The Gospel of Thomas and Early Stages in the Development of the Christian Wisdom Literature - O...

The Gospel of Thomas and Early Stages in the Development ofthe Christian Wisdom Literature

Alexei Siverstev

Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 8, Number 3, Fall 2000,pp. 319-340 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University PressDOI: 10.1353/earl.2000.0049

For additional information about this article

Access provided by UMESP-Universidade Metodista de SÃ£o Paulo (19 Sep 2013 10:27 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v008/8.3siverstev.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v008/8.3siverstev.html

SIVERSTEV/THOMAS AND CHRISTIAN WISDOM LITERATURE 319

Journal of Early Christian Studies 8:3, 319–340 © 2000 The Johns Hopkins University Press

The Gospel of Thomasand Early Stages in theDevelopment of theChristian Wisdom Literature

ALEXEI SIVERSTEV

This work addresses the theological background of the Gospel of Thomas andits relationship to personified wisdom tradition on the one hand, and to theSyriac Christian tradition of the divine redeemer on the other. The Gospel ofThomas shares a number of unique characteristics with the Syriac literature ofthe second and third centuries c.e., such as interest in personal asceticism as ameans to attain divine wisdom, personal deification, and view of Christ as astate of being most clearly expressed in the man Jesus, but also accessible tohis followers. All of these characteristics distinguish the Gospel of Thomasfrom the personified wisdom tradition, which in some cases explicitly rejectsthem (the Gospel of John). On the other hand, the Gospel of Thomas isorganized as a collection of independent sayings (logoi sophon) pronounced byJesus, while the third-century Syriac writings usually have a poetic orsemipoetic form (The Hymn of the Pearl, the Odes of Solomon). In addition,despite significant similarities, the theological message of the Syriac literatureappears more “mature” and articulated than the doctrine of the Gospel ofThomas. One may conclude that the Gospel of Thomas belongs to the earlystages in the development of Christian doctrine that would eventually evolveinto a full-fledged theology in the later Syriac texts. Its message was eitherredefined in Syriac tradition of the divine redeemer or rejected as a result ofadaptation of personified wisdom tradition by the mainstream church.

INTRODUCTION

The attempt to analyze early Christian writings as a part of the widergenre of wisdom literature has led to a major breakthrough in the fieldduring the last several decades or so. The idea that at least some of theearliest parts of the gospels belong to the genre of wise sayings now has

320 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

considerable support among scholars and has already been used as amethodological tool in a number of form-critical studies.1 Among othertexts, the Gospel of Thomas has received a great deal of attention pre-cisely because its genre has been recognized as that of wisdom sayings(logoi sophon).2

On the whole, there is a strong tendency in modern scholarship todistinguish between at least two stages in the formation of sayings tradi-tions in early Christianity, and their respective theological backgrounds.The best summary of the first stage can be found in Helmut Koester’swords about the theological message of the Gospel of Thomas:

Faith is understood as belief in Jesus’ words, a belief which makes whatJesus proclaimed present and real for the believer. The catalyst which causedthe crystallization of these sayings into a “Gospel” is the view that thekingdom is uniquely present in Jesus’ eschatological preaching and thateternal wisdom about man’s self is disclosed in his words.3

In general this first stage can be characterized by the absence of explicitidentification of Jesus with personified Wisdom, as well as by the lack ofapocalyptic or judgmental pronouncements against “this generation.” Ittends to be edifying in its content, using moral admonitions as the majormeans of conveying its religious message. The “mythological” stratum ofthis stage is somewhat undeveloped, at least in comparison with thesecond one.

During the second (polemical) stage, a number of sayings were intro-duced that imply identification of Jesus with Sophia, thus developing afunctional unity between the two of them which had already existed inpotentia at the first stage. The overall tendency of this layer would betowards the creation of a “mythological” image of a supernatural Jesus,who is identified with the heavenly Wisdom rejected by “this generation.”This tendency is accompanied in turn by a much more bitter and pointed

1. J. Robinson, “Jewish Wisdom Literature and the Gattung, LOGOI SOPHON”in The Shape of Q: Signal Essays on the Sayings Gospel, ed. J. Kloppenborg(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 51–58. For methodological use of this approach, seeJ. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).

2. For a summary of the discussion about the relationship between the Gospel ofThomas and the canonical gospels, see F. Fallon and R. Cameron, “The Gospel ofThomas: A Forschungsbericht and Analysis,” ANRW II.25.6 (1988): 4213–24. Seealso S. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma: Polebridge Press,1993).

3. H. Koester, “The Synoptic Sayings Source and the Gospel of Thomas” in Shapeof Q, 50.


polemic against society, the polemic heavily loaded with apocalyptic over-tones and directly connected to the rejection of Jesus and his disciples.4

In other words, the second stage exemplifies one of the variations of theso-called wisdom myth widely attested in other writings of the SecondTemple period and early rabbinic Judaism. This theology, however, ap-pears to be secondary in our particular case, and largely resulted from theunfavorable circumstances in which early Christian communities foundthemselves. This leaves us with the obvious question as to the nature ofthe original theology of the first layer of the Christian sayings tradition.Unfortunately in most of the studies there is no clear sense of what exactlythis theological message could have been. One has the sense that the firststage did not have any particular “mythological” background compa-rable to that of the second stage, but rather is to be viewed as merely aradical preaching of moral values.

The goal of this paper is to show that the Christian sayings tradition initself had a profound “mythological” significance. This mythology was,however, significantly different from what we call “the personified wis-dom theology,” and had a life and history of its own. It would be useful torefer now to another group of writings which has striking similaritieswith the Gospel of Thomas and which is often used as a decisive proof forits later provenance, namely, the Syriac Christian texts of the second–third centuries c.e.

