Bart Interviews Mark Goodacre about the Gospel of Thomas

Wondrium allows you to stream 8,000+ hours of lectures and documentaries in the areas of history, religion, and science, including several courses by Dr. Ehrman. *Sign up for a free trial at bartehrman.com....
Visit www.bartehrman... to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
________________________
One of the greatest archaeological discoveries of modern time was a cache of Christian books that seem very strange indeed to anyone accustomed to the books of the New Testament -- including the most famous non-canonical Gospel of all, the Gospel of Thomas. In this interview Bart discusses with New Testament scholar Dr. Mark Goodacre the intriguing characteristics of this book that claims to present the truth of Jesus' "secret teachings" that alone can bring eternal life.
________________________
*Advertising Disclaimer: We are an affiliate partner for Wondrium, so if you sign up for a paid plan with them, we will earn a commission. This in no way affects your price and you’ll be supporting our show, so we thank you.

[@lisaboban]

Here's how you know someone fully understands a topic: They are able to explain a complex topic to non-experts without talking down to the audience or resorting to jargon. Here are 2 true experts. Brilliant conversation.

[@cdreid9999]

what did they explain to you exactly. Other than Barts guest doesnt approve of Thomas ideologically and presumes it is false because it doesnt fit into his orthodoxy. I have no idea if thomas is "real" or not. But i do recognise the same tactics used by 'christian' fundamentalists being used in this video

[@jackfrosterton4135]

@@cdreid9999 What tactics exactly, and where? Spell it out if you don't mind.

[@WhiteDove73-888]

He obviously doesn’t fit

[@paulallenscards]

@@cdreid9999 I can’t say I recognize any fundamentalist sort of tactics being employed by either man. In fact I’d claim the opposite. I find both Bart and Mark to be incredibly non-dogmatic, with only a couple of exceptions (like that they both hold very tightly to the notion that Luke copied Matthew)

[@emmettdonkeydoodle6230]

@@cdreid9999 I think, overall, Bart and his guests usually have a balanced and nuanced perspective on their studies. I think that concluding a viewpoint from the available evidence is quite different from the fundamentalist approach, which starts from a presupposition and evaluates the evidence in the respect that it conforms to their base assumptions. Holding a strong stance on a topic based on the available evidence would not qualify itself to be considered a fundamentalist tactic.

[@markjohnson543]

Bart and Mark are great scholars and wonderful thinkers. This conversation is excellent. They obviously have great respect for each other and the give and take and exchange of ideas is something we are fortunate to be able to participate in.

[@OhManTFE]

Wow, you guys are a match made in heaven, no pun in intended. The people demand more!

[@steppenwolf3252]

Hey OhMan! I agree. I'm in heaven listening to these guys. Some of we the people, "request" more! (teasing you OhMan). O Man O Manashevitz! (sp)

[@podacre]

Haha; thanks! :D

[@stevenmyers3647]

Mark Goodacre said, "To Thomas, Gnosis, knowledge, is much more important than faith." I agree, with Mark and Thomas.

[@cdreid9999]

ypu missed that this seems to be why he presumes it is a later scam as his baseline

[@michaeldebellis4202]

I agree, knowledge > faith. As to whether it’s a “scam”, to some extent (as I understand Bart) all the gospels are scams because they are presented as being written by the apostles when they weren’t. Whether the Thomas gospel was written later than the others isn’t all that significant to me. What are interesting are the ideas… just as I think there are very interesting ideas in all the gospels. I’m an atheist but the idea that the poor have value and one should love one’s enemies was a very revolutionary idea in ancient times and even in our own time. It’s a pity so few Christians seem to read those parts.

[@alhernandezsantana212]

One of my uncles RIP, who was a longtime devotee of Yogananda said once to me, "if you're in this path looking for knowledge, you may be in for disappointment at worst, or a misguided quest at best." I never liked that message, 44 yrs later, because I have always lived and been so thirsty for knowledge.

[@thattimguy3342]

Moral knowledge

[@riley02192012]

What a treat! I have followed both of you for many years and have read your books. I was so happy and excited to see you two sit down and talk about such an interesting book! Dr. Ehrman, you asked such great questions and have such a wonderful way of bringing the texts and conversations to a mainstream audience. This was a fantastic discussion!!!

[@gmwillow]

Thank you so much for having these conversations, and making them available to the public. I took some Biblical studies courses when I did my undergrad degree, however I was Christian at the time and I remember not being in the right head space to engage with the scholarship properly. The questions that were raised were uncomfortable, and I wasn't emotionally ready to deal with them yet. Now that I am, I am drinking in all the knowledge I can, and gorging on academic discourse. It feels good to freely try to understand The Bible and history without trying to force a certain religious narrative.

[@FretnesButke]

It sounds like you had a fairly painless transition. I had a long, lonely, painful crisis of faith that lasted decades,and only recently acquired something like faith. Not planning on ever abandoning a sliver of Agnosticism in my beliefs.

[@beastshawnee]

One scholar + One scholar - preaching = a discussion worth listening to.

[@ScottyMcYachty]

It would be great fun to listen to an entire informal debate/conversation between Mark and Bart about their opposing views on Q & whether or not the authors of John had access to the synoptic gospels.

[@charlesedwardlincolniii1722]

Interesting point about merging male and female. Reminds me of St. Paul, Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Obviously not JUST a Gnostic idea.

[@MikeWilliams-uh8ii]

Watching the two of your interact was just a supreme pleasure. So enjoyable, entertaining, and enlightening!

[@dpichney]

My favorite saying in Thomas is "The Kingdom of God is spreaad out upon the earth an men see it not" It takes us away from the "other worldly" focus of Christianity- getting to heaven- and refocuses us on earth and gives us the responsiblity of bringing about the Kingdon on God on eartn, not in some distant future, but now, if we would only open our eyes, hearts and minds to it.

[@daodejing81]

I agree. Jesus says, the kingdom of God is within you, in Luke. Here is the same idea, it's spread out before you, and people don't see it. This is true. Few people see.

[@cfhklhog]

Thomas is the only Christian reading still remains to me. I digged deep to Advyta lately and what I found after rereading Thomas once again that so many hidden parallels out there! Sometime one can say after "Jesus said":"This is pure Advyta Vedanta!".

[@kbone8137]

Yes, you are on to something with this intuition. I hope you are ready for the ride, because it usually gets weirder before it gets clearer. I say go for it, but many will discourage you, as will the mind. If interested in a perspective, see my separate post in this thread.

[@suzanking5625]

Yes! Also, "Be passers by."

[@jonmustang]

@43:10 all the unity themes in the Gospel of Thomas are pointing to what other traditions call non-duality. It's in the Vedas, the Upanishads, Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivaism, Sufism, etc. The basic idea is that thinking of "I, myself am this body" creates an ego or a mental impression of being a separate self who we think is linked to the body. But if we go deeply within and deconstruct this sense of ego self, quieting the mind, detaching from bodily sensations, etc, we may experience the realization that we never really were the person we thought we were. The mind becomes free and quiet, and a sense of pure presence remains. There may be a reduction or disappearance of one's sense of self, and one may feel they are one with everything. That sense of pure presence with no thoughts creating a separate sense of self is "salvation" in Christian mysticism, "moksha" in Hindhusim, Self Realization, enlightenment, Buddhahood, union with God, etc.

[@markrichter2053]

That’s wonderful. I need to pursue the discipline of meditation.

