BODY

(Version 05/27/23 by Sean A. Lawrence) began to take shape as early as 2001

THE MANUSCRIPT: #3) Jesus said, “If your leaders say to you, ‘Look the (Father’s) kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘ It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the [Father’s] kingdom is within you and it is outside you …” (5;pg 9) And, #77) Jesus said,“I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all come forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood: I am there. Lift up a stone and you will find me there.” (5;pg 1)

Or as related in #79) of the Gospel of Q, a redaction of common source information from Matthew and Luke … Jesus was asked, “When will the Kingdom of God arrive?” He replied, “You won’t be able to see the Kingdom of God, when it comes. People won’t be able to say ‘it’s here’ or ‘it’s over there.’ ‘The Kingdom of God is among you.’” (14B;pg 114)

Einstein once remarked that after the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, everything had changed but our way of thinking. It is more than a coincidence that in that same year a book buried for centuries was found in Egypt, a book we know as the Gospel of Thomas, one of the texts of what is referred to as the Nag Hammadi Library. (56B; from Introduction, The Gospel of Thomas A Guidebook for Spiritual Guidance by Ron Miller and Stevan Davies.)

A word about Jesus Christ from Flavius Josephus, a historian who tells us briefly, but succinctly about who He was believed to have been, and He is mentioned by name, and in more detail than any of the other tens of thousands of persons known to have been crucified by Rome. What is it that makes Jesus Christ so compelling to friend and foe alike?

From “The Complete Works.” translated by William Whiston, A.M., chapter and verse 18.3.3, Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew many over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. (32B;pg 576) This would have been written later in the first century after the fall of the Temple in A.D. 70, as a history, not as a first-hand account..

From author Bart D. Ehrman: As with political and broad cultural conflicts, the winners in battles for religious supremacy rarely publicize their opponent’s views. What if they were found to be persuasive? (53B;pg 47)

Discovery of the GOT at Nag Hammadi, Egypt (the Dead Sea Scrolls were found at 11 different sites between 1947 and 1956 on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea near Qumran about 13 miles east of Jerusalem).

An Egyptian peasant, a farmer, Muhammad ‘Ali al-Samman, made a find of at least 13 manuscripts consisting of 52 texts in December 1945. They were written on papyrus, bound in leather, and buried in an earthen vessel. The location was near the town of Nag Hammadi at the Jabal al-Tarif, a mountain honeycombed with over 150 caves located on the Nile northwest of Aswan near Luxor. Unfortunately the farmer’s mother admits burning most of the manuscripts along with straw as kindling, unaware of their priceless nature. We may never know what has been lost. (Among other sources, the most critical in relating the discovery and subsequent handling of the Nag Hammadi Library is the Introduction in Elaine Pagels’ The Gnostic Gospels 15B;pg 8-14)

After an altercation in the local area to avenge the death of al-Samman’s father, a portion of the texts was turned over to a local priest for safekeeping in the event they might be confiscated during the investigation. Eventually, when one of the manuscripts found its way to the black market for antiquities, and when an effort was made to determine valuation and authenticity, the Egyptian government became aware of the find and appropriated the remaining manuscripts (10-1/2 codices) placing them in a Coptic museum in Cairo.

However, a piece of the collection (most of the thirteenth codex containing 5 texts) was later smuggled to America for sale, and caught the attention of Professor Gilles Quispel, a distinguished historian & linguist at Utrecht in the Netherlands. Wanting to know more of certain missing pages he flew to Cairo in 1955 where he began translating [in the context of] the set. The first words he made out were nothing short of revolutionary: “These are the secret words which the living Jesus spoke, and which the twin, Judas Thomas, wrote down.” (1;pg 1)