Recent decades have witnessed significant leaps in the study of SyriacChristianity. While some of the most daring expectations proved to beunjustified, the pool of Syriac literature still remains a gold mine for thestudent of early church history. It had been noticed long ago that, untilwell into the fourth century, the area of eastern Syria (meaning first andforemost Edessa and its neighborhood) remained out of the scope of“mainstream” orthodox Christianity. The predominant influence in thatarea came from such “heretical” groups as Gnostics, Manicheans, En-cratites, and Jewish Christians. A considerable number of Syriac Chris-tian texts stem from this very period, roughly confined between the late

4. This type of two-stage approach has been most fully developed by J. Kloppenborgin respect to the Q Sayings Gospel in his Formation of Q (for the summary of majorpoints see his “The Formation of Q and Antique Instructional Genres” in Shape ofQ). There is a considerable tendency, however, to discern a similar two-stage processin the formation of the Gospel of Thomas. See, for example, W. Arnal, “The Rhetoricof Marginality: Apocalypticism, Gnosticism, and Sayings Gospels,” HTR 88 (1995):471–80 and S. Patterson, Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 198 (cf. Helmut Koester, whoseemingly avoids any stratification attempts in his works on Thomas).


second and early fourth centuries c.e. Hence there is reasonable hope thatone can find in this literature early theological vestiges, otherwise purgedfrom the main body of Christian writings.5

The likelihood of finding interesting data significantly increases whenone approaches the Gospel of Thomas. According to the dominant schol-arly view, the Gospel of Thomas in its present form was composed inSyria, while the exact place or even region still remains an enigma. Tho-mas appears to be the apostolic figure particularly revered in the churchesof Syria, while the name Judas Thomas or its redundant form DidymosJudas Thomas is attested only in the East. It seems that the very identifica-tion of the disciple named Thomas with Judas occurs only in Syriactradition, but holds there with remarkable persistence.6

In addition to these general considerations, G. Quispel was able toidentify parallels between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron ofTatian, conventionally dated around the end of the second century c.e. Ina number of readings, the two works agree with each other against thecanonical gospels, thus pointing to a common source or mutual influ-ence.7 While the Diatessaron remains the most convincing source forSyriac parallels to Thomas, Quispel also found traces of the gospel inseveral other Syriac texts of the third and fourth centuries.8 In addition,there have been various attempts to prove that the original language ofThomas’ composition was Syriac. As a whole they have not been success-ful, but there is still a possibility that some expressions in the text areborrowed from Semitic languages.9

Indeed the similarities between the Gospel of Thomas and Syriac Chris-tian writings are so significant that they are often considered to provide

5. For a discussion of various aspects of early Syriac Christianity, see R. Murray,Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1975). J. Segal, Edessa: “The Blessed City” (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1970).

6. For a summary of the discussion and bibliography, see Fallon and Cameron,“Gospel of Thomas,” 4227.

7. G. Quispel, “L’évangile selon Thomas et le Diatessaron” in Gnostic Studies II(Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaelogisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1975), 31–55.Idem, Tatian and the Gospel of Thomas: Studies in the History of the WesternDiatessaron (Leiden: Brill, 1975).

8. G. Quispel, Makarius, das Thomasevangelium und das Lied von der Perle,NovTSup 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1967). See also the articles in his Gnostic Studies II.

9. A. Guillaumont, “Les semitismes dans l’Evangile selon Thomas: Essai declassement” in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions Presented to GillesQuispel on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 190–204; contrastK. Kuhn, “Some Observations on the Coptic Gospel According to Thomas,” Mus 73(1960): 317–23.


grounds for a late dating of the former (third century c.e.).10 Withoutgoing into the details of the whole debate, there is at least one indicationthat demonstrates a diachronic rather than synchronic relationship be-tween these ideas and theological notions. The similarities between theGospel of Thomas and the Syriac literature lay in the realm of content,rather than in their formal characteristics. In terms of form, in fact, theGospel of Thomas is absolutely distinctive when viewed against the back-ground of the Syriac literary output.

The Gospel of Thomas represents a collection of random sayings strungtogether without any single unifying plan underlying the composition as awhole. The closest parallels are, of course, the biblical book of Proverbsand the mishnaic tractate Pirke Avot. Similar collections appear in thebook of Ben-Sira, the Wisdom of Ahiqar, and recently published Qumransapiential texts. However, this genre, which is amply attested in Hebrewand early Aramaic literary tradition, is virtually unknown in Syriac litera-ture. The only exception is the so-called Letter of Mara bar Serapion.11

Still, this document has always stood somewhat apart from the “main-stream” of the Syriac literary tradition. It is conventionally dated to thesecond century c.e., thus serving as one of the earliest examples of Syriacliterary production (the bulk of which stems largely from the late second–fourth centuries c.e.). On the other hand, this genre is never attestedagain later on. Thus the “Letter of Mara bar Serapion” shows that, first,collections of random sayings were not unknown in the Syriac Orientduring the second century c.e., and, second, that they were relativelyquickly replaced by other more elaborated genres.

The most prominent of these genres was poetry. Its earliest examples(the Hymns of Solomon, and the Hymn of the Pearl) are dated to ap-proximately the third century c.e., and thus possibly reflect the next stagein the development of Syriac literature. While no considerable researchhas been done so far in respect to the antecedents of Syriac poetry per se,studies of contemporary Hebrew poetry have demonstrated its considerableindebtedness to earlier wisdom texts to such a degree that one can speakof direct continuity between them.12 We can easily imagine that much the

10. For a summary of this approach see H. Drijvers, “Facts and Problems in EarlySyriac-Speaking Christanity” in East of Antioch (London: Variorum Reprints, 1984),157–75.

11. For publication and English translation see Spicilegium Syriacum ContainingRemains of Bardesan, Meliton, Ambrose, and Mara bar Serapion, ed. W. Cureton(London: Rivingtons, 1855), 70–76.

12. See Cecil Roth, “Ecclesiasticus in the Synagogue Service,” JBL 71 (1952): 171–78 (cf. A. Mirsky, Piyute Yose ben Yose [Jerusalem: Mosad Byalik, 1977], 27–29). See


same development took place in Syriac literature at approximately thesame period of time. This would explain in turn both the similarities incontent and the differences in structure between the Gospel of Thomasand later Syriac works. They stood on a direct chronological line in termsof formal literary development, while displaying significant conservatismin terms of their content. Based on these observations, it would be prob-ably safe to maintain that the Gospel of Thomas took its final shape in thesecond century c.e. in about the same time when the “Letter of Mara BarSerapion” was written.