[@johnschneider7912]

What surprises me is that these two scholars seem to be totally unfamiliar with the tenants of Advaita and the other non-dual philosophies of the East. I am somewhat new to Ehrman's podcast, so I wonder if the Advaita subject comes up in other interviews. To me, Jesus was clearly teaching Advaita, which he likely learned in India during all those undocumented years from his teens to his 30's. I will say that he had to dumb it down for his audience in Palestine. Those three words that he whispered in Thomas' ear must have been "You are God"

[@stephanieparker1250]

I did not know about your guest until this video, excited to check out his podcast! Great to meet you, Mark!

[@karlu8553]

Goodacre and Ehrman in conversation about early Christian texts - omg. Public facing/lay accessible scholarship like this is one of the very best things about the internet

[@TheOriginalCameron]

"omg" in a video like this. Good pun ;D

[@pasimajuri1209]

This is god >kzbin.info/www/bejne/eWqkgKibmduCpKs

[@osr4152]

Its bloody mental how much the world changes. When I was studying some of this stuff at uni there was none of this type of thing - that was 2006. Absolutely loving this.

[@MossyMozart]

@@osr4152 - How did you learn about this stuff without discussions?

[@osr4152]

@@MossyMozart it's not people having discussions that is new, it is that distinguished scholars are having these discussions in an online forum for a general audience free of charge which is new.

[@kethrian]

Mark was a fantastic guest on the show. More please

[@kbone8137]

I found this discussion very interesting and, more importantly, relevant. Ehrman obviously continues to bring a wonderful degree of light (and humor and humility) to the discussions on the Bible, and I thank him. Goodacre did a great job of isolating the key to understanding the Gospel of Thomas: unity (religion~~ relegere "go through again" , religare "to bind fast") and singularity (Oneness, i.e., I and the Father are One~ Jesus, John 10:30-38). The problem as I see it, if I may be so bold, is that most people try to make the sayings, teachings, pointings 'understandable' to their minds, which is actually the hinderance. 'The Peace that passeth all understanding' is prior to mind and, therefore, can only be realized. It is the silence prior the mind's conditioned chattering, logic, and worldview from which the depths of realization emerge. The mind is a bifurcator. When it functions properly, it is a wonderful tool in the world of duality, but identifying with the mind's idea of WHO one thinks they are (i.e., a person in the world with a birthday, spouse, car, job, etc. IN the world) is what Jesus is pointing AWAY from. WHAT one is IS NOT of the world. In a way, 'unity' is a bit misleading, as Oneness has never been divided, and the dream of having left the Garden of Eden is a trick of the mind. The apocalyptic revelation is the destruction of the mind's idea that there was ever - actually, as Truth - a separate self, thus realizing WHAT oneness actually is. All the world's a stage, and there seems to be only one Actor that Thou Art.

[@tlucia88]

Very interesting points, and I couldn’t agree more. Do you find that the sayings in Thomas remind you of koans in the Zen tradition… sayings that are almost designed to confuse the mind and direct consciousness beyond it?

[@kbone8137]

@@tlucia88 Yes. The koans will highlight and bring to bear one's attention on the seductive power of the conditioned patterns of thought structure. With a sufficient degree of clarity on the structure as an object within Consciousness (i.e., often labeled as 'Awareness'-- to the Nth degree, I'd add), there's a piercing of the veil, and the mind's/self's dominance is demoted. The interesting 'flip' is the realization that ALL that happens as life is within YOU/CONSCIOUSNESS, and the separation was only ever a belief, and a persistent one at that. All seeming paradoxes/confusions are of the mind, and it can (after one actually gets the hang of it) get joyously interesting seeing how ones own mind tends to work. At the core of every belief system worth its salt is a surrender, and an absolute one at that, and the supposed ego does not go down without a fight. So the 'smaller' realizations and massively confusing insights that pop up are useful, but don't get stuck. There's always FURTHER, until....

[@colmflanagan5933]

These two are fantastic scholars and bring out the best in each other.

[@matthewlawrenson2734]

Appreciated very much. It reminds me of the tradition of Zen Koans. They work on you over time. Ineffable

[@stephenarmiger8343]

This is my first exposure to Mark Goodacre. I was exposed to the name in a conversation with John Dominic Crossan. Always learning.

[@MrJasonwoodrow]

Absolutely fascinating talk! I had never heard the concepts before outside of mystery religions, so hearing them in this context was riveting. It also made me think about the many nameless little cults I've encountered in the last 40 years where a guy has a small following and interprets or skews God based on his own views (and typically manipulates his cult to get what he wants), and how this was likely true in ancient times as well. Even the gospels differ based on what the author wanted to emphasize or redact. Some views became popular, others not so much. It also makes me wonder at Paul who preached from his personal revelation experience rather than like the other disciples, and how much that influenced the direction of his teaching versus what we read in the gospels that claim to tell us what Jesus taught.

[@carlgrove8793]

Paul basically had a weird experience, and like David Icke in modern times decided to create his own religion around it. He was totally ignorant of Jesus's teachings and made it up as he went along. He managed to hijack Christianity and 90% of what people think of it as are his teachings and not those of Jesus. Take all of Paul's absurd theology out of the Bible and replace it with Thomas, and you might get somewhere.

[@beyondbodywork9590]

-- not your comment, that makes perfect sense. I mean Pauline Christianity makes no sense.

[@carlgrove8793]

@@beyondbodywork9590 No, it doesn't. In fact I wonder if people who swallow this nonsense actually like it because it makes no sense!

[@rn9940]

​@@beyondbodywork9590 To me Pauline Christianity can be thought to make sense. Paul was a brilliant theologian, God used him for spelling out more in detail how the transition from the Old covenant with Israel only, to the New covenant with all of humanity by faith in Christ.

[@pmaitrasm]

I am of the opinion, subject to future amendments, that Saint Paul was motivated by appealing to the prevailing sensibilities and preferences of the Romans and wanted to preach in the Græco-Roman world. Later, when Emperor Konstantinos organized the Ecumenical Council of Nikæa, they found the theology of Saint Paul to be most palatable to the Romans, and this caused them to canonize the New Testament in a way that the resultant anthology was dominated by the theology of Saint Paul.

[@hawkmiddle5219]

This just amazing. I like how Dr. Ehrman sets it up so that it's just two brilliant folks talking.

[@itsdave.j]

2 of my fav biblical scholars in one interview??? Dreams do come true!

[@DeanMorrison]

I absolutely love this series you're doing with Megan Bart, even though she's not in this one. I've also.followed.Mark for years thanks to you - I'm interested in his take about the synoptic gospels and especially his own take on Markian priority - often wondered what you'd make of that (done buy it myself although all his stuff well argued). Such a delight to.see you two talking. Just about to watch now - canw wait!!

[@DeanMorrison]

Whoops! not Markian priority but Matthew -Luke and after!

[@timothymulholland7905]

We need more blessed lions!

[@niranwi]

What a privilege to listen in on this great conversation. This is so illuminating and done in such an engaging and thought provoking way. As @Karla says - one of the very best things about the internet that we have access to and can learn and enjoy listening to scholars such as these.

[@zapkvr]

Megan you really have no idea what a valuable service you are providing us who are on a search for the truth. Of course I use that word advisedly since the search is the point. I dont think I ever expect to find it. The best you can do for me is to allow me to challenge my preconceptions. Ive followoed some different podcasters in the past but this would have to one of the most fascinating and enlightening. You know I read The holy blood and the holy grail in 1982 which was later plagiarized by Dan Brown. it was the first time I heard of the Gospel of Thomas. Ive read Pagel's book since then. Ive also read a lot of her other writing. Im still reading MacCulloch's History of Christianity. It's heavy going I have to say. Thank you again and keep up the wonderful work you are doing.