This gospel was one of 55 texts discovered at Nag Hammadi. Preserved in Coptic, the final stage of the classical Egyptian language, having evolved after the invasion of Alexander the Great (332 BC) and later supplanted by Arabic following the Muslim conquest (640AD), it adopted the Greek alphabet as well as additional “loan” words. Coptic has always been the liturgical language of the Egyptian church, in much the same way Latin had been to the Roman church until the mid-twentieth century. It has been determined that the manuscripts were 1500 year-old translations of older writings… presumably, the Gospel was originally composed in Greek, as some fragments were interred with the Coptic translations, though some scholars believe Syrian or Aramaic to be the original language. This is where it becomes very interesting because it implies that something came before … as original documentation, though more than likely an oral tradition, which may support the notion that Thomas [may have written] this gospel prior to his death … possibly mid-first century, and/or transmitted it to students or disciples. This might also explain some of the more Gnostic flavor (if that is how it is to be described) ascribed o the Thomas codex, if it were to have been committed to “paper” in a time of Gnostic influence ... prior to a more orthodox institution in the midfourth century. Even John has a somewhat Gnostic flavor to his writing which would be no surprise. The Gnostic movement began at least 10 years prior to his death and remained strong up into the beginning of the 3rd century.

Gnosticism may, in fact, only be a smokescreen for the orthodox authorities to do what authorities have done throughout the ages.

In other words, maybe gnosticism is no more than a convenient term, covering diverse religious movements, a label used by “orthodox” Christians to classify any group regarded as heretical. (56B; from Introduction, The Gospel of Thomas A Guidebook for Spiritual Guidance by Ron Miller and Stevan Davies.)

From a timing perspective, the writings that were hidden at Nag Hammadi and Qumran were decidedly handled in this manner because of the treatment of heresy, in light of the consensus of authorities and the formulation of the canon; by Bishops of what would become the [Roman] Catholic Church. This would have occurred mid to late fourth century. Unfortunately a significant amount of early Christian doctrine was set aside and/or destroyed. It would be a blessing if more of the above discoveries were to come to pass. We need more information on practices and belief systems from the time of Christ’s ministry through the 3rd & 4th centuries. This would help many of us in further defining and establishing authentic sources more accurately, earlier.

Scholars tend to agree that it is more likely, than not, that there was some level of disagreement regarding the aspects of Christ’s life, teachings, and the implications of His death & resurrection, especially in the years immediately following His brief ministry. Until the 3rd century there would have been more blending of tradition and interpretation, than afterword. While Gnostic by association and definition, the Gospel of Thomas is less “gnostic” in content, and more in line with the Canonical and Synoptic Gospels. As well, there are strong ties to Old Testament traditional writings (prophetic and legal) most of which are reflected in the sayings of Jesus inside and outside the Canon. This “red thread” of inspiration will be better mapped out in the study of the individual sayings, all 114 of them.

And it was only later, as noted in the previous paragraph, that the Gospels as we know them, were distilled … and this is what we have come to accept and defend as a western Christian culture. Is there more that is yet to be revealed? It appears that John thought so for he said this in conclusion (John 21:25), And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written. (13B;pg 1433)

Are there portions willingly excluded by the corporate/orthodox (“catholic”) church for obvious reasons of self-preservation; to preserve authority? Were there ulterior motives? I am certain of it. The edifice we call the church cannot truly stand in as the body of Christ when conflict arises and the essence of who He is, and who we serve, is called into question against it. We presume to know the mind and the will of God, as though we might put Him in a box of our own liking. The development of the Canon and the distinguishing of what is heresy is a perfect example. We are men, and as such have misrepresented God at every turn, even in our moments of best intention. Why? Because we cannot put into words the Great Mystery, let alone decide who is more right or righteous than another. Thankfully, God does preserve the essentials, but man has always been in conflict over serving self or serving the best interest of The Kingdom. Many good men have been confused in this pursuit. It is my firm belief that God, as a perfect God, will continue to reveal what we need to know, and will provide us the necessary discernment through the Holy Spirit as we absorbed in the process of sorting the Word from the world. For all we don’t know, there is one thing we can be absolutely certain of … Christ is King!