Thus we have basically two traditions whose affiliation with the Gos-pel of Thomas have been recognized already in modern scholarship. Oneof them is the Personified Wisdom tradition, which first had been devel-oped in the Second Commonwealth Jewish literature and later acceptedby mainstream Christianity. The origins of an “impersonal divine Re-deemer” tradition are not so clear, but it is abundantly reflected in theSyriac Christian writing stemming from the second–third centuries c.e.13

The goal of what follows is to find an appropriate place for the Gospel ofThomas vis-à-vis both of them.

THE IMAGE OF THE HUMAN BODY

Early Syriac Christianity has long been credited as a cradle of later mo-nasticism in some of its most extreme forms.14 Tatian, who is the earliestrepresentative of the Syriac tradition known to us, appears in the patristicliterature as a founder of the Encratite heresy, famous for its practices ofself-mortification. While it is not altogether clear whether he indeed startedany significant movement of his own, Tatian definitely should be seen asone of the typical examples of Syriac ways of thinking, shocking as theywere to his Western “orthodox” neighbors.

In his apologetic treatise Oratio ad Graecos, Tatian gives the following

also M. Weinfeld, “Traces of Qedushat Yotser and Pesuke de-Zimra in the QumranLiterature and in Ben-Sira,” Tarbiz 45 (1975–76): 15–26 (Hebrew).

13. During recent years the somewhat naïve fascination with the Jewish roots ofSyriac Christianity has become much more sober and balanced. See H. Drijvers,“Syriac Christianity and Judaism” in The Jews among Pagans and Christians in theRoman Empire, ed. J. Lieu et al. (London: Routledge, 1992), 124–46. I believe that itwould be premature at this point to assert Jewish origins for the wisdom tradition ofearly Syriac Christianity (contrast J. Charlesworth, “Les Odes de Salomon et lesmanuscrits de la mer morte,” RB 77 [1970]: 522–49).

14. A. Voobius, A History of Asceticism in the Syriac Orient (Louvain: CSCO,1958).


explanation of the ultimate function of human bodies: “The bond of fleshis soul, but it is the flesh which contains the soul. If such a structure is likea shrine, God is willing to dwell in it through the spirit, his representa-tive” (or. 16.21–24). In other words, the function of the human body is tobecome a dwelling place for God, to accept God inside.

A similar approach and terminology can be found in another Syriactext of the third century c.e., the Acts of Thomas. In his sermon addressedto a woman of high standing, Thomas summarizes his message in thefollowing words: “Acquire purity, and take unto you temperance, andstrive after humility, for by these three cardinal virtues is typified thisMessiah, whom I preach. For purity is the temple of God, and everyonewho guards it, guards His temple, and the Messiah dwells in him.”15

Predictably enough, the woman asks Thomas to pray so that God “maycome upon me, and that I may become a holy temple and He may dwell inme.”16 Severe mortification of the body and asceticism become the mainpractical implications of this quest for holiness for both “Thomas” andTatian. According to the church fathers, Tatian was famous for his repu-diation of wine and any kind of sexual union between men and women.The dissolution of marriages and condemnation of what are consideredto be lawful sexual relations becomes the predominant (to the point ofobsession) theme of the Acts of Thomas.

The physical means for turning one’s body into God’s “dwelling place”presupposed a belief in physical bodily transformation. At the same time,they presupposed the belief in some kind of realized eschatology, in whichthe bodily transformation should occur here and now, and not in someindefinite eschatological future preached by the mainstream church.Determined asceticism of this kind was deemed to bring an immediateredemption of a personal nature. It is interesting that, in Syriac literature,the idea of communal eschatology remains undeveloped pretty muchthrough the end of the fourth century, and is completely replaced by thetheme of immediate salvation through practices of individual self-mortification.

The other imagery which bears exactly on the same theme of bodilytransformation deals with the idea of “stripping down” one’s old body. Inhis article, “The Garments of Shame,” J. Z. Smith has persuasively arguedfor the baptismal setting of this motif.17 It seems, however, that the

15. Acts of Thomas 86.16. Acts of Thomas 87.17. Jonathan Z. Smith, “The Garments of Shame” in Map Is Not Territory: Studies

in the History of Religions (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978), 1–23.


baptismal application of this image presupposed some deeper theologicalexplanation.

When Tatian describes his conversion to Christianity, he uses a remark-able phrase to describe his final decision to become a Christian: “Nowthat I have apprehended these things I wish to strip myself just as chil-dren” (or. 30.16–17).18 For Tatian the desire to “strip myself just aschildren” came as a result of his intellectual conversion, when his soulwas “taught from God” upon reading the Bible. He talks about hisconversion in terms of obtaining divine wisdom: “I was persuaded be-cause of . . . the easily intelligible account of the creation of the world, theforeknowledge of the future, the remarkable quality of the precepts andthe doctrine of a single ruler of the universe” (or. 30.7–11). One cannotfail to notice that “stripping down one’s body” becomes the final stage inthe process of intellectual quest for divine wisdom. Understanding of thedivinely ordained universal order was traditionally one of the main goalsin wisdom literature, and as such it is reflected in Tatian’s words. Thus thewisdom roots of his behavioral experience of “stripping himself down”become all the more obvious.19

The same blend of the quest for divine wisdom and the imagery of“stripping oneself down as a child” constitutes one of the most prominentthemes in the Gospel of Thomas:

18. The phrase in question reads as following: toÊtvn oÔn tØn katãlhcinpepoihm°now boÊlomai kayãper tå nÆpia, t«n bref«n épodÊsasyai. In her recentedition of the Oratio M. Whittaker translates it as “therefore now that I haveapprehended these things I wish to ‘strip myself’ of the childishness of babyhood,”taking tå nÆpia as accusative singular (Tatian: Oratio ad Graecos and Fragments, ed.and tr. Molly Whittaker [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982], 55 and explanation of thetranslation on pp. 84–86). The translation seems very problematic to me, since it isnot altogether clear how she translates the preposition kayãper which is crucial forthe correct rendering of the phrase. The usual meaning of it in Koine Greek would be“just as,” and I do not see any compelling reason not to follow this translation in ourcase. My own translation then would be: “Now that I have apprehended these thingsI wish to strip myself just as little children.”

