Secret gospel of Thomas-HELP

[wisdom_3_5]

Help help! A friend just e-mailed and said she is reading Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas by Elaine Pagels. She said, “Its good, and makes me so aware of how little I know.” She is open to learning more, which is good. What can I tell her other than this is **trash **and what can I tell her she should be reading? Thank you!!

 

[Fidelis]

Have her read “Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way,” by Philip Jenkins. It directly addresses the so-called Gospel of Thomas. Here’s a blurb and a link.

Product Description:
This incisive critique thoroughly and convincingly debunks the claims that recently discovered texts such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and even the Dead Sea Scrolls undermine the historical validity of the New Testament. Jenkins places the recent controversies surrounding the hidden gospels in a broad historical context and argues that, far from being revolutionary, such attempts to find an alternative Christianity date back at least to the Enlightenment. By employing the appropriate scholarly and historical methodologies, he demonstrates that the texts purported to represent pristine Christianity were in fact composed long after the canonical gospels found in the Bible. Produced by obscure heretical movements, these texts have attracted much media attention chiefly because they seem to support radical, feminist, and post-modern positions in the modern church. Indeed, Jenkins shows how best-selling books on the “hidden gospels” have been taken up by an uncritical, drama-hungry media as the basis for a social movement that could have powerful effects on the faith and practice of contemporary Christianity.

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195156315/qid=1095182040/sr=8-3/ref=pd_ksr_3/002-5876122-7665658?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[mercygate]

There was nothing “secret” about the Gospel of Thomas. and Pagels is in some circles considered to be a respected scholar, so I wouldn’t call her work “trash.” She draws conclusions that are incompatible with Catholic Tradition, and to me it is perfectly clear why this “gospel” was not included in the canon – but not for the reasons Pagels concludes. I would direct your friend to literature on how the canon of Scripture was settled. It is more intriguing than a mystery story and far more wholesome than the kind of speculation that will be provoked by Pagels’ book.

 

[buffalo]

The Agnostic Gospels of Thomas were one of the first heresies. Do not trust her conclusions. They are more of the DaVinci Code flavor.

 

[wisdom_3_5]

I have not read this book, but it looks, to me, like something along the lines of the DaVinci code. It is in the non-fiction section of our public library. I understand that Elaine Pagels is a feminist, therefore she has an agenda and her scholarship has to be viewed in that light. My desire is to give my friend some sound guidance in Catholic doctrine and Tradition. She is reading this book thinking it is the Truth.

 

[JimG]

It would be somewhat comparable to reading a lot of Chick tracts and saying, “wow, this makes me aware of how little I know about Catholicism.”

 

[Todd_Easton]

If your friend is interested in reading some early Christian writings, perhaps she would enjoy reading one of the following books:

Maxwell Staniford’s book, Early Christian Writings: The Apostolic Fathers (Penguin Books, 1968) (This one is available from Catholic Answers.)

Rod Bennett’s book, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words (Ignatius Press, 2002)

 

[mainusch]

wisdom 3:5:

I have not read this book, but it looks, to me, like something along the lines of the DaVinci code. It is in the non-fiction section of our public library. I understand that Elaine Pagels is a feminist, therefore she has an agenda and her scholarship has to be viewed in that light. My desire is to give my friend some sound guidance in Catholic doctrine and Tradition. She is reading this book thinking it is the Truth.

I find it intriguing that a feminist would support the Gospel of Thomas, since, in it, Jesus affirms Peter’s assertion that

“females don’t deserve life”

and goes on to say:

“I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.”

 

[wisdom_3_5]

mainusch:

I find it intriguing that a feminist would support the Gospel of Thomas, since, in it, Jesus affirms Peter’s assertion that and goes on to say:

I think that it can be used to refute teachings of the church which is patriarchal. A rebellion against Christ and His Church. The feminists I know are all staunchly anti-Catholic and anti-patristic society. If Christ did affirm these things (which I don’t believe He did) then Christianity is wrong in its treatment of women, we should be more like Islam. These texts discredit Christianity.

 

[hermit]

buffalo:

The Agnostic Gospels of Thomas were one of the first heresies. Do not trust her conclusions. They are more of the DaVinci Code flavor.

Try Gnostic

 

[hermit]

buffalo:

The Agnostic Gospels of Thomas were one of the first heresies. Do not trust her conclusions. They are more of the DaVinci Code flavor.

Try Gnostic

 

[mainusch]

wisdom 3:5:

I think that it can be used to refute teachings of the church which is patriarchal. A rebellion against Christ and His Church. The feminists I know are all staunchly anti-Catholic and anti-patristic society. If Christ did affirm these things (which I don’t believe He did) then Christianity is wrong in its treatment of women, we should be more like Islam. These texts discredit Christianity.

Those quotes from the Gospel of Thomas (GoT) discredit the GoT, and thus the heretics who tried to use the GoT to discredit the Church. They said “Hey, we have this other version of the gospel! See? It says all kinds of things that go against the Catholic Church!” One of which was that “women do not deserve life”. It was the heretics who claimed that. Not the Church. It was the Church who refuted it. Clearly the Church honors and reveres women, and always has (some even accuse the RCC of worshipping Mary!); while those particular heretics hated women.

 

[Apologia100]

The formula for refuting this notion is simple. As it was not included in the list of canonical new writings by the coucils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome, it cannot be considered inspired and are thus non-binding on the Christian conscience.