Some have said that this approach (being one with the whole creation, etc.) is a sort of pagan approach verging on pantheism. The dictionary says this about Gnosticism …a system of mystical religious and philosophical doctrines, combining Christianity with Greek and Oriental philosophies, propagated by early Christian sects that were denounced as heretical. (Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary; copyright 1983; Edited under Jean L. McKechnie; Dorset & Babler)

The Gnostics basically believed that wisdom and understanding (knowing) was the true way to experience Christ, and therefore the Father. This was in opposition to more orthodox methods of faith, and more predominately, works. And that Christ was divine, not of the flesh, but appeared so in His need to reveal Himself. It is true that Gnostics did blend and appear at times to misinterpret the true faith, but so have various splinter groups to this day. In fact, very large congregations generally have very closed minds on some things and very open minds on others. It is personal revelation, not doctrine, that is at the heart of Christianity. Many are mislead by well-meaning clergy who want to appeal to the masses. Gnostics were no different. While some were docetic in their presentation of Jesus, and others did promote forged authorship, this is an oversimplification of right and wrong; it does drill down to the essence of why conflict arose in the centuries following the Resurrection. I believe it requires a combination of these often conflicted methods of experience and interpretation, i.e. tradition and Spirit that must be married. There is a need to reflect on early church practices, especially the more charismatic and ecstatic experiences. It’s the excitement we need, and while a need to discern, to withhold the rod of judgement. God will perform that task at His pleasure, in His time. We can only be prepared, study and practice that which is right in that it glorifies and praises Christ as Lord.

Keep in mind that Gnostic Christians varied widely in their approach to the understanding of who God was, and who Christ was and their relationship to Him as worshipers. Often they divided the physical and spiritual realms, believing that Christ in the flesh was but a phantom. We know that the spirit does rise above the flesh which is a temporary residence. As with modern divisions within the faith, such as occur with varying & conflicting denominations or sects, many have followed leaders who are notably charismatic and or profound thinkers. It is said that the church today is more harmonious in practice, despite denominational rivalry, than in any other time in history. While that may be true, I am not convinced that the reasons for conformity are necessarily good ones. Something of the beauty is squeezed out in the name of conform-ation. No doubt, some have created self-serving cults of personality. Thomas was one of the more moderate in that he represented Christ in more intimate terms especially in light of what we now know through the Gospel of Q, John, etc., … that is to say he remained highly consistent with other known inspired works, especially Matthew, Mark, Luke, as well as the discarded Nicodemus and the Lost Gospel of Peter. There were many mysteries and serious questions unanswered in the hearts of those left in the wake of the most important event in human history, no … in the history of the cosmos.

If it is acceptable to acknowledge the Kabbalah, and its place in faith history as a legitimate mystical text, then it is also reasonable to assume the existence and acceptability of mystical texts associated with early Christianity ... is it not?

I do personally reject the aspirations of Gnostics who attempted to lower God to their standards or raise themselves to God’s. But in that regard not much has changed. But it is not true that all who differ in their beliefs are automatically wrong or misdirected. Maybe in our haste to judge we neglect to recognize the certain beauty. For certain, it is blasphemous to entertain the notion that if we “know” we become gods or christs, bringing heaven to us in a futile effort to also be divine. We can, however, through a desire to learn and open ourselves, be vessels of the Most Holy and to rise toward God in spirit. To say we will ever be equals is, in fact, heresy! To say that we will share in the divine is not.

And, while I am confident that I am able to discern the difference, there is a very distinct part of Christ’s sayings that is overtly Zen … what I would call being about the act of being. This not to be construed as a bad thing in and of itself. If Christ is, in fact, in and of all things, then it stands to reason that He would be the good that humanity, and the whole of creation, had accumulated to that point in time, and had always had emblazoned on its DNA … in essence the blueprint or template of God laid upon our hearts ... literally. By that I mean the good and the useful, not evil practices. As a matter of definition, I see Zen as a philosophy of perception rather than a practice of faith.