[@kanifalam7835]

A great book on the Gospel of Thomas was written by scholar Steven Davies. It has an informative introduction on the history of the gospel and tries to give an interpretation of each saying on the opposite page. His view is that this book may be earlier than Mark.

[@cdreid9999]

imo there is a bad habit of assuming there is a baseline all christian teachings are taken from. Which is refuted by the very need for the council. Books should be presumed to be independant oral traditions as a baseline

[@jimralston4789]

@@cdreid9999 When authors write identical things, it's a necessary question especially if it happens often. It can't be coincidental. Did one take from the other or did they both come about these things independently? It's not presumed but it's often the most logical theory until shown otherwise.

[@joshuastone990]

Amazing!!! I love seeing this!!! Please do more conversations with scholars you respect.

[@investigandolabiblia]

Agreed!!! Now imagine if they wrote a book

[@steppenwolf3252]

@@investigandolabiblia Now I'm salivating! Quit it, Investigating, you're making me hungry!

[@investigandolabiblia]

@@steppenwolf3252 😂😂😂😂 this comment cracked me up

[@rkmh9342]

Illuminating discussion! Thank you so much. What struck me was that the legitimating role between the Synoptics and Thomas might go the other way. Instead of Thomas using sayings from the Synoptics to produce a sense of Jesus speaking, the Synoptics used Thomas to claim that they knew the interpretations of the hidden sayings and thus had eternal life. The Synoptics all used the Parable of the Sower with the same explanation. This is likely an effort to say, hey, we all know what this parable means, and Thomas said that if we understand the context of the sayings, we have eternal life. Or editors and scribes included the Sower Parable and its supposed interpretation to combat Thomasian religion, much like the Doubting Thomas story in John's Gospel. Like, you do not need to go to a Thomasian community to know what this means because we will tell you right here. What I can say about the Lion Saying is that in the context of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, blessings cannot come without a curse, but curses can come without a blessing. And sometimes, what is phrased as a blessing is not a blessing. [cf. The "blessing" of Esau] I do not think Jesus said the Lion saying. But the saying illuminates the nature of Jesus cursing his will ["Not my will..."]. Much love!

[@serversurfer6169]

> Instead of Thomas using sayings from the Synoptics to produce a sense of Jesus speaking, the Synoptics used Thomas to claim that they knew the interpretations of the hidden sayings and thus had eternal life. < I agree, Thomas seems like the purer form of the teachings, and then the others come along with their own interpretations and justifications for those interpretations. Look at logion 35. In Thomas, it simply describes revolutionary tactics, but in Mark it becomes a metaphor for fighting demons, while Matt and Luke present it as a bizarre justification(?) for actual exorcism? Luke actually changes the meaning of the logion, saying you defeat strength not with cunning, but with still _more_ strength. 🤷‍♂

[@BlakeClass]

I’m no linguist or biblical scholar but I do have advanced pattern recognition and experience with comedic writing structure. My take on the lion & man meaning, while not a concrete solution, I do believe my take is a useful push in the right direction: It has all the makings of a double or triple entendre. (Words in jokes that carry double meanings). Think like a Tetris chain where one object connects separate blocks and once those blocks clear out new blocks fall and make new connections. Anyways, my take is that the original text language used a word for man, lion, and or consumed (or possibly all three) that made the passage carry double meanings while using the same word. An example would be: think the theory of relativity, and how it’s attributed to Einstein Blessed is the problem(proof) consumed(solved) by a man’s conclusion(theory) for the problem becomes the man’s conclusion/theory. cursed is the man consumed by a problem for the mans theory becomes a problem(demise) and the problem becomes mans conclusion (demise/legacy)” The meaning in parenthesis would need to have the same root word or slang. An informal and crude example of structure would be: A man will lose money chasing women but a man will never lose women chasing money. If you notice that example the structure it’s the same premise as the lion but still missing a third variable, or constant rather. I’m at work and claim defeat for lack of interest, but I’m relatively certain someone with the training and knowledge will be able to trace back alternate meanings to the words or the original text that make the passage enlightening. Hope that helps.

[@BlakeClass]

Yea after looking at it again the whole thing works even if the (GREEK?) word used for “man” also can mean “a mans legacy”. It would be a triple if the word used for “consumed” also can mean “overtaken/overcome”. Blessed is the lion who is consumed by the man, the lion becomes the mans legacy. (Highlight or accomplishment) Cursed is the man who is consumed by the lion, the lion becomes the mans legacy. (Reason he died) That’s gotta be it tbh. All of the saying are pretty straight forward TO ME. Anything such as the lion passage and the male/female & two become one I’m relatively certain have translation issues or meaning not available to me personally.

[@Hoxle-87]

Love these interviews. Dr Ehrman is a TRUE educator and interviewer. Although I was hoping the interview would had been about the Farrer hypothesis.

[@AbdulHannanAbdulMatheen]

👏🙂 Yay another Dr Bart podcast episode

[@johncadle7115]

Fantastic discussion. Love this exchange. Thanks to both of you.

[@davidsprouse151]

Some theologians make knots, some untie them, but the really crazy ones do both. The question is how can something so simple become so complex.

[@ferminolivera3629]

Awsome work gentlenen. Pure admiration for you both. Your contributions are huge and contributing to my sanity.

[@gmac6503]

I remember when James White a few years ago actually read the Gospel of Thomas on his Dividing Line and just mocked it. Here we have two scholars. Gotta love the scholars. '-)

[@Chandransingham]

Seen in London, UK. Gt show. Very good introduction into Gp of Thomas. Wider and broader reading like this does help to get a good handle on the main themes of the Jesus movement. Impressed by fair and honest views by these scholars. God bless them.

[@MossyMozart]

@Sydney - What does " Gt show" mean? (I get that "Gp" = gospel.)

[@Chandransingham]

@@MossyMozart Great.

[@Nooneself]

Great lecture ! Here are some thoughts/suggestions from Zen Buddhism . 1. Interpretation of " not tasting death" means not having FEAR at the time of your death. 2. The interpretation of the text is not logical...it's a deep intuitive insight . A Zen koan, such as " what is the sound of one hand clapping," is an example of a non-logical statement that can not be solved logically. 3. The Zen equivalent to Gnosis is knowledge of Self. While this sense of Self is difficult to explain in words, you can think of this Self as being "separate" from thoughts and emotions. 4. The reference to gender means that once you "know your true Self" you know that gender is not part of the true Self. 5. Unfortunately, Zen has no parallel concept to the Lion quote. Thanks for a beautiful lecture. Best wishes

[@serversurfer6169]

This is a very useful interpretation. I also get the sense that this text has a lot of eastern influence, and is meant to guide the reader to a deeper understanding, rather than impose some greater truth upon them. What are your thoughts on logia like 48 and 106? To me, they preach the power of solidarity. I think the "solitaires" referenced as the elect throughout the text, are those who have achieved true solidarity with their fellows, making the two into one. 🤔

[@chadgarber]

I love people who challenge the norm!

[@be1tube]

I wonder if these sayings are intended like Zen koans - you don't taste death because your mind is liberated. The idea of eliminating distinctions is similar to Mahayana texts - the Vimalakirti sutra (probably spelled wrong) has a character change gender and rebuke another character for their attachment to gender.

[@serversurfer6169]

> you don't taste death because your mind is liberated < Exactly. Death is bitter, yet some die with a smile on their face. 🤔

[@dirkcampbell5847]

Totally brilliant - an immersive episode. As many have said in the comments here: more of these please - i.e. can we have these *instead*?! It seems fairly obvious to me that many of the more abstruse sayings in the Gospel of Thomas are derived from esoteric tradition in the middle East generally, such as is contained in the technical terminology of Sufi orders. I'm sure I'm not the first to have pointed this out, but it was not referenced in the discussion and Mark Goodacre confessed himself baffled by the non-canonical sayings, so I guess neither he nor Bart are aware of the derivation. I could be wrong.

