pile? The Gnostic Gospel of St. Thomas.

Karasstime, baby.

How secret can it be? From the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917):

Gospel of St. Thomas

There are two Greek and two Latin redactions of it, differing much from one another. A Syriac translation is also found. A Gospel of Thomas was known to many Fathers. The earliest to mention it is St. Hippolytus (155-235), who informs us that it was in use among the Naasenes, a sect of Syrian Gnostics, and cites a sentence which does not appear in our extant text. Origen relegates it to the heretical writings. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says it was employed by the Manichæans; Eusebius rejects it as heretical and spurious. It is clear that the original Pseudo-Thomas was of heterodox origin, and that it dates from the second century; the citations of Hippolytus establish that it was palpably Gnostic in tenor. But in the extant Thomas Gospel there is no formal or manifest Gnosticism. The prototype was evidently expurgated by a Catholic hand, who, however, did not succeed in eradicating all traces of its original taint. The apocryphon in all its present forms extravagantly magnifies the Divine aspect of the boy Jesus. In bold contrast to the Infancy narrative of St. Luke, where the Divinity is almost effaced, the author makes the Child a miracle-worker and intellectual prodigy, and in harmony with Docetism, leaves scarcely more than the appearance of humanity in Him. This pseudo-Gospel is unique among the apocrypha, inasmuch as it describes a part of the hidden life of Our Lord between the ages of five and twelve. But there is much that is fantastic and offensive in the pictures of the exploits of the boy Jesus. His youthful miracles are worked at times out of mere childish fancy, as when He formed clay pigeons, and at a clap of His hands they flew away as living birds; sometimes, from beneficence; but again from a kind of harsh retribution.

Personally, I was kind of hoping the Acts of Philip were real, but it reads like a bad fairy tale.