19. The whole passage from Tatian is coined in terminology strikingly similar tothat of some Jewish sapiential texts from Qumran. Cf. for example 4Q417 2 i 6–12.The most remarkable parallel here exists between the “foreknowledge” of Tatian andthe “mysteries to come” (raze nihyeh) of the Qumran text. In both cases behavioralprecepts are seen as part of divinely revealed wisdom and divinely ordained universalorder.


His disciples said: “When will you become revealed to us and when shallwe see you?”

Jesus said: “When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up yourgarments and place them under your feet like little children and tread onthem, then [will you see] the son of the living one, and you will not beafraid.” (Thom. 37)

The double parallelism between this saying and Tatian’s phrase (dis-robing and children imagery) is obvious. In both cases “garments” appar-ently refer to human bodies which are to be changed in order to reach anew level of intimacy with God. For Tatian, however, this act stands as apart of the ascetic rendering his body into a suitable temple for God onthe one hand, and as a result of true understanding of God’s wisdom onthe other. The negative attitude towards the body lurks behind anothersaying from Thomas, which exhibits various similarities to saying 37:

Mary said to Jesus, “Whom are your disciples like?”He said, “They are like children who have settled in a field which is not

theirs. When the owners of the field come, they will say, ‘Let us have backour field.’ They undress in their presence in order to let them have backtheir field and to give it back to them.” (Thom. 21)

The same basic imagery of children and undressing is present here, as inthe saying above, but now we have a conflict between children (disciplesof Jesus) and the owners of the field. No matter how much one would liketo read Gnostic tendencies into this story (owners as archons, etc.), it isclear that disrobing here means giving away the regular human body tothe one to whom it belongs, i.e., to the rulers of this world. In saying 37the “disrobing just as children” was required for seeing Jesus withoutfear, meaning that the revelation is conditional upon physical change ofoneself. It seems that we are very close to Tatian’s idea of converting one’sbody into a pure temple through stripping away the old one by mortifica-tion of the flesh.

For Thomas as well as for Tatian, bodily transformation comes as asignificant part of the quest for wisdom. The revelation of Jesus whichthe disciples seek in saying 37 apparently means revelation of wisdom.But in saying 4 the notion of wisdom is even more explicitly connectedto a child: “Jesus said, ‘The man old in days will not hesitate to ask asmall child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live. Formany who are first will become last, and they will become one and thesame.’” In other words, becoming a child is crucial for obtaining divinewisdom, and as we have seen “to become a child” means for Thomas


“to strip away one’s body” or “to disrobe.”20 The same holds true forTatian.

One can find a kind of synthesis for everything that has been describedhere in Ode 25 from the Odes of Solomon, originating from third-centurySyria:

And I was covered with the covering of thy (God’s) spirit;And I removed from me the garment of skins.

For thy right hand lifted me up,And removed sickness from me.

Here the “garment of skins” is replaced by “the covering of God’sspirit,” signifying the dwelling of God in a purified human body. Twosystems of images, disrobing oneself and rendering oneself into a puretemple, are thus correlated. There is no mention of wisdom in this poem,but in other odes of the same cycle the quest for God’s wisdom plays aparamount role.

It seems that at this level all these texts share the same theologicalpattern. The human body is seen as a potential temple for God. Theprocedure of rendering it a temple is symbolically designated as “disrob-ing” and “becoming a child.” The quest for God is paralleled by the questfor God’s wisdom, the two of them being different sides of the same coin.Thus, accepting God inside oneself means automatically partaking ofGod’s wisdom. It is not clear, however, whether the demands for rigidasceticism which were so prominent for Tatian had been already presentin the Gospel of Thomas, or represent a secondary development of earlierideas.

The position of the Gospel of Thomas vis-à-vis asceticism is not easy todetermine. On the one hand, there are a number of sayings that discour-age the disciples from following conventional ascetic practices (Thom. 6and 14). On the other hand, an equal number of sayings endorse fasting,even if only under certain circumstances (Thom. 27 and 104). The fa-mous saying about becoming “passers-by” (Thom. 42) can be read asalso referring to some sort of asceticism and/or itinerancy. As a whole, thesayings of Thomas may already reflect two stages in the development ofone and the same tradition. At the first stage, fasting was frowned uponas a conventional means of common piety (like prayer and giving alms),while at the second stage it became increasingly viewed as a means of

20. Cf. also Thom. 46 where “becoming a child” is a condition for acquaintance“with the Kingdom” and apparently presupposes possession of heavenly wisdom aswell.


bringing down the divine presence and fulfilling realized eschatology onthe individual level. With Tatian and his followers the latter tendencyreaches its acme. It advocates ascetic destruction (or radical transforma-tion) of this world on the scale of individual human beings in pretty muchthe same way as the second layer of Q envisions and prophesies itsapocalyptic destruction on the scale of human society. This, however,means that ascetic practices were read into the original tradition, ratherthan presupposed by it. I believe that here we have a clear example of thedevelopment of this basic theological notion over the course of twocenturies. We see how the more “primitive” theology of Thomas developsin the early Syriac literature without, however, losing its original kernel,but rather being interpreted in new terms.21

The difference between this motif and the view of Jesus as personifiedwisdom needs to be stressed. Our texts are much more interested in thefollowers of Jesus than in Jesus himself. The personality of Jesus is veryblurred, while the main goal of all of these texts is to provide readers withthe means to attain divine wisdom and accept God inside themselves.Jesus is important as long as he can give his followers instructions abouthow to achieve this realized eschatology. He becomes the perfect exampleof a pure temple in which God dwells, and the goal of his disciples is tofollow this example. On the other hand, it is the individual uniqueness ofJesus which is crucial for “Jesus as personified wisdom” tradition. Heactually is the personified wisdom of God, and the goal of his followers isto hearken to his teachings, not to become his alter ego.22