I believe that a statement like, “the Kingdom is within us and all around us” is some of the most reassuring verbiage I have ever read. It is the act of being and perceiving that it is “what it is.” After all, Christ asks only that we believe. It is not about doing, but being willing. In that vein I don’t believe you can separate God from the whole of His creation, because the Trinity is why creation exists, and how it exists, and why it must exist. God even allows evil to exist (in His creation) because it allows for choice. If people see God’s handiwork in a beautiful sunset, why not in the organic faces of wood and stone?

In the context of the first few centuries A.D. with respect to the emergence of a unified “catholic” church and its handling of pre-existing belief systems, sects and the like:

From The Gnostics by Tobias Churtan ... A heretic was somebody who felt or thought or preached that he could have a relationship with God without the authority of the Catholic Church. (52B;pg 70-1)

Not all historians have ‘clean hands’ ... (52B;pg 67)

The Church had involved itself with political power and worldly vice. Christ had said that a man cannot serve two masters: God and Money. (52B;pg71)

From a commentary by Gilles Quispel describing his first reading of the words of the GOT in 1956 ... “That we had here an independent tradition of the sayings of Jesus.” (52B;pg 30)

From Lost Christianities by Bart D. Ehrman ... That all forms of modern Christianity, whether they acknowledge it or not, go back to one form of Christianity that emerged as victorious from the conflicts of the second and third centuries. This one form of Christianity decided what was the “correct” Christian perspective; it decided who could exercise authority over Christian belief and practice; and determined what forms of Christianity would be marginalized, set aside, destroyed. It also decided which books to canonize into Scripture, and which books to set aside as “heretical,” teaching false ideas. And then as a coup de grace, this victorious party rewrote the history of the controversy, making it appear that there had not been much of a conflict at all, claiming that its own views had always been those of the majority of Christians at all times ... (53B;pg 4)

PROFILE: Thomas (Didymos Judas Thomas: the Twin and the Doubter … NOT the twin of Christ as some assert in an effort to discredit, but the twin of another fully human being) is the disciple we all remember from the post-Resurrection accounts in the Gospels ... the one who was more like most of us, than not. It is difficult to believe in what we cannot see, let alone live by it; yet that is exactly what Christ asks us to do as he admonishes Thomas in John 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

(3B; pg1547)

Jay at the “Latter Rain” web page (9) notes that the Thomas in question is, by some, believed to be the brother of Matthew, more than likely, by virtue of them being named together in Matthew 10:3 …Thomas and Matthew the tax collector…; could he possibly be the twin of James (is it James, son of Zebedee, brother of John the beloved Disciple, fishermen working for Simon (Peter) at the time of their calling? We don’t know.) It is interesting that, while remembered as a doubter, Thomas could be driven by his intense loyalty once convinced, as exemplified in John 11:16 when Jesus was reminded by the disciples that going back to raise Lazarus would place him again in harm’s way. Then Thomas, who is called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with Him.” (3B;pg 1530)

The builder’s square and the spear, the instrument of his martyrdom, is his emblem (as he was known to be a builder by trade). It is believed that he preached until his death in Persia and India. In support of that tradition, until the 3rd century rumors still circulated about a Christian community in the Kerala district of India that claimed descent from Christians converted by the preaching of Thomas. This includes the belief in India that Thomas was speared to death near Madras. More specifically another version follows … Thomas spent money on the poor that was earmarked for the building of a royal palace. When the king demanded his palace, Thomas reminded him that God had prepared one for him in heaven. In his rage the king had Thomas thrust through with a spear, and buried at Edessa in eastern Turkey known today as Urfa. Evidence of this legend is purportedly his grave known to have been venerated into the 4th century [at Edessa].

THE BODY OF WORK: I will provide what I have gleaned through reading & prayer and discernment of the Holy Spirit, and what other sources suggest as comparisons to the 4 (Canonicals) … Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, sub-divided into the 3 (Synoptics) … Matthew, Mark & Luke who provide a synopsis or “general view,” with Matthew and Luke having the “Q” source as a common denominator. It is said that Thomas predates the four, and was most probably the reference for them, as early as 35 and as late as 70150 A.D. (1;pg 1) It is suggested (and I tend to accept this) that the language in Thomas is most likely the closest to the actual words of Jesus (if not the first literal transcribing from oral tradition) that exists

There is also a suspected source called “Q” or Quelle from the German. Rather than speculating on a source that remains unnamed, does it not stand to reason that the source would logically have been either Thomas, his students, or other unnamed disciples of Jesus Christ who gathered and transmitted (transcribed) what they heard during, or shortly after, His ministry?

