The Message of the Gospel of Thomas
E-Book, Englisch, 116 Seiten
ISBN: 978-3-7519-8816-2
Verlag: BoD - Books on Demand
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark
Prof. Dr. Enno Edzard Popkes researches and teaches on the history and archeology of early Christianity and its environment at the faculty of Theology at the Kiel University. He is co-founder and chairman of the `Kiel Academy of Thanatology´ (www.kiath.de).
Autoren/Hrsg.
Weitere Infos & Material
2.5 Differences between the Images of Jesus in the Biblical Gospels and in the Gospel of Thomas
Who was the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth? What was his message? Who has appropriately interpreted the message of Jesus? Such questions have been formulated in many variations since the time of early Christanity, and even more since the beginnings of historical-critical considerations of the biblical writings. However, they cannot be answered precisely. Rather, assumptions of research regarding the history of religion are only the expression of a docta ignoratia. In other words: From a scientific point of view, many aspects that are important for understanding the life and message of Jesus may never be clarified. But it can be explained why this is not possible17. In spite of this reservation a thesis can be formulated which is of importance for the understanding of the Gospel of Thomas: Even if the images of Jesus in the biblical Gospels are by no means uniform, they have central motives in common. These are fundamentally different from the interpretation of the figure and message of Jesus handed down by the Gospel of Thomas. But the differences between the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Thomas are particularly important. Guiding assumption 2.6: Even if the biblical gospels do not convey uniform images of Jesus, they are fundamentally different from the image of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas. The biblical gospels agree that Jesus did not only appear as an itinerant preacher. Rather, he claimed to be able to forgive people for their sins. He is said to have affirmed his message through various healings and miracles. But forgiveness of sins, miracles and healings of Jesus are not mentioned in the Gospel of Thomas. Attention is paid exclusively to the sayings of Jesus. The biblical gospels have in common the idea that hopes have been fulfilled in the words and deeds of Jesus as documented in the Jewish Bible. The Gospel of Thomas, on the other hand, makes no reference to the Jewish Bible. What this means can be explained using a striking example. The Jewish Bible documents hopes for a messianic figure whose arrival is to initiate a new reign of God. The biblical gospels have in common the idea that Jesus of Nazareth is this figure. Or to say it according to the Greek translation of these terms: Jesus is ‘the Christ’ who brings the kingdom of God. A central question in this matter is whether Jesus understood himself as such a Christ or whether he was only regarded as such by other persons. Also, in this respect the interpretation of the Gospel of Thomas differs fundamentally from the biblical images of Jesus: The title ‘Christ’ is mentioned neither directly nor indirectly in this work. The expectations associated with it do not correspond to the sayings of Jesus conveyed by the Gospel of Thomas. Furthermore, the biblical images of Jesus agree that there were massive conflicts between Jesus and leading authorities of contemporary Judaism, culminating in his imprisonment in Jerusalem. Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin as a blasphemer and rebel and finally executed by command of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate. On the other hand, the Gospel of Thomas does not pay any attention to the passion of Jesus. The same applies to those narratives, which constitute the culmination and climax of the biblical gospels, namely the stories of a bodily resurrection of Jesus. These are completely missing in the Gospel of Thomas. An empty tomb of Jesus or encounters of the Risen One with his disciples are not mentioned. Nor would they correspond to the message of the Gospel of Thomas. Instead, traditional concepts of resurrection are even criticized. Likewise, differences occur in regard to the understanding of the death of Jesus. The biblical gospels emphasize in different ways that the death of Jesus is an atoning sacrifice. God himself had redefined his relationship to his creation through the vicarious death of his son. For the most part, these interpretations are based on concepts regarding sacrifices and atonement, which are documented in the Jewish Bible. Even such ideas are again completely absent in the Gospel of Thomas. Guiding assumption 2.7: For the Gospel of Thomas, the historical circumstances of the life of Jesus, the faith in Jesus as Christ, the interpretation of the death of Jesus as atonement and the faith in a bodily resurrection of Jesus have no relevance. 2.6 The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John as antagonists