[@serversurfer6169]

Yeah, there generally seems to be more of an Eastern flavor to Thomas. 🤓

[@andrewsuryali8540]

Scholars have noticed this, but it's difficult to prove derivation because in most cases it's impossible to determine who's influencing whom. Sufi traditions are much younger than Thomas, so it is entirely possible that what we think of as Eastern esoteric tradition that Thomas and similar texts draw from actually evolved from Eastern mystics reading Thomas and similar texts.

[@MBiernat0711]

Yes - the “becoming one” in reference to gender simply means that we are primarily mind/soul/ spirit. This removes us from the attachment to the physical world. We still live IN the world, but we know we are not “OF” it, but, rather - as “passerby”. In practice, the “Thomas community” would have women and men teach equally and be of equal stand in community (to the best ability they could in that world).

[@serversurfer6169]

Yes, my reading of 114 is something like, "The only reason the women are not your equals is because you block their way, Peter." 😇

[@Ar_tistt]

114 says of Jesus. That remembers me the 114 surahs of the Quran.

[@Thewatchman303]

This was a brilliant discussion. Thank you very much

[@trilithon108]

The Gospel writers we know were anonymous. My question would be: Is The Gospel of Thomas considered to be anonymously written, with 'Thomas' added for authentication? In Eastern esoterica, there is a merging of Shiva (masculine) and Shakti (feminine) into One, a unity beyond difference, Consciousness Itself. Adi Da Samraj explains this is his book The Alethon.

[@stynway59]

I love these videos, Bart. Knowledge vs faith . Scholacttsism vs Petert Pan Established dogma vs mystery school Tell you what's up, vs Socratic learning Give you an easy out vs an easy story Discover yourself, no other path will matter.. enigmas are key Don't remain comfortable The brilliance of the synoptic writers are unassailable, But it's important to remember what their goals were.

[@gordonwardracingtoenglish3124]

Fascinating conversation. When I read Thomas, I thought it seemed like an aide memoire for a preacher, each saying being the title or intro to a sermon.

[@omnipitous4648]

Thank you Bart and Mark. I appreciate your insights. I fully understand the lion eating the human vs human eating the lion example. How it relates to Jesus is another question. Just to know what people were thinking 2000 years ago is a window to the past. That is invaluable.

[@georgetravers9333]

Lion: Overcome our trials or they will overcome us? Verses that relate to logos 2? Overcoming our ego/animal/carnal selves? The Gospels are the theatrical releases, but and here the writers reveal their subtexts?

[@jeffreyforeman5031]

thanks for your great discussion,

[@seanmeehan5955]

Great conversation. great guest. Bring this fellow back and discus some of the areas you disagree on. Wonderful!

[@errantpursuits4249]

I don't know you in real life. No idea if you're a prat or not, but I'm quite glad there's a Bart Erhman in the world.

[@Chad-xs2de]

I've met him and will vouch for Bart being a really nice guy.

[@Asteriades]

Excellent insights on Gospel of Thomas, thank you! I think the lion saying meaning is clear when written out in modern language 👍🏽☮️

[@niniv254ever]

Wonderful talk! As for the meaning of GOT saying 7 , I believe it refers to the world and fleshly things of the Soul that interfere with Spiritual freedom of the mind and heart thus salvation. If man can through wisdom and knowledge eat the lion , conquering the trappings of this evil blind world and its passions (what the lion signifies) and make the lion human, the lion would be tamed and and afforded a chance to become wise. Human would be victorious.

[@dbarker7794]

Wonderful discussion. Thanks for sharing it.

[@apropos4701]

About saying 7: switch "human" and "lion" to their typical characteristics, and align the clauses for the sake of English, a non-inflected language. Thus: "It is good if intelligence should add to itself power; but it is an evil if power should add to itself intelligence." I chose "intelligence" and "power" by way of example. Articles might be written to demonstrate that to be human is to have knowledge or to be higher in a spiritual hierarchy, etc.; to be a lion is to be courageous or to be lower in a spiritual hierarchy, etc.

[@markrichter2053]

Wow. That makes sense! 😃

[@JohnJesus]

The one about the lion is pretty obvious to me.... Clue: don't think of the "lion" as a real "lion" -- but rather of what a "lion" represents for the people from that time... If you can't figure out, ask me and I'll tell you my interpretation

[@daodejing81]

Oh, I like yhat. Very insightful. The Christians were fed to the lions. I presume that's where you're going. The wonderful thing about the mystical path is the musing over the images and symbols. I offer this perspective. Happy the lion that becomes human is to evolve from lower consciousness to higher consciousness.

[@JohnJesus]

@@daodejing81 That is interesting, I did not know that... But this is actually what I mean: The lion represents "fear" -- so, look at the verse: (7) Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the man becomes the lion." Now replace with the word "fear": (7) Jesus said, "Blessed is the FEAR which becomes man when CONFRONTED by man; and cursed is the man whom the FEAR consumes, and the man becomes the FEAR." So - if you have a fear and you confront it, the fear transmutes and becomes "man" (you no longer fear it) But when you have a fear and it consumes you, then you become the fear.

[@daodejing81]

@JohnJesus Very insightful! Fear emanates from the lower nature. It can be seen in many ways. It's like a koan. Similar to your thoughts: Blessed is one's lower nature, one's lower self, when it is consumed by man, in meditation, and becomes man, is guided by a higher consciousness in man. Cursed is the man who is consumed by his lower nature, his lower self, and whose behavior is enslaved by it.

[@antgreen3912]

OMG. I squealed when I saw this. OH! and Goodacre get that podcast back on track!

[@pds002]

This is a fantastic interview. Thank you. Mark Goodacre mentions a book by Richard Valantasis, without mentioning the title. I'm very interested in this, but wonder which of Valantasis' books he is referring to. Is it The Making Of Self?

[@mike9rr]

Bart, "...you just can't go to Egypt with a shovel." LOL. Love that one.

[@kvjackal7980]

This was my first intro to Mark Goodacre. I was at first disappointed I wasn't going to get to listen to Bart, but I actually really enjoyed and appreciated Mark's parts; I'll have to check out more of their stuff.

[@nendwr]

I'd recommend that you listen to the Extended Episodes of Mark's NT Pod in that case.

[@kvjackal7980]

@@nendwr Thanks!

[@festeringboils3205]

What a great conversation! Enjoyed every second

[@Ayusisi]

Wow, what a delight thank You, and I do really appreciate the equal sound volume between the two. (Bart Erhman-Megan Lewis sessions are precious, but the sound volume between the two isn't equal 🤥🤥

[@dodo1opps]

The late Archeologist, Prof Mic Aston, often said Archeology is garbage. Meaning you can learn a lot about a civilization by looking at their garbage.

[@serversurfer6169]

I pity the schmucks that end up sifting through _ours._ 😜

[@thattimguy3342]

Ha

[@Amazing_Mark]

An astonishing and enlightening episode! 😮

[@josephw.1463]

25:10 If Christianity started as a "mystery cult" it makes a great deal of sense that the earliest gospels (whether or not Thomas is one of those) would be written to leave out some of the "deeper truths" of their sects...those would be passed on orally to initiates who had reached the right stage of enlightenment.

[@davidkeller6156]

I’ve wondered if it’s possible the Gospel of Thomas was written before the Synoptics?