JESUS IS NOT UNIQUE: TWINS OF JESUS

One of the most striking characteristics of the Acts of Thomas is that itdevelops in some detail the idea of Thomas as Jesus’ twin. Most clearlythe relationship between the two of them is highlighted in the description

21. For a detailed treatment of this development see P. Brown, The Body andSociety: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York:Columbia University Press, 1988), 33–121. The fact that the theology advocated bythe Gospel of Thomas became very early ascetically oriented is amply attested by theso–called Gospel of the Egyptians, known from excerpts in Clement of Alexandria. Inmost cases one can closely follow the development of relatively more neutral sayingsin Thomas into clearly ascetic pronouncements in “Gospel of the Egyptians”: Strom.3.63 (cf. Thom. 114), Strom. 3.64 and 66 (cf. Thom. 79), Strom. 3.92 (cf. Thom. 37and 21–22, also 2 Clem. 12.1–2).

22. See for example Q 10.22 and its interpretation in Kloppeborg, Formation of Q,197–203.


of Thomas’ first successful attempt at ruining a marriage on his way toIndia. The story runs like this:

And when all had gone out and the doors were shut, the bridegroom liftedup the veil of the bridal chamber, that he might bring the bride to himself.And he saw the Lord Jesus in the likeness of the apostle Judas Thomas,who shortly before had blessed them and departed from them, conversingwith the bride, and he said to him: “Did you not go out before them all?How are you now found here?” But the Lord said to him: “I am not Judaswho is also Thomas, I am his brother.”23

Afterwards Jesus preaches abstention from sexual intercourse to thecouple and converts them to Christianity. In this story he is almost explic-itly identified with Thomas. The identification becomes even more pro-nounced if we recall that, in all other cases, it is Thomas who carries outsimilar tasks, and Jesus is never explicitly mentioned again. At the sametime, the preaching of Jesus is not different in its content from that ofThomas, while one could reasonably expect it to be so, if the rigid distinc-tion between Jesus and his disciple were indeed maintained. It seems thatJesus in particular is introduced in the way he is during the first mission ofThomas to foreshadow the following missions and to suggest that also inthem he is present behind Thomas’ preaching. At any rate, the literaryambiguity in the interactions between these two main characters speaksfor itself, and it is intended at the very least to prevent the reader fromdrawing clear borders between the two of them.

The theme of Jesus’ twin becomes even better articulated in the so-called Hymn of the Pearl, included in the Acts, but apparently predatingit as an independent composition. The hymn describes in a highly sym-bolic way the whereabouts of a messenger (Jesus? Thomas?), having beensent by his royal parents to find and capture the pearl, held by a snake.The messenger, however, forgets his royal origins and gets captured in thelow world. His family sends him a letter which awakens him and allowshim to fulfill his mission. Upon capturing the pearl, the messenger makeshis way back, and is welcomed by his parents and their court, and getsback royal robes that he left at home when he departed.

The symbolic significance of changing one’s garments is obvious in lightof what we have said above about stripping down one’s clothing. But inthe Acts of Thomas it becomes an event of crucial importance. Before themessenger left his parents they made an agreement with him: “if you godown into Egypt and bring the one pearl, which is in the midst of the sea

23. Acts of Thomas 11.


around the loud-breathing serpent, you shall put on your glittering robeand your toga [...] and with your brother, who is next to us in authority,you shall be heir in our kingdom.” Now, if we assume that the messengerstands for Thomas, as he apparently does, who is his brother? The latter isnever explicitly mentioned again in the hymn, but one wonders if he isJesus. If so, according to the plot, Jesus and Thomas are equal as sons ofroyal parents. Jesus does not appear to have any special function as aredeemer or the unique son of God. He is one among many, who maketheir way from this world (Egypt) to their true home in heaven.

But this is just the beginning. When Thomas (or whoever the messengeris) fulfills his mission, he gets back his heavenly robe. The story runs asfollows:

And because I did not remember its fashion, for in my childhood I had leftit in my father’s house, on a sudden, when I received it, the garment seemedto me to become like a mirror of myself. I saw it all in all, and I tooreceived all in it, for we were two in distinction and yet again one in onelikeness [...] And it was skillfully worked in its home on high [...] and theimage of the king of kings was embroidered and depicted in full all over it[...] And I saw too that it was preparing to speak. I heard the sound of itstones, which it uttered [...]: “I am the active in deeds, whom they reared forhim before my father; and I perceived myself that my stature grewaccording to his labors.” And in its kingly movements it poured itselfentirely over me, and on the hand of it givers it hastened so I might take it.

The only reasonable conclusion from this somewhat enigmatic speechis that the garment in fact is Jesus (or the heavenly brother of the messen-ger). If we accept this conclusion, it means that, first of all, the personalityof Jesus is significantly blurred, or, more precisely, is not important. Jesusappears as a state of being rather than a historic figure or even thepersonified Logos. He is a garment (no more, and no less) which thebeliever can put on himself upon completion of his earthly mission.

The believer in turn is seen as a real “brother of Jesus” or his twin.24 He

24. Cf. the following two verses from Ode 7.4–5 (the Odes of Solomon):

He became like me, that I might receive him.In form he was considered like, that I might put him on.

And I trembled not when I saw him,Because he was gracious to me.

The last sentence of verse 5 especially makes sense if we compare it to the conclusionof Thom. 37, when Jesus says: “when you disrobe without being ashamed and takeup your garments and place them under your feet like little children and tread onthem, then [will you see] the son of the living one, and you will not be afraid.”


recognizes himself in the robe as in a mirror, and puts the robe on. Thusthe distinction between the two of them totally disappears. The messen-ger (Thomas) becomes Jesus and the son of God (royal father in thehymn). In fact, the notion of Jesus’ twins (Thomas, and theoreticallyeverybody who partakes of “real wisdom”) not only does away with theuniqueness of Jesus as personified wisdom, or the son of God, but it callsinto question the importance of Jesus as a historical character. Those whoare able to partake of the divine wisdom are born from above, and in thisrespect they are equal to Jesus, who, as I have said, represents a state ofbeing rather than a personal entity.

