Beyond Belief

Encouraged by the spirited discussion in the comments to my earlier post on the Gospel of Thomas, I dug up and read a copy of Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (Random House, 2003) by Elaine Pagels. I was surprised. From the title, I was expecting sort of a critical indictment of orthodox Christian views, using the "secrets" from Thomas to critque orthodox "belief." In fact, it is a crisp, clear review of early Christian history, with an emphasis on the slow development of the canon, the problematic role of Iraneus, and the fate of the Gospel of Thomas. Great book, lousy title.

In Pagels' treatment, the creeds of the 4th century were the culmination of a battle for power and authority in the early Church. That battle also resulted in the marginalization of "heretical" branches of Christianity, derided as "gnostics" by Iraneus and other orthodox leaders, as well as the eclipse of certain writings that were accepted as legitimate Christian writings by some groups but not, in the end, by the orthodox. The Gospel of Thomas was among the rejected writings.

The Gospel of John, of course, differs from the three "synoptic" gospels, for example viewing Jesus as fully informed of his messianic and divine role from the very beginning of his ministry. John shows Jesus delivering long, symbolic sermons rather than pithy epigrams and colorful parables. The Gospel of John, however, sounds remarkably like the text of the Gospel of Thomas in some places, often using similar language and images. "Both Thomas and John, for example, apparently assume that the reader already knows Mark and the others tell, and each claims to go beyond that story and reveal what Jesus taught in private."

But John (meaning the text and those who supported it) did not see eye to eye with Thomas (again, meaning the text and those who supported it). Where John depicts Jesus as the light of the world to whom each must look for salvation, Thomas has Jesus teaching that each person is a light unto themselves and must tap that inner light in order to achieve what we would now term spiritual growth. Followers of Thomas had a tendency to follow their own inner light wherever it led, often in creative directions that worked against the centralization and consolidation desired by leaders of the oft-beleaguered Christian communities scattered across the Roman world. John was, among other things, an indirect attack on the Thomas Christians and their writings. In John, Thomas is depicted as "doubting Thomas," the apostle who was not present when the resurrected Jesus appeared to his apostles, and John reports several deprecating exchanges between Jesus and Thomas. In contrast, John the apostle is depicted as "the beloved disciple" who has a special relationship with Jesus, bolstering the claim that the "secret teachings" presented in John are legitimate as compared to the teachings held out in Thomas.

It appears that gnostic Christians weren't heretics until aggessive orthodox leaders of the third and fourth century made them so. On the other hand, while gnostic Christians may sound like clever elaborators of basic Christian doctrines to us, or even as creative intellectuals to some, they no doubt came across as dividers and dissenters to those tasked with leading Christian communities. Gnostics might have been Christian, but they were problems, not solutions, in an age when Christian leaders had plenty of problems from outside the Church to contend with. Gnostics didn't have many friends in high places. Thus, when Constantine put his money on the Christians in the 4th century, the power that flowed to orthodox Christian leaders quickly moved gnostic Christians first to the margins and then completely outside the borders of the new official, catholic (i.e., universal) Church. In short order it was good-bye Thomas, to such a complete extent that the text was lost for 1500 years.

That's pretty much the storyline of the book. An LDS reader follows the tale, I suspect, with a good deal more sympathy than the average "every Bible word inspired" Evangelical, to whom the surprising diversity of Christian teachings and writings of the second century offers something of a puzzle and a challenge. Let's give the last word to Thomas, who has Jesus saying the following about the effect of his words on the world, but which one might also apply to the modern Gospel of Thomas itself: I have thrown fire on the world. Look! I watch until it blazes. (GT 10).

Comments

[Christian Y. Cardall]

Thanks, Dave, I enjoyed the review.

Any suggestions on books that give overviews on currently fashionable academic views on the New Testament and early church?

[Nathan]

"It appears that gnostic Christians weren't heretics until aggessive orthodox leaders of the third and fourth century made them so."

Depends on how you define your terms. Some of the heaviest of heavy gnostic beliefs -- especially the idea that Jesus came in opposition to the evil YHWH of the Old Testament -- are certainly at odds with the Christianity taught by the canonical writers.