[@jackfrosterton4135]

Google says 50 to 100 CE. Not outside the realm of possibility

[@davidkeller6156]

@@jackfrosterton4135 I’ve seen different dates given for it. Seems like it could be early to me. Just a feeling, though.

[@vicmath1005]

Synoptics could not have eventuated before 75 CE... The clue is 'Alphaeus'. Matthew, James, Mary (mother of Jesus) - Alphaeus. The word actually means 'Aleppo-ite' (and not a person named Alphaeus). These three (there may have been others) seemed to have gone to Aleppo after the destruction of the Temple and expulsion of the Nazarenes/Jews from Judaea - in 70 CE. After settling down in Aleppo, Matthew must have written his gospel. When St Jerome wanted to copy the Gospel of Matthew for the Christian NT, he went to Aleppo and found the Nazarene original with the Nazarene elders - in 390 CE. I don't think there was such a thing called 'Q'. Mark settled down in Alexandria, and perhaps wrote his own copy there - adding some new stuff.

[@matthewkopp2391]

Most scholars believe before the Gospel of John. Because they believe the Gospel of John was a refutation of the Gospel of Thomas. So that means before 90 -100 AD

[@mentalcompassno1]

I wouldn't expect action in the text, it's just quotes. Good. Nice to have these.

[@hartonohartono2422]

My best regard to Mr. Bart from Indonesia.. .very fascinating podcast...

[@MBiernat0711]

The “lion eating man” could be an astrological reference of the opposing signs - the Leo and the Aquarius (depicted as human). This is another example of “when two become one” or bringing together what appears separate. It also could be an allusion to the story of Simpson and Delilah who also take on the astrological character (Leo-Aquarius).

[@matthewkopp2391]

Blest is the lion which the human eats-and the lion shall become human. And defiled is the human which the lion eats-and the [human] shall become [lion]. The psychological idea of eating the animal drives is throughout mythologies. Eating the shadow means incorporating aspects of reality that you have rejected. But culturally at that time I t could also refer to Aion with lion's head which is also associated with the zodiac and associated with time, but was also associated with perpetual Roman rule and Mithraism. And Aion is a gnostic idea as well. Gnosticism and Manichaeism, one of the orders of spirits, or spheres of being, that emanated from the Godhead and were attributes of the nature of the absolute. Jesus and the Holy Spirit were considered Aions. So at that time you had two cultural ideas of Aion, both interpretations of Plato denote the eternal world of ideas: The Roman Mithras lion headed God. And Jesus/Holy Spirit. I am not sure if the Mithras connection is right but lion headed Mithraic lion head statues were everywhere as it was the religion of the Roman legions.

[@ianfinnity2732]

Bart? He gets everywhere

[@pmaitrasm]

​@@matthewkopp2391, Saint Thomas is very Eastern in outlook and thought. Pay attention to where he went to preach. Additionally, he was supposed to meet someone where he was about to go to preach.

[@matthewwood2638]

I like the astrological interpretation, though there is nothing else like it in Thomas. Sheds new light on Leo and Aquarius, perhaps representing the animal self and the human self of shamanism and mythology. From that perspective the saying totally makes sense: if the human dominates when the animal self is actualized then the human is in control; if the animal dominates, then it is in control. As someone said to me, "yeah, you don't want to become a shapeshifter; you gotta go out in the forest once a month and be an animal. It's not a lot of fun."

[@hficher2008]

Didimus Judas Thomas. Dimimus means "twin" in greek. "Thomas" is a not a name, it's a nickname derived from the aramean "Theum" , that also means "twin". So the name of the author is Twin Judas Twin. WTF? By the way, according to Mark, one of Jesus' brothers was called Judas. So Thomas was Jesus' twin?

[@alanpennie8013]

Yes he was. They were paired but Thomas was not divine. It's like the Gemini Castor and Pollox.

[@alanpennie8013]

I don't know how historical this is. I believe Jesus had a brother called Judas but I don't know whether they were twins.

[@slicktrickyes]

Jesus was Judas, Jesus authored The Gospel of Thomas through Judas, his “twin”.

[@DJS11811]

This is great. I think the Lion ext is about a human dealing with their animal nature. But that's just me.

[@HistoryandReviews]

It’s basically “you are what you eat “

[@daodejing81]

I see it that way too. It points to evolving from lower consciousness to higher consciousness.

[@myoneblackfriend3151]

I would love to see Dr. Goodacre interview Dr. Ehrman using the same questions.

[@neilhundtoft4873]

What if the Gospel of Thomas was written first? Esteemed scholars, thank you so much for your discussion and genuine contribution to our understanding of the Gospel of Thomas. My several years of pondering the text independently and without benefit of discussion has led me to conclude an early authorship for the text. All of my learning has come from becoming aware of my mistakes, so I invite and welcome correction to what I have observed. No mention of the crucifixion, resurrection or coming judgment offers prima-facie evidence that the apocalyptic themes found in the synoptics had not been added yet. (Could a post-synoptic text purporting to record Jesus' teachings have possibly omitted these points, if they were important in that community?) As an interpretive template, I have found that approaching the Gospel of Thomas as a teaching of presence, mindfulness and living in the here and now has given me a powerful and appealing tool for understanding this collection of sayings. Such an approach appears, in fact, to answer all of the puzzles raised in this discussion. Regarding Saying #7 (at 15:00): Elements of the self are the 'one born of woman' and 'the one not born of woman' (#15, #46). The mind-body ego self, born of woman, is a voracious lion out to conquer and devour all. Blessed are those who come to know the true eternal self (#3) and thereby devour the voracious lion ego previously mis-identified as the self. Regarding the meaning of 'will not taste death' (at 25:00): Death is consistently treated as a function of one's present state of mind in the Gospel of Thomas, not as a fact about our bodies. The world is a dead place, much as John views it, full of people behaving like zombies. (#56) Eternity, which is always now (#51, #113), can be enjoyed when we subdue and devour the carcas of the ego self, offering it up like sacrificial meat. (#59 and into #60) Major themes of the text (at 42:00): The major theme of the text is an exhortation to self-inquiry and the pursuit of self-knowledge, as Saying #3 invites us to o. When in our inquiry we come to 'make the two one', we recognize that our true self is so much more than just the busy, discontented, mind-body ego self. When we become child-like by ridding ourselves of all the projected judgmental distinctions we've previously confused with knowledge, we will enter the kingdom' (#22). Thomas was the only disciple prepared for Jesus special teachings because he was the only disciple who knew that he was ignorant! (#13). Peter's Jesus brings justice. Matthew's Jesus brings wisdom. Thomas' Jesus brings “rest” for the restless self (#90). Regarding Saying #114: It doesn't belong. Drop it. It directly contradicts Saying #22, directing the listener to drop the distinction between male and female. The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas is emphatically non-mysogonystic, yet Jesus knows the scorn he's up against in first century Israel (#105). In Saying #21, Mary is being instructed regarding discipleship, to the ire of Peter, no doubt. In Saying #61, Salome is not only acting as an equal, but even challenging Jesus' worthiness of her hospitality! (Look at the story of Mary and Martha in Luke 10 for a wonderful parallel to this identical lesson.) Saying #114 appears to be a scribal addition. As a final observation, I'm persuaded of an early authorship for Thomas because of how it appears that the Sayings in Thomas consistently reflect a deeper teaching than their parallels in the synoptic gospels. As examples, we could examine the parallels to the parable of the mustard seed (#20), or the parable of the lost sheep (#107). For brevity of displaying their difference, consider Saying #86. In Thomas, we have an expression describing the human condition of discontent and restlessness, an observation paralleled in Buddhism as the first noble truth, the universality of human unhappiness. But Luke has turned it into a trivial offhand remark of Jesus complaining about his busy schedule! (Luke 9:57-58) What happened to the lesson? Ok, enough for now, then. Thank you, once more, to all of you scholars who are laboring to make these matters clear to the rest of us. And thank you, too, to anyone with so large a spirit that they are moved to respond to the rantings of this old crack-pot. Peace.

