Talk:Gospel of Thomas

Importance of Author Section Unnecessary Anecdote

In the second paragraph of this section, the late Dr. Thomas Paterson Brown is cited as "arguing forcefully" that the Gospels of Thomas, as well as Truth and Philip, are not gnostic. The linked blog post is both undated in citation, and very dated in terms of modern scholarly dialogue on the label "Gnosticism" (King 2005 "What is Gnosticism"). Almost nobody in this field claims that Gnosticism "by definition" requires a "Gnostic" group to consider physical reality and life illusory and evil. It's a label that can be helpful, but claiming that Valentinian works aren't gnostic is unhelpful to the discussion. I'd suggest the advice of Dr. Karen King, and either use 'Gnostic" as a tentative label for a certain "genre" of heterodoxy, or not using the term at all.

This section in my opinion muddies the waters of this article unnecessarily, especially considering that Dr. Brown, while his work is very impressive, was an independent scholar who as far as I'm aware was not peer reviewed in this field, and was likely unaware of the relatively recent shift in the use of the term "gnosticism".

I didn't want to take my own initiative and remove it, but citing a self taught, non peer-reviewed, albeit credible scholar as "arguing forcefully" for a view that really isn't something scholars talk about anymore seems unnecessary and unhelpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markanthonyjr (talk • contribs) 20:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

"Gnostic" or "gnostic"

At least in the first section, the term "gnostic" varies in its case, and it varies in similar contexts: E.g., one finds "Gnostic teaching" here, and "gnostic belief" there. I'm not sure if there's some particular, esoteric reason for the variation, but if so, such variation is a grammatical anomaly and as such ought to be taken under consideration by page monitors.

Google Preview of Date Range Inaccurate

Hello! I noticed the Google preview of this page gives a 60 A.D. to 140 A.D. date range, as opposed to the 60 A.D. to 250 A.D. date range written (and backed up by citations) in the article itself. I searched "Gospel of Thomas date" and this inaccurate 60-140 date from Wikipedia was the first result. I'm not sure how to correct this, so I'd appreciate it if someone else could do so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.93.215.128 (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The prose of the article is sufficiently clear: most scholars date it to between 60 and 140, while some date it as late as 250. We need do nothing to the article; the Google search results are Google's problem. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hyperlink to the "Thomasine" page

Under the religion part, it says Christanity (Thomasine), but it links to the Saint Thomas Christians in India, these two groups are unrelated, but I'm not sure if I should link it to the "Thomasine" Christians that we know existed in the 1st and 2nd century AD in the Eastern Mediterranean, because scholars are unsure if the Gospel of Thomas was even revered by this community. Thoughts? Maybe just removing the hyperlink entirely, or adding a "possibly?" to the proper Thomasine hyperlink TablemannDanny231 (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Update, I just hyperlinked it, I saw on the Thomasines page there's an image of the Gospel of Thomas so I assume some scholars at least relate the two sects — Preceding unsigned comment added by TablemannDanny231 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

John is mistakingly called a synoptic Gospel

Please correct this to "is a non-canonical Gospel

The Gospel of John is the only canonical one that gives Thomas the Apostle a dramatic role and spoken part, 50.217.112.30 (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit war

@DefimZ: The statement you seek to remove is WP:V in WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't care about your reading of the gospel. We care about what Ehrman published about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)