Note that some of the language is said to be symbolic for purposes of use in the Gnostic movement, however, a great deal is very recognizable. Remember, also, that John was also very symbolic, even mystical, in his writings to avoid having material being used against him and others commissioning the new faith. Both the Jewish and Roman authorities were eager to squelch the fledgling [Christian] movement. Something that the Orthodox (later to become known as Catholic) Church engaged in, as well.

Jesus was very pro female-involvement in “The Way” as it was called, however you will see some language about male and female that sounds very discriminatory. While this may be attributed to the fact that there was much to be interpreted from the person of Christ, His ministry, His miracles, and His Resurrection, other research has provided me with at least one answer to that one … male and female [apparently] were symbolic for the church as follows: male refers to, or represents, the Gnostic Christians who are seeking to know the “secret” things as referred to in no.’s 1 & 2; while the female represents orthodox Christianity … the interpretation being, “abandon the female (orthodox) and become male (seeking the secret gnosis). (1;pg 3) While this sounds plausible, there is also the greater possibility that this was inserted at some point to either discredit the text or to underpin the growing Gnostic movement that was in direct conflict with the gathering presence of orthodoxy. In either case this appears to be an add-on and does not keep the basic tone of the balance of the text or the known teachings of Christ. And yet that odd slant toward the male in fact represented the very element of institutional orthodoxy that drove a wedge between the two groups … the orthodox church patterned itself after a male or patriarchal model, while the more Gnostic and fringe Christians were not opposed to having female leaders, prophets, etc. Mary Magdalene herself was a very highly respected person in the more intimate group of Christ’s disciples. Actually the anti-female bias was more a later development of the orthodox church (Paul and forward), and represents the very authoritarian mind set that Jesus railed against. It is entirely possible that it was added to pacify or to make it more palatable to those in the orthodox church as the canon was being sorted out in the 3rd and 4th centuries. I suppose this effort, while not very solid in apostolic terms, would appear to be more less volatile to the persecutors, (and would unfortunately support the strong cultural and social bias against females in Middle-Eastern antiquity, especially in traditional Jewish society) such as those like Saul who became the Paul of the letters to various upstart churches (Thessalonica, Ephesus, Philippi, etc) surrounding the Mediterranean. Paul was a Pharisee by training and practice, and was most likely predisposed to recreating order on the rim of the Mediterranean, where he circulated attempting to plant and sustain upstart churches in pagan, often hostile, environments.

Elaine Pagels says the following in regard to saying 114 The puzzling saying attributed to Jesus [in the Gospel of Thomas] – that Mary must become male in order to become a “living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven” may be taken symbolically: what is merely human (therefore female) must be transformed into what is divine (the “living spirit” the male). So, according …to other passages [they] become Jesus’ disciples when they transcend their human nature and so “become male.” (15B;pg 67)

I believe that this passage is unrelated to the balance of the text, and was undoubtedly added, as others may have been added, either to disguise the whole meaning of the codex or to conform to a use other than originally intended by the author(s).