[@Jd-808]

That’s a great interpretation of #7. I really think you nailed it. You should see if you can email Mark about it!

[@neilhundtoft4873]

@@Jd-808 Thanks for your kind comment. I've also heard of a similar teaching circulating among native Americans. They talk about people as having two dogs inside of them. Who we become depends on which dog we feed.

[@neilhundtoft4873]

@@Jd-808 The two dogs are a nice dog and a mean dog.

[@serversurfer6169]

Your reading of Thomas is more in line with mine, and I share your view that it represents the more basal form of the teachings. It would explain how Luke and Matt can take a logion like 73 and create completely different origin stories for it. 35 may be a still better example of this. 🤓 My take on 114 is that it's Jesus' super cringey way of explaining that the only reason the women aren't the intellectual equals of men is because guys like Peter keep shunning them. 🤷‍♂ I see solidarity as one of the primary themes of the tome, as emphasized by the Miracle of Cooperation described in 48 and 106. Interesting that for Matt and Luke, the moving of mountains was a miraculous manifestation of our metaphysical merit, rather than the simple result of working together described by Thomas. Anyway, I see the references to "solitaries" as meaning "those who have achieved unity with their fellows," by making the two into one. "Speaking with one voice," as God laments in Genesis 11:6. 🤔

[@neilhundtoft4873]

@@serversurfer6169 Thanks for sharing your thoughtful take on these sayings. We've really got something to talk about here, as I see the Thomas message being brought specifically to the marginalized and suffering individuals for whom institutional community religion has provided no comfort. I've puzzled over #45's reference to “two in the same house making peace with each other” and have tentatively decided that it references the restless ego “born of woman” finding wholeness by merging with the unchanging self “not born of woman”. I take Thomas' use of “house” to be speaking of the individual's physical manifestation. I see this reflected in the individual instruction given about what it means to be a disciple in #21. I also read it in the blessing given to the “solitary” in #49. Then there's the reference to death of the body in #71, the house that no one will be able to rebuild. A follower of Jesus makes a joke about how a church congregation is like a herd standing around an empty watering trough (#74)! This saying is a beautiful set-up for the contrast provided by #75, pointing out that it's the “solitary”, not the many, who enter the wedding chamber (#75). Then I also notice how the audience for Thomas #107 is the sheep who has become lost. But the synoptic treatment has transformed it into the church leadership celebrating it's successful outreach to the backsliders! (Luke 15:1-7) From my perspective, then, it appears that it's the synoptics that have changed the message to be directed to the community when it was originally (as in Thomas) directed to the individual. I'd love to hear more from you about this to see where it goes. Thanks again for your thoughts. Peace.

[@miashinbrot8388]

I could well be wrong, but I keep wondering whether the confusing part of the lion saying is simply a typo -- well, wrong word because it was handwritten, but I mean a mistake. It seems to me that if instead of, "Blessed is the lion which becomes human when consumed by a human; and cursed is the human whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes human" -- if instead of that it read, "Blessed is the lion which becomes human when consumed by a human; and cursed is the human whom the lion consumes, and the human becomes a lion", wouldn't it cease to be enigmatic? It would simply mean that it's better to be a human than a lion. That is, if a lion is eaten by a human, the lion is improved, whereas if a human is eaten by a lion, the human is degraded. Against that, I suppose, is the fact that Thomas is in general enigmatic. It might also be ruled out by the specific syntax of the Greek, which I have no knowledge of.

[@serversurfer6169]

There are some scholars who think it may have been miscopied. My reading is, lions aren't actually that dangerous compared to men, so if the man became a mere lion, it would actually become easier to deal with. However, it would be terrifying if the lion eats the man and thereby gains all of _his_ power. That's how you get guys like Hitler-a ravenous lion in the form of a man. 🤔

[@pennyburns4425]

Excellent discussion!! I love the Gospel of Thomas, such beautiful spiritual wisdom. The saying that has me stumped is 'there are five trees in paradise ...........'. I don't think its meant literally but what do the 'five trees' represent? Any ideas??

[@Matt_The_Hugenot]

I think the author could have rejected the concept of taught interpretation and placed the entire responsibility on the reader. Perhaps even then they wanted Christians to go back to the words of Jesus rather than what other church fathers said about him.

[@serversurfer6169]

Yes, I think the author makes it clear that the reader must find their own understanding of these things, not be lead to one. ✊🤓

[@KGchannel01]

I think you're onto something Mark Goodacre, with the idea that it is deliberately mysterious so that the reader or listener remains dependent on a guru or on the community to interpret it with any degree of confidence. Not to be too cynical, but I think this tendency exists in all religions, and is just amplified in some... But rabbis and preachers and gurus and monks and imams all thrive when the casual reader goes cross-eyed.

[@Chad-xs2de]

I view the Gospel of Thomas as what we call a cult today. The reference to "secret teaching" is a standard technique of cults.

[@serversurfer6169]

When even Jesus says not to call him master, it kinda undermines any potential authority of these so-called gurus. 😜

[@toddchafe1703]

Absolutely the other way around.The authors of the synoptic gospels had access to Thomas.Thomas is before..

[@peterpackiam]

Thanks, Big Time, Dr Bart D. Ehrman & Dr Mark Goodacre, for sharing your knowledge. Dr Mark, you confused me when you mentioned "Justin Mark & Justin Luke", I had to put on c.c, to double check, and sure enough. Here is the page, Hahaha. Cheers 🥃, Guys.

[@retribution999]

Ancient mysteries will always be just that.

[@atiharsh1993]

Interestingly there are 114 Surat or chapters in Qur'an just like saying in gospel of Thomas!

[@alanpennie8013]

114 is a mystic number!

[@atiharsh1993]

@@alanpennie8013 Plz elaborate or details how it is a mystical number

[@jjschereriv]

For someone familiar with 'Eastern' spiritual texts and processes, what you are describing sounds a lot like a collection of KOANs. Like, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" It's not that there is an 'answer', rather it's where the question takes you that gets revealed. Just a hunch. . . Loved this. BTW, I couldn't find your guest's name. . . Maybe I missed it.

[@jjschereriv]

Ahhh. . . Now I see his name. My bad. Thank you both!

[@kencreten7308]

Fantastic interview and information. Thank you both very much.

[@edimilsonferr]

The best way to start making sense of such symbolism and imagery is by reading Jung. Anyone adequately versed in Jung will recognize that the passage about the lion becoming human, etc., points to a process of assimilation of the unconscious. Besides, the idea of overcoming inner conflict and becoming whole is pretty obvious too. It's a basic tenet of Jungian psychology.

[@matthewkopp2391]

The szygy idea of Jung came directly from Gnosticism. I agree with the lion reading but culturally it also maybe a warning against Roman Mithraism lion headed God vs. Jesus both were interpretations of Aion. The highest realization of Mithraism was symbolized with the lion headed God. Jesus the realization for Gnostics. It is surprising that the speaker says “I don’t know what any of this means.” When Valentinus actually wrote about Syzygy and Aion and Jung elaborateD the idea as Mysterium Coniunctionis. They need a better expert interviewed.

[@jmike2039]

I woke up and saw this and jolted out of bed for coffee. I don't even drink coffee.