The image of disrobing thus receives additional significance. The royalrobe which the messenger puts on at the end of his journey was left forhim in his father’s house in his childhood. Thus his change of clothesalmost exactly parallels the idea of “disrobing as a child” in Tatian andthe Gospel of Thomas. The messenger returns to his proper heavenlymode of existence which he left in order to get the pearl and which issymbolized by his childhood. As a result, the overall symbolism of disrob-ing or bodily transformation can be understood from a new perspective.The putting on a new body or the acceptance of God into oneself shouldbe understood verbatim. The believer indeed transforms his body throughdeification. He is able to do it precisely because Jesus is not unique,having twins, or “multiple personalities,” since the historical personalityof Jesus is only vaguely defined. All this comes as a result of the quest fortrue wisdom, which the believer can now embrace.25

Saying 84 in the Gospel of Thomas constitutes almost a commentaryon the scene of self-recognition by the messenger in the robe offered tohim. In fact, the whole significance of this saying can be grasped only inthe light of the hymn: “Jesus said, ‘When you see your likeness, yourejoice. But when you see your images which came into being before you,and which neither die nor become manifest, how much more you willhave to bear.’” Does he mean here, that he is the real image of a believer,as it is explained in the Acts? It seems that the saying becomes fullyunderstandable if we bear in mind the significance accorded to findingone’s true self in the Hymn of Pearl. Here Jesus tells his followers thatthey should see their preexisting images in apparently the same way as themessenger did when he saw himself in the robe/Jesus. This in turn could

25. For a general treatment of clothing metaphors in Syriac literature see S. Brock,“Clothing Metaphors as a Means of Theological Expression in Syriac Tradition,” inTypus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den ostlichen Vatern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter,ed. M. Schmidt (Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1982), 11–38.


lead to the conclusion that the idea of heavenly twins stands behind theotherwise enigmatic message of this saying.

On the whole, it seems that the Gospel of Thomas owes much to theconcept of Jesus’ twins as it is reflected in the later Syriac tradition. Aswell as with the “disrobing,” the parallels exist not merely on the level ofcontent but even on the level of shared imagery and language. Sometimesincomprehensible sayings of the Gospel make perfect sense as soon as wejuxtapose them with the theological perspective of the Acts. It is then fairto suggest that the Gospel of Thomas would maintain that Jesus was notunique, and even more, that his historical personality is not what reallymatters. The real importance of Jesus is that he serves as an example ofhow one can become the son of God in the most plain sense of the word.Jesus symbolizes a state of being and he encourages his followers to reachthis state themselves.

On the other hand there are unmistakable indicators that in the Hymnof the Pearl we are dealing with a more advanced mythology (if nottheology) than in the Gospel of Thomas. Instead of the separate andseemingly disconnected sayings of the Gospel we encounter an elaboratedmyth coined in the form of a didactic poem (saga?). Its symbolism be-comes much more abundant and excessive, compared to that of thesayings. Little remains from the previous genre of wisdom sayings. Theoverall enigma of the message persists, but now it is expressed throughthe convoluted interplay of the symbolic narrative, rather than throughmysterious sayings of the sage which need to be interpreted. As a whole,while the basic message and most essential imagery are preserved in bothcases, the Hymn of the Pearl represents a new “mythological” elabora-tion of the earlier tradition in a way comparable to that of the personifiedwisdom tradition. Unlike the latter, however, it appears to preserve thecore of the message relatively untouched.26

PERSONAL DEIFICATION: CHRIST AS A STATE OF BEING

The Acts of Thomas are not unique in seeing in personal deification theultimate goal of the seer who seeks divine wisdom. Even more explicitly,this idea is articulated in the so-called Odes of Solomon and in Tatian’s

26. As a whole this literary development corresponds to the process of the gradualreplacement of the sayings genre by narratives as attested elsewhere. See Robinson,“Jewish Wisdom Literature,” 57–58. The “mythologizing” tendency of this process isalso reflected in the personified wisdom tradition. See for example Prov 1–9 (esp. 8);Sir 24.1–23; Psalm 154 (=11Q5 xviii 1–16); Sap. Sol. 7.15–8.1; 1 Enoch 42.1–3.


Oratio ad Graecos. In both cases the notion of deification is tightly boundup with the acquisition of wisdom, and, in fact, equated with the latter.27

In a most succinct way this idea appears in the third ode:

I have been united (to the Lord), because the lover has found the beloved,Because I love him that is the Son, I shall become a son.

Indeed he who is joined to him who is immortal,Truly will be immortal.

While the language (and especially the idea of love as the main attributeof relationships between God and man) of this passage may to a certainextent remind one of the Gospel of John, as well as of the Johanineepistles, its theology is somewhat different. Nowhere in John would onefind the idea of a believer becoming Jesus himself to a degree that erasesany difference between two of them. The opposite is true, and the FourthGospel is especially remarkable for its consistent emphasis on the rigidboundaries of Jesus’ identity, clearly different from that of his disciples.28

It is also interesting that the idea of immortality here becomes derivativeof individual deification. Basically it sounds as though “you yourself willbecome god, and that is why you will not die.” In fact, this type oftheology may shed additional light on the peculiar stand of Paul’s oppo-nents in 1 Corinthians on resurrection as something that has been alreadyaccomplished (in connection with supreme wisdom as something that hasbeen already achieved). The same line of reasoning could have perplexedand discouraged the recipients of 1 Thessalonians when some from theircommunity died prior to the second coming (1 Thess 4.13–18).

In a number of odes, the author who recites them, at a certain point,starts speaking with the Christ’s voice.29 I doubt whether we can find anyother similar phenomena in early Christian literature. There is not anyformal sign in the text that would mark a transition from one person toanother. In fact, it is presupposed that it is actually one and the same

27. The idea of wisdom is especially well articulated in odes 7, 16 and 18. For thedecisive role of the search for wisdom in this kind of theology see H. J. Drijvers, “ThePeshitta of Sapientia Salomonis,” Scripta Signa Vocis: Studies Presented to J. H.Hospers, ed. H. Vanstipout et al. (Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1986), 15–30, andidem, “Solomon as Teacher: Early Syriac Didactic Poetry,” OCA 229 (1987): 123–34.