From Ron Miller ... “Although I maintain a healthy skepticism toward most conspiracy theories, there was without question a conspiracy in the patriarchal Church to marginalize women and to ignore the emancipating stance toward women taken by Jesus.” (56B;pg 43)

As stated earlier, I suggest that the Gnostics may have couched some of the GOT sayings in gnostic verbiage to lend credence to their beliefs through the legitimate teachings of Jesus. But, as with any of the Gospels, one has to peel away the personal perspective and embellishment to get to the core of the message, which obviously remains intact. This is just one more buttress to the authenticity of His (Christ’s) teachings, not a detractor, as some would suggest. These Thomas Gospels are not an “all or nothing” proposition. Consider the metaphor of a gemstone … because the surrounding rock is not the gem itself does not devalue the gem. It (the surrounding rock) may not be the gem, however, its existence was absolutely necessary for the development (or transmission in this case) of that gemstone, if only for protection from the elements until it could be located and properly faceted or cultivated. This is the same rationale that has been a problem for the Creation/Evolution argument: it always has to be an “all or nothing” proposition. The only “all or nothing” issue, in my opinion, is belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, our debt paid in full on the cross, and through Him the promise of eternal life.

Consider the most important support (or parallel) in GOT (hereafter to represent Gospel Of Thomas) as compared to the canonized text. Note: Coptic is a Northern Egyptian dialect used exclusively by a Christian sect (still used in the orthodox church) which translated from the original Greek and was probably transcribed from an earlier manuscript, presumably Aramaic or Syrian. With that in mind the emphasis will be on the Synoptics for reference and Greek for interpretation, where it exists however scant. Coptic will be the critical focus because most of the text is in that translation, however the occasional Greek will help to support the veracity of that transcribing in illustrating how the basic tone or wording has remained intact despite various historical interpretations and transcriptions. The whole new Testament is in Greek, presumably at some point translated from indigenous dialects. It is my firm belief that this essential core accuracy is God’s way of preserving that which is vital for the study & practice of the Christian faith. Even with the Coptic transcription, it remains incredibly faithful to the accepted Biblical text as translated. I will demonstrate how it supports, not refutes, canonized verse, which has been in flux since it was first crystalized (combining both OT and NT) in about 357 A.D. The Biblical canon has ebbed and flowed throughout the centuries with concerns about the Apocrypha (in Greek meaning hidden, concealed or obscure), the Revelation of John, the Gospel of John and now the Gospel of Thomas. The Bible is a continuing revelation from God through the Holy Spirit, as men have only compiled what they have been aware of. Is it coincidence that the dead Sea Scrolls and The Nag Hammadi Library were discovered on the heels of the darkest period in world history …the Holocaust? I think not. (Thanks to Gary Markestad at Trinity Lutheran for his insight.) God continues to reveal Himself through the Bible we know and the Bible yet to be known. God loves His nation Israel.

Note: The Thomas codex was a list, and by all observations was probably used for quick reference of text deemed important to the transcriber as noted by Bart Ehrman below... and so, it would appear, was the unknown hypothetical author of the Q Gospels, if the current book version is in the accurate context.

Again from Lost Christianities, “While the matter continues to be debated among scholars, most think that he did not use the Synoptic Gospels as a source. There are not enough word-for-word agreements to think that he did (unlike the extensive agreements among the Synoptics themselves.) Most think, instead that he had heard the sayings transmitted orally, by word of mouth (just as Mark, for example, heard the stories), and then collected a number of them together, some similar to those found in the Synoptics, some like the Synoptic sayings but with a twist, some not at all like the Synoptic sayings. (53B;pg 59)

Was it done by a forger who claimed the name of Thomas? Yes, possibly. Was it by followers of the Thomas discipleship? Yes, Possibly. Does it appear to represent a separate tradition that later fed into what is now the canon of the Bible? It appears to be a real possibility. Why the turf wars over Scripture that serves to buttress and enrich? That is the real question?

A comparison of the Gospel of Thomas to the New Testament gospels has been a matter of special interest: many of the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas have parallels in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke). A comparison of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas with their parallels in the synoptic gospels suggest that the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas either are present in a more primitive form or are developments of a more primitive form of such sayings. Indeed, the Gospel of Thomas resembles the synoptic sayings source, often called “Q,” which was the common source of sayings used by Matthew and Luke. Hence the Gospel of Thomas and its sources are collections of sayings and parables which are closely related to the sources of the New Testament Gospels. (17B;pg 299) From the Introduction to the Thomas Gospels by Helmut Koester

Gospel writings by approximate timing and by author (as identified) …

Thomas 35 A.D. Paul of Tarsus 55 A.D. Mark 70 A.D. __ Luke & Matthew 80 A.D. John 90 A.D.