[@markjohnson543]

I have revisited this video and reread Gospel of Thomas. I suspect that the missing piece of the puzzle is influence from India which had found a home in Egypt by the 1st century CE. We know that Emperor Ashoka (268-232 BCE) of the Mauryan Empire of India had relations with the Greek kingdoms that followed Alexander's invasion of India. His grandfather, Chandragupta (350-295 BCE) had been in direct conflict with Seleucis Nicator which war ended with the evident defeat of the Greeks and the Seleucids ceding their Indian territories, mostly modern Punjab, to Chandragupta. There was then a political alliance cemented by marriage. A few decades later, Chandragupta's grandson Ashoka, the new Mauryan king in India, had undergone a spiritual conversion and was bent on peace at all his borders. He sent his peace ambassadors, which carried a spiritual message based on Buddhism and other Indian traditions, in all directions, including west to the Seleucids and perhaps beyond. Royal inscriptions found within the borders of Ashoka's kingdom reference his contemporary Greek rulers to the west, such as Antiochus II Theos, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Antigonus II Gonatus, Magus of Cyrene, and Alexander of Epirus. These rulers would have been likely destinations for the peace ambassadors. With the Ptolemy's thirst for knowledge and the later references to the Therapeutae, which some think was an actual Buddhist community in Alexandria, but at least may have had some Indian influence, it is likely that these ambassadors or perhaps at least their ideas, reached Egypt. Although Ashoka espoused Buddhism, and his embassy sent south to Sri Lanka was definitely a Buddhist one (as evidenced by the Sri Lankan chronicles), he also gave royal patronage to all religious traditions in India. So we can't rule out that his embassies to the Greeks also included men familiar with or practicing Upanishadic ideas (Vedanta), Samkhya (and Yoga, which is related to Samkhya). We know from Greek histories of the Greek's fascination for the 'naked ascetics of India, and their philosophies. It is difficult for me to imagine that Plotinus, for instance, was purely a development of Plato. His thought seems infused by Indian traditions as well. Religious/spiritual contact between the Indian sub-continent and the Greek kingdoms is further evidenced by the Pali text 'Questions of King Milinda' which purports to be a long philosophical dialogue between the Buddhist Monk Nagasena and King Milinda, who is identified as King Menander of Bactria, a king well versed in Greek philosophy and eager to question the monks about Buddhism, which had grown within his realm. Menander dates to the second century BCE. There is much more evidence of close contact between India and the Greeks and Romans, such as Roman trade colonies in India based on flourishing sea trade between Roman Egypt and the Indian sub-continent, but I have perhaps said enough, or more than enough on that subject already. And as a (perhaps) related issue, where did the Essenes at Qumran get the idea for a celibate monastery? Perhaps they got it from from Pythagorean ideas, but it seems much more likely that the world renouncing celibate tradition can be traced directly to India. At the time of the founding of Qumran, Buddhist and other Indian monasteries were already thriving in Greek Bactria, along the trade routes to the east of Judea. The monastic ideal and organization (with its asceticism) seems distinctly Indian in origin. In the synoptics. Jesus espoused asceticism for those who could manage it. Such asceticism is foreign to the Jewish tradition. In addition, I would suggest there was, beginning in perhaps first century BCE, the beginnings of a clumsy 'marriage' of the messianic apocalyptic tradition of Second Temple Judaism with the Indian idea of spiritual enlightenment. I think there may have been an intermingling of these two strains in the thought of Jesus, Paul, and the first century church. They seem to have thought of a real coming of the kingdom in physical terms, and yet were also giving shape to a coming of the kingdom apart from any such manifestation in the world. They seem to have had both of these ideas working together, perhaps without clearly differentiating between them. some Christians emphasized one aspect, others emphasized the other aspect. Gospel of Thomas is trying to sort these two strains out, to untangle them. In Gospel of Thomas and many of the other Gnostic texts, the emphasis is upon liberation through spiritual knowledge, a higher understanding than what can be given through mere thought. This is not about 'figuring something out'. This type of gnosis relates to jnana in the Indian traditions. words are only pointers to a transcendent reality which supersedes this world. "The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, but men see it not."

[@vicmath1005]

"Upanishadic ideas (Vedanta), Samkhya (and Yoga, which is related to Samkhya"... These are very new things. They did not exist before 1875 CE. Sanskrit itself was created by the Brahmins after 1750 CE. Show the evidence if you disagree with the above assertions. Indians promote myths of incredible proportions without any evidence.

[@TheSulross]

This was good back ground setting info but I was hoping to see three things explored: 1) The parallel verse between Luke and GT where says the Kingdom of God is within us. Now for GT this is practically the foundational logian of its theological or spiritual perspective, and the GT version of this paralleled looks more literate and coherent than the Luke version - as though GT preserves the master version of the saying and Luke echos it imperfectly. 2) There could have been exploration as to the theological/spiritual logian of GT that are the sayings that are unique to GT, which that would have helped convey a better sense of where GT existed in its time-frame vis a vis Christianity at large. (And there wasn't that much really said as to what may have been the origin period of this gospel - could it have been in same time-frame as Gospel of John, was it early 2nd century, etc?) 3) And as to the theology/perspective that GT conveys, what are the roots of that?

[@serversurfer6169]

These are good points that I would like to see explored. They seemed pretty dismissive of the unique logia, reasoning that anything not canonical was an invention of Thomas, and therefore basically irrelevant. I share your opinion that Thomas likely represents the older forms of these teachings, before the narrativization and interpretation was added by other authors. For example, Jesus' claim that the kingdom of Heaven is all around is-a claim not found even in Luke-fits with his assertion that the kingdom is something to be seized from the aristocracy, and awarded to the workers. (Matt 21:43) 🤔

[@eiondonnelly9289]

This was my first introduction to Thomas and a scholar disagreeing with the two source hypothesis. What’s Goodacre’s reasoning behind believing the Gospel of Thomas was written after the Synoptic Gospels? My first thought when hearing this was a book of sayings of Jesus was; couldn’t Thomas be the Q source itself or be a combination of Q and another sayings source if written later?

[@Chad-xs2de]

I don't know Goodacre's reasoning, but my understanding is that Thomas contains harmonized sayings of the 3 gospels which indicates it was written later (after 100 CE).

[@alanpennie8013]

@@Chad-xs2de Just so. If Thomas uses Luke he has to be later than Luke. Which means second century, or very end of the first.

[@serversurfer6169]

How does Thomas "harmonize" the synoptics, Chad? Look at logion 35. It seems some basic, revolutionary strategy was morphed into three, confused anecdotes in defense(?) of exorcism. Luke seems to have lost the "original," Thomasine meaning entirely, saying you beat strength not with guile, but with yet _more_ strength. 🤷‍♂

[@henripepels815]

Speaking about the 'monachos', 'the idea of a unified being', Ehrman asks if we are on the psychological level here. 'I wish I knew' Goodacre answers. If you don't know how to understand one of the most central notions of the gospel, then what exactly do you understand? The right answer is very clear: we're on an ontological level here. I've read a lot of scholarly commentaries on the gospel. There are a couple who are more or less on the right track, Elaine Pagels being one of them, but in general they all have a dead angle. They completely ignore the most obvious perspective on a text like this, one that discloses 'enigmatic', 'dark' and 'puzzling' sayings like these. There is a key than opens up texts like this one, a most wonderful one, for sure. Where academic scholars in their interpretations rocket them selves in all directions, the ones that look at the gospel from a nondualistic perspective are far more in agreement and compatible with one another. These scholars have no idea what it means to not taste death. They don't.