The differences outlined in the previous chapters can be spotted between the Gospel of Thomas and all biblical Gospels. The greatest differences, however, can be observed between the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Thomas18. In the Gospel of John, various ideas are significantly developed, which are noticable in older testimonies of early Christianity only rudimentarily. This is especially true for the deification of Jesus and for the interpretation of the death of Jesus as a death of atonement. More than in any other testimony of the biblical canon, Jesus is portrayed in John’s Gospel as the incarnation of God. This is already emphasized by the prologue (John 1:1-3.14) and unfolded in the narration of the Fourth gospel. This shows impressively how far this image of Jesus is distanced from the historical figure of a Jewish itinerant preacher. The Jesus of the Gospel of John describes himself in a way that would be unimaginable and scandalous for Jewish people: He calls himself the Son of God who is ‘one with his Father’ (John 10:30). Whoever would see him would see that Father (John 14:9). The Johannine Jesus claims, that God had given him the power to give everlasting life (John 5:2429). He could demonstrate his power by resurrecting corpses that were already decaying (John 11:38-44). The relationship of human beings to God would be determined by their relationship to him. Only those, who believe in Jesus as the Son of God will obtain eternal life and not be lost. Those who do not believe in him are already condemned (John 3:16-18). Here, too, the difference with the Gospel of Thomas becomes impressively apparent. There is no mention that the disciples have to believe in Jesus as the Son of God. The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas rather demands his disciples to recognize themselves. Within the Gospel of John, the figure of Jesus is depicted as being an incarnation of God that does not have an analogy in the synoptic gospels. An impressive example of this phenomenon is the interpretation of the death of Jesus. As the Son of God, Jesus has the power to give his life away and to take it back himself (John 10:17-18). He is the good shepherd who gives his life for his sheep (John 10:15). Jesus is the Lamb of God who carries the sin of the world (John 1:29). He is the bread of life given to the life of the world (John 6:51). Only those who eat his flesh and drink his blood will be given eternal life through him (John 6:53-56). Again, these features of the Gospel of John differ fundamentally from the interpretation of the message of Jesus handed down in the Gospel of Thomas. It does not understand the death of Jesus as a vicarious atonement death in the spirit of Jewish sacrificial rituals. But that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus should be a prerequisite for participation in eternal life would be grotesque and absurd in the sense of the Gospel of Thomas. The sketched features of the Gospel of John draw a picture of Jesus that is without doubt already far removed from the historical figure of the Jewish itinerant preacher from Nazareth. This aspect may in turn give rise to a question: What prompted the author of the Fourth gospel to create such an image of Jesus? A historical critical view of the history of early Christianity offers different answers to this question. But there is one insight that unites them: Since the beginnings of early Christianity, different interpretations of the words and deeds of Jesus competed with each other. This can already be guessed from the individual testimonies of the collection of writings finally referred to as the ‘New Testament’. However, these developments can only be adequately understood if extra-biblical scriptures are also considered. This applies especially to the Gospel of Thomas. The sketched features of the Gospel of John act as direct opposites to those interpretations of the figure and message of Jesus handed down by the Gospel of Thomas. Guiding assumption 2.8: The image of Jesus in the Gospel of John can be interpreted as a direct contrast to the image of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas. For this reason, a guiding assumption can already made in advance, which will be established in the following explanations in various contexts: The Gospel of John can be understood as an alternative concept to the Gospel of Thomas. On the one hand, it depicts Thomas as a disciple of Jesus, who at first is said not to have understood his teacher. On the other hand, it illustrates another disciple of Jesus as the model of a supposed orthodoxy, who is not mentioned in the other biblical Gospels, namely the so-called ‘Beloved Disciple’ (John 13:23; 19:26f.; 20:2-10; 21:7)19. This figure is even referred to as the author of the Gospel (John 21:21-25)20. Behind these literary productions hides a controversy that has shaped the development of early Christianity. Sometimes the parallels or contrasting parallels are so striking that one can get the impression that authors, who had direct and vivid connections with each other, have gradually created these works21. Even if it...