(Author’s assumption about Thomas with information provided in the classroom by Father Dan Daley of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Bloomfield, New Mexico …late 2002)

Excerpts from John chapter 14 beginning with verse 5.

What we find is a typical Thomasonian question which is consistent with the Gospels, and reflects what appears to be referred to as Gnosticism. I see it as a questioning, inquisitive mind. We all have our favorite methods … such was the author’s of the Thomas Gospel.

Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?”

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me you would have known My Father also. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.” (3B;pg 1536) *

Philip said to Him, “Lord show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you have not known me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these will he do, because I go My Father. And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.” (3B;pg 1536-37)

We are to know this because we know Him. Why would John have included this if it were not representative of Thomas’ position within The Way, and that the dialogue proved meaningful [to the extent that it provided an opportunity to make one of the strongest statements about who Christ was]? And, it emphasizes the truth about how one can come to the Father: ONLY through the Son [the Cross]. Philip’s question provides an opportunity for further fleshing out that is reminiscent, but an embellished version, of Thomas in 18, 38, 51, 59 & 108.

* From the Greek, Strong’s numbers, the root meanings of underlined words are for the purpose of understanding context and more exactitude in the intention of the passage. Taken from the Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible (13B; NT Lexicon) and (2CD)

Way

Strong's Number: 3598

Transliterated: hodos

Phonetic: hod-os'

Text: apparently a primary word; a road; by implication a progress (the route, act or distance); figuratively, a mode or means: journey, (high-)way.

Christ calls himself “The Way” because no one comes to the Father, or can approach the divine essence in a future state of blessedness but through Him.

Truth

Strong's Number: 225

Transliterated: aletheia

Phonetic: al-ay'-thi-a

Text: from 227; truth: true, X truly, truth, verity.

Denotes the reality clearly lying before our eyes as opposed to a mere appearance without reality; or as opposed to types, emblems or shadows.

Life

Strong's Number: 2222

Transliterated: zoe

Phonetic: dzo-ay'

Text: from 2198; life (literally or figuratively): life(-time). Compare 5590. Referring to the principle of life in the spirit and soul; distinguished from bios or physical life, it is the highest blessedness of the creature which expresses all of the highest and best which Christ is and represents … for all that we use in our language is symbolic.

Father

Strong's Number: 3962

Transliterated: pater

Phonetic: pat-ayr'

Text: apparently a primary word; a "father" (literally or figuratively, near or more remote): father, parent.

As the first person of the Trinity, the Father, is so called to distinguish Him from the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Known

Strong's Number: 1097

Transliterated: ginosko

Phonetic: ghin-oce'-ko

Text: a prolonged form of a primary verb; to "know" (absolutely): allow, be aware (of), feel, (have) know(-ledge), perceived, be resolved, can speak, be sure, understand.

Usually to know experientially; to know, to perceive; to know, be conscious of.

Because any translation is imbued with inflection and innuendo that cannot adequately be captured in a superficial rendering of a word out of its original language context the Strong’s numbering system will be used periodically to provide a more accurate definition, adding breadth & depth to the passage being discussed. This will provide what was meant, not simply what was said. As human beings we have , by our very nature, bastardized the Word of God as we cannot hope to say that which cannot be said.

There is much emphasis on the fact that the interpretation is to be discovered as though it is hidden. This is not so much Gnostic as it is a throwback to Kabbalistic mysticism. Note the following from Daniel C. Matt in The Essential Kabbalah

“Something you cannot explain to another person is called nistar, “hidden,” like the taste of food, which is impossible you describe to one who has never tasted it. You cannot express in words exactly what is it – it is hidden. Similarly with the love and awe of God: It is impossible to explain to another what the love in your heart feels like. This is hidden. Rather, the secrets hidden throughout … are based entirely on cleaving to God –for one worthy to cleave. ” (56B;pg 162)