28. For obvious connections between the Gospel of John and the Odes of Solomonsee J. Charlesworth and R. Culpepper, “The Odes of Solomon and the Gospel ofJohn,” CBQ 35 (1981): 298–322. The polemical emphasis of John on the uniquenessof Jesus is discussed in W. Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarian-ism,” JBL 91 (1972): 44–72.

29. Odes 8, 10, 17, 28, 30, 36, 41, 42.


person, who, up until this verse, was a human being, and now continuesspeaking in his divine capacity. In modern English translations, Christ’sspeeches are introduced with the words “Christ speaks,” but nothing inthe original text parallels this insertion, which somewhat misleads thereader and blurs the original point made by the text. Apparently this verymoment is seen by the author as the culmination of his quest for divinewisdom, which has been finally achieved.

Tatian gives a less poetical account of basically the same concept,coined now in philosophical terms: “The celestial Word, made Spirit fromthe Spirit and Word from power of the Word, in the likeness of the Fatherwho begot him made man an image of immortality, so that just as incor-ruptibility belongs to God, in the same way man might share God’s lotand have immortality also” (or. 7.6–10). Again, immortality becomes aresult of individual deification achieved in this life, and thus whollypertains to realized eschatology. Salvation and/or damnation becomematters of the here and now, not of the Pauline unspecified future “resur-rection from the dead.”30 The idea about humanity’s participation inGod’s nature is explicitly stated. In fact, the distinction between the divineLogos and human beings is deliberately blurred by using the same termi-nology in order to describe two of them. The Word is said to be madekatå tØn toË patrÚw m¤mhsin, “in the likeness of the Father,” and immedi-ately afterwards humankind is described as efikÒna t∞w éyanas¤aw, “theimage of immortality,” which means basically the same thing. Both thusare created in the image of God and humanity is supposed “to shareGod’s lot.” In other words, while it is not explicitly stated, humankind isvirtually identified with the Logos in a way that runs contrary to the maintheological notions of the Gospel of John, which is especially noticeablebecause of the (deliberately?) shared terminology.

Another passage from Tatian elaborates his idea of individual deifica-tion and provides a further link to the Gospel of Thomas. According to

30. One should constantly bear in mind the individualistic nature of the messageconveyed in these texts. The issue at stake is an individual deification, not acommunal one. The message is addressed to a small intellectual elite, searching fordivine wisdom, and apparently it was never deemed appropriate for wide dissemina-tion. Tatian in his intellectual arrogance is anything but a democrat. All thoseconverted by Thomas in his Acts belong to the royal court, and he himself appears tobe sometimes an aristocratic salon preacher. The Gospel of Thomas praises solitaryones as the most worthy candidates for the heavenly kingdom (Thom. 49 and 75).Apparently the whole theology we are dealing with here was deeply rooted in the ideaof individual search for God and his wisdom, and was profoundly aristocratic in itsnature.


Tatian: “we have knowledge of two different kinds of spirits, one ofwhich is called soul, but the other is greater than the soul; it is the imageand likeness of God (yeoË d¢ efik∆n ka‹ ımo¤vsiw). The first men wereendowed with both, so that they might be part of the material world, andat the same time above it” (or. 12.18–21). Here the same thesis about thedivine part of human beings is repeated, but now it is associated with thehuman condition prior to the Fall. According to this statement (and towhat follows) Adam had possessed the qualities of God before he com-mitted sin. Then they were taken from him, and the quest for wisdomimplies claiming them back.31

One can compare the following saying: “Jesus said, ‘Adam came intobeing from a great power and a great wealth, but he did not becomeworthy of you. For had he been worthy, [he would] not [have experi-enced] death’” (Thom. 85). This statement is enigmatic and deliberatelyobscure, but if we agree that “a great power and a great wealth” meanbasically the same as “the image and likeness of God” in the morephilosophically oriented rendering of Tatian, then its theological basisbecomes more transparent. Unlike Adam, who lost his original semidivinestatus, the disciples of Jesus (and the followers of Tatian) are expected toget it back and keep it, and that is why they are more “worthy” thanAdam. It is also remarkable that for both Tatian and Thomas immortalitybecomes a kind of trademark of divinity. As we have seen in the earlierexample from the Oratio, it is precisely immortality that renders humansparticipants “in God’s lot.” Again with Thomas immortality becomes themain definition of the exalted condition of humans, lost by Adam butreclaimed by Jesus’ disciples. Such a degree of parallelism not merely inmajor theological concepts, but even in the technical means of theirexpression, is hardly incidental, and it points at the very least to a sharedcultural/social setting and school of thought.32

31. The divine nature of the primordial man is reflected also in the rabbinictradition, which however showed considerable ambivalence about this notion. SeeBereshit Rabbah 20.12 and 21.5.

32. The early Syriac Christian literature had clear scribal characteristics (cf.Tatian’s redaction of the gospels). This may at least to a certain degree justify theposition of those who claim scribal origins for the Gospel of Thomas against thosewho see it as created by itinerant charismatics. See W. Arnal, “Rhetoric ofMarginality,” 471–79 and S. Patterson, Gospel of Thomas and Jesus. On the otherhand, these two points of view are by no means mutually exclusive. For the scribalcharacteristics of the Syriac tradition see S. Brock, “From Antagonism to Assimila-tion: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning,” in East of Byzantium: Syria and Armeniain the Formative Period, ed. Nina Garosian et al. (Washington, D.C.: DumbartonOaks, 1982), 17–34.


More direct and clear examples of individual deification are not lackingfrom the Gospel of Thomas as well. I will start with one of the mostextensive, as well as obscure, passages from the Gospel:

Jesus said to his disciples, “Compare me to someone and tell me whom Iam like.”