[Dave]

Christian, I've read Crossan's books on the early Church, but he's at the far end of the academic spectrum relative to LDS thinking. I have (and would recommend) Raymond Brown's excellent introduction to the New Testament, which covers each book in considerable depth and detail. It also gives plenty of background material. Brown was a well-regarded Catholic scholar, but the book is not written from a sectarian perspective.

Nathan, the problem with the term "gnostic" (from gnosis, knowledge) is that orthodox writers use it to disparage anyone they disagree with, equating gnosis with "false knowledge." So disparate movements and writings get lumped under the gnostic label. Ignoring labels, it would appear the Gospel of Thomas (viewed as a historical document) is as legitimate or reliable as the canonical gospels.

[J. Stapley]

the problem with the term "gnostic" (from gnosis, knowledge) is that orthodox writers use it to disparage anyone they disagree with

Kind of like intellectual?

[Clark Goble]

The battle between the postulated Johnnines and the Thomists is in a way parallel to certain events in church history between 1894 and 1930. Those who claim second annointings gave them the right to be a light to themselves versus the brethren who claimed that this wasn't the case. It was a big battle over apostasy which brought most of the apostate sects that still are around Utah.

As with LDS history, the "secret teachings" both groups claimed were largely accurate. The problem was more a theological matter and a matter of questions of authority. I wonder if something similar went on in the early Palestine church.

[graham]

Really interesting, review.

"Where John depicts Jesus as the light of the world to whom each must look for salvation, Thomas has Jesus teaching that each person is a light unto themselves and must tap that inner light in order to achieve what we would now term spiritual growth."

I'm not sure the dichotomy is that strong. The Quakers (and some anabaptists) have long pointed to sections of John's gospel to affirm the light of God in each person. So, there's certainly a close connection between the two ideas.

I also don't buy the doubting Thomas idea. Actually, I think we only read it in that way 'cos we know the term. Seems to me that John doesn't make any kind of judgement on Thomas - whose always seemed quite sensible to me!

"It appears that gnostic Christians weren't heretics until aggessive orthodox leaders of the third and fourth century made them so."

So true. Some of my friends who live as part of a Celtic community use the phrase "the heretical imperative." The idea is that until we've recognised that we are heretics we are in no position to dialogue.

[John C.]

Nathan,
The works of Bart Ehrman are also a good place to go to understand current approaches to the New Testament and Early Christianity.

[Stephen M (Ethesis)]

The Gospel of Thomas is the center of an entire movement in scholarship which attempts to reduce the historical Jesus using Thomas as the touchstone for what is historical and what is not. Reading it is always important to understanding those who act as if the Christ were really just a zen scholar wandering about.

[Dave]

Perhaps that's true, Stephen, but that's not the fault of Thomas. The roots of the "historical Jesus" scholarship goes back well into the 19th century, whereas the full text of Thomas dates only from the mid-20th century.

The question, I think, is why those scholars who argue for an "orthodox Jesus" are so resistant to using historical documents like Thomas, whereas scholars arguing for an "unorthodox Jesus" or a "historical Jesus" are so much more open to non-canonical texts. That's interesting in the LDS context because Mormons put forward texts (BoM, PoGP) that likewise fall outside the orthodox canon.

[Christian Y. Cardall]

Clark, I've noticed you bring up this part of Church history a few times now, and I'm getting more and more hot to learn more. What are some good sources?

(Dave, thanks for the tip on Raymond Brown, looks like just the thing I was asking about.)

[Dave]

Christian, Clark may have a specific reference on the second anointing dispute (Bergera, maybe), but the classic treatment of that period of LDS history is Thomas Alexander's Mormonism in Transition. You might check your local public library--mine has a copy of it.

[Stephen M (Ethesis)]

I'm not saying that the Shepherd of Hermes, the Pearl, the Gospel of Thomas, etc. are not valuable, it is just interesting how one part of one movement has laid hold so strongly on Thomas.

[Dave]

Yes, it's a strange replay of history. Scholars view the texts as being championed by various early Christian communities. Thomas is popular in our day because it has again become a text supported by a community of sorts.