[@MBiernat0711]

The “blessed be the lion whom the human eats” simply means blessed are our vices (especially arrogance and pride, the negative attribute of the “lion”) - when they are transformed (“eaten”) into “human” or positive qualities. Specifically - the transformation from arrogance and pride into courage, innocence and joy (playfulness). (Positive attributes of the sign of lion). Conversely the other way …. Similar interpretation Of course - in a larger sense - it is not just about the specific sign of the Leo, but generally speaking - ALL vices and errors when transformed become our guiding principles. It is like a person who experiences trauma and gets “lost”, when the person transforms her ways (like alcoholism, promiscuity, all darkness involves with abuse) - that person can be a guide (therapist, counselor), to others - when her “lion is eaten” or when she transforms the darkness into the light

[@MBiernat0711]

The sayings of Thomas do not attempt to bring a new philosophy on Jesus - but another perspective to the existing philosophy. This means that, ultimately- the teaching of forgiveness and reconciliation as we know in the synoptic is the mechanisms of transformation in “gnostic”. A “gnostic” person is a fool unless they the practice of reconciliation which is the practice of “bringing together what has appeared as separate.” Even Jesus death on the cross is the symbol of detaching from the world, the “shedding” of the “final cloth”. However- it is not wise to focus on his death as not to form another attachment to the body, by glorifying the act of dying. Later, this what happens with the gnostic movement- we started to focus on the darkness so much - we invented dark demiurges and strengthen them rather than freeing ourselves from them. The demiurge and “dark creators” do not exist in reality, although they appear so.

[@daodejing81]

I love to encounter meditative people. I like your vision of the symbology. I see it much like you, the evolution of consciousness.

[@MrCyclist]

I would have been nice if we were told the time frame for the writing, is Thomas his real name and why it matters. As a skeptic I want to know who recorded the sayings of this Aramaic speaking Jesus character while alone? What language was it written in. More historical fiction? Just asking.

[@ghostbearwalks]

Google

[@RubyNeumann]

Do have a recommendation a good publication of the Gospel of Thomas for reading... something that is more friendly to the non-scholar reader

[@serversurfer6169]

They have a fairly nice version available online over at Early Christian Writings, with multiple translations of each verse, and some scholarly analysis. Having the different interpretations side-by-side helps illuminate the author's intent, so it's worth checking out. ✊

[@theobolt250]

If memory serves me well... I heard of a socalled Diatesseron from the ninth century AD, in Gothic (an old germanic language). Besides the regular evangelies it contains a few sayings from Thomas! The thing in question was studied by prof Quispel. A (surpassed some time ago, sadly) Dutch NT scholar. Someone here who remembers the details of this? It showed the influence of christian teachings stemming from Thomas up to the middle ages! 20:44

[@johnaliff3908]

What strikes me is that GT is a list of sayings like those we think may have predated the synoptic gospels.

[@brucemcfarling4674]

I like to look at the parables in the synoptic gospels and in Thomas, since the parables are among the easiest parts of the gospels to circulate as part of an oral tradition, and so could well be represented in different sets of parables written down in different written sources, which the gospel writers might have been able to refer to. By parables, I am trying to look at full fledged stories, rather than similes and metaphors. In Thomas, these are the "secret sayings" that AREN'T secret, going on the synoptic accounts of Jesus' public teaching being in parables. A lot of the "secret sayings" are not in common with the synoptic gospels, but only two of the parables in Thomas are unique to Thomas: the parable of the Broken Jar & the parable of the Assassin. There are five parables in all three synoptic gospels (New Wine, the Sower, Mustard Seed, the Wicked Tenants and the Faithful Servant). Four of those are in Thomas, one is not (the Faithful Servant). Looking at the parables, it seems unlikely that the Gospel of Thomas took parables directory from Luke. Of the six parables in the synoptic gospels that are unique to Luke, only one is in Thomas (the parable of the Rich Fool) and five are not (the Good Samaritan, the Barren Fig Tree, the Prodigal Son, the Unjust Steward, and the Unjust Judge). If Luke obtained his unique parables from a collection, it seems most likely that the collector of Thomas obtained the Parable of the Rich Fool from some other source. By contrast, it is extremely plausible that the collector of Thomas had access to Mark or Mark's source or parables. Mark has six parables, which is few enough that it is plausible that Mark had a single source, either oral or written. There is only one parable in Mark that is not found in Thomas, the Parable of the Faithful Servant which is in all three synoptic gospels, while Mark's parable that is not in Matthew or Luke, the parable of the Growing Seed, is also in Thomas. If Thomas, hypothetically used Mark and other, independent source(s), only one parable in Mark is omitted. Matthew is the gospel with the most overlap with the parables of Thomas. 11 Parables in Matthew are in common with Thomas,, four of those 11 in neither Mark nor Luke, four parables in Thomas are not found in Matthew -- one in Luke, one in Mark and the two unique to Thomas -- and four parables in Matthew that are not in Thomas. It would be quite plausible for both the collector of Thomas and of Matthew to have access to Mark, access to a common additional collection of parables, and access to their own unique sources.

[@benjaminwhitley1986]

Some of the NT books have elements of gnostic flavor. Sin is sometimes referred to as ignorance. I wonder if Bart or Mark have lectured on this or highlighted it in a previous talk. 🤔🤔

[@jerrycratsenberg989]

Thank you so much for sharing, the conversation is wonderful. Verse 7 = We are what we eat and if we are eaten we become that which has eaten us. The lion and the man are both blessed because they become a part of the other, both being equal and equally insignificant parts of All That Which Is. Anyway, the discussion is interesting. Ironically, the teachings of Jesus, regardless of the source or author, have absolutely no practical meaning in the lives and ways of being of the vast majority of those who would call themselves "Christians". Although the study of the "history" does find a comfortable home in formal academia. Intellectually the history is intriguing, but extremely sad as we look around at human "Christian activity in the world.

[@bensalemi7783]

In both cases in verse 7 the lion is becoming man. There isn’t a parallel where the man becomes lion by consuming. I think one plausible interpretation, given that Thomas is emphasizing secret knowledge, is that the saying is about the idea of legitimate transfer of this secret knowledge. If one who possesses the secret knowledge brings an unknower into the fold, this is a blessing for that unknower. But if someone lets the secret knowledge slip out to someone who hasn’t actually earned the right to those secrets, then the person who let the secret knowledge out is cursed. That is a fairly standard idea in various secret societies even today.

[@Hurricane.911]

🤔in regards to the Lion statement "blessed is the lion who eats a man" sounds very much like Ignatius's final letters

[@tezzwk]

Understand Advaita Vedanta teachings and the Gospel of Thomas becomes crystal clear. Interview Swami Sarvapriyananda based upon his understanding of Thomas's Gospel and you will be mind blown! All the confusion in this video is stemming from a dualistic, materialistic paradigm!!

[@aviecenna8579]

On the Gospel of Thomas Saying 7 - Bart: I don't even know what that means. Mark : No one knows what it means, but it's provocative.

[@komaichan99]

Lion = jinn, spirits of the world If the prophet eats the inner nature of the jinn, the jinn will have human nature. Conversely, humans possessed by Satan's will

[@alanpennie8013]

Thomas writing in a mysterious way.

[@leighterry943]

This really works! I was absolutely astounded. After 34 years of misery and suffering, with a broken back, I was healed! Then, after six torturous, years and thousands of treatments, I was healed of a terminal disease, but I did not know how to do it with any consistency, and I wish I did, so I will learn, as much as I can, to get there, and I will. May every1 be with their healing(s)💜🙏✝️🎁🕊🌟💞

[@thattimguy3342]

Bot