Simon Peter said to him, “You are like a righteous angel.”Matthew said to him, “You are like a wise philosopher.”Thomas said to him, “Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying

whom you are like.”Jesus said, “I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have

become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out.”And he took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas

returned to his companions, they asked him, “What did Jesus say to you?”Thomas said to them, “If I tell you one of the things which he told me,

you will pick up the stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out ofthe stones and burn you up.” (Thom. 13)

The question posed by other disciples to Thomas is obviously one whichanybody who reads this saying is likely to wonder about, and the answerto it can be found again in the Gospel of Thomas.

Thom. 108 is decisive for our argument. It reads: “Jesus said, ‘He whowill drink from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he,and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him.’” One immediatelyrecalls “because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from thebubbling spring of which I have measured out” in Thom. 13. The sameimagery of drinking water is central in both cases and it most probablyconveys the same message of deification. The latter is stated explicitly inThom. 108 and it is implied in the words said by Jesus in the middle of theconversation in Thom. 13: “I am not your master,” the plain meaning ofwhich is “we are equal to each other.”33

Moreover, in both cases deification represents the means to acquiredivine wisdom. In Thom. 13 it is coined in the typical Gnostic fashion ofesoteric wisdom revelation for the elect, adding suspense to the narrative.In Thom. 108 Jesus plainly states that “the things that are hidden” (acommon designation for wisdom in at least the Qumran sapiential

33. For the development of the same theme coined in almost the same language inthe canonical gospels see John 4.14 and 7.37–38. One can notice however the sametendency of John to pinpoint the uniqueness of the historical Jesus as a redeemer,which is especially poignant since the two texts share remarkably similar language.For the comparative study, see H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their Historyand Development (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International,1990), 113–24.


literature) will be revealed to the one who becomes him. Thus in Thomasindividual deification becomes a final step in one’s quest for wisdom inessentially the same way as it does for Tatian or the author of the Odes ofSolomon.

At the same time the first text contains one important definition miss-ing from the second one. While in Thom. 108 Jesus is the main (and theonly) source of revelation, in Thom. 13 he is merely the one who “hasmeasured out the bubbling spring,” definitely not the spring himself. Thisseeming trifle actually represents another challenge to the idea of Jesus aspersonified Wisdom. He is not personified wisdom himself, but he israther the one through whom divine wisdom pours out into this world.He is the vehicle of revelation rather than revelation itself. This picture ofJesus fits perfectly with the somewhat impersonal vision of Christ in theActs of Thomas (and especially in the Hymn of the Pearl). It also corre-sponds to the overall reluctance of Tatian to personify Christ—a reluc-tance so marked that it is not always clear if he speaks of the personifiedor impersonal Logos (let alone Jesus as a historical character). As a matterof fact, two sayings in the Gospel of Thomas directly attest to this par-ticular theological perspective:

His disciples said to him, “Show us the place where you are, since it isnecessary for us to seek it.”

He said to them, “Whoever has ears, let him hear. There is light within aman of light, and he lights up the whole world. If he does not shine he isdarkness.” (Thom. 24)

Here the distinction between Jesus as a man and a somewhat imper-sonal state of being is made very explicitly. It is not the historical person-ality of Jesus that matters and that is to be sought after, but rather theimpersonal divine presence that makes Jesus who he is, but which isequally available to his disciples if, of course, they are ready to accept it.34

According to this type of theology, the man Jesus became a pure temple

34. This peculiar view of Jesus’ personality can be defined with the followingsaying: “Jesus said, ‘It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who amthe all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a pieceof wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there’” (Thom. 77).Here, unlike in Thom. 24, Jesus is directly associated with the light. However, if werecall the identification between man and Christ in the Odes of Solomon, to thedegree that the former is speaking with the latter’s voice, we will see that these twoideas do not contradict each other. The man (like Jesus) really becomes deified, butthis does not mean that the divine presence is exclusively confined in him. Thecontrary is true.

Thom. 77 is remarkably similar to John’s prologue in terms of seeing Jesus as the


for God, accepted God in himself (deification), and, as a result, turnedinto a channel for communicating God’s wisdom. This, however, is verydifferent from the idea of Jesus as personified wisdom (while one caneasily follow the line of development between these two types of theol-ogy). The major difference is again the notion that Jesus was not unique.He showed his followers an example of how one should build oneself upin order to reach the depths of God’s wisdom, but essentially he was aman like anybody else, and so anybody else can become God.

CONCLUSION

We can now summarize the results of this paper in a more or less coherentway. The Gospel of Thomas perfectly fits the theological agenda of earlySyriac literature of the second–third centuries c.e., sharing with it notonly an overall theological perspective but also technical language andsymbolism. In both cases Jesus is perceived as a human being, who wasinhabited by God and thus deified. The essence of his message is that hisdisciples can reach the same state of existence. The divine part of Jesus isusually understood impersonally and it is by no means identified withJesus as a historical character. As a result, the interest in the historicalJesus by proponents of this theology was secondary at best. It was themessage about Jesus’ experience that was really important, and his wisesayings could fulfill this role. In a sense, their status was indeed the one oftraditional wisdom pronouncements, if we agree that the goal of, e.g., thebook of Proverbs was to supply one with instructions for behavior ineveryday life. The difference was that, in traditional wisdom literature,the goal of this life was a sober existence in agreement with God’s lawsabout the universe, while in Thomas the goal was individual deification.How and when this shift in the understanding of wisdom occurred isanother question, and deserves a separate study.

At the same time one should always bear in mind that the Gospel ofThomas and early Syriac literature represent consecutive stages in thehistory of a single theological idea. The Syriac writings represent the

primary source of everything, but in fact the two of them sound almost like directpolemic against each other. While in John the divine Logos is clearly identified withthe historical Jesus, in Thomas the impersonal nature of the divine component ofJesus is pinpointed as strongly as possible. In fact, John sounds like a later adjustmentof a theology somewhat close to that of the Gospel of Thomas to a new theologicaltaste. Cf. also John 11.9–10, 12.35–36, and 8.12. In all of them the Johanninetradition sounds like editorial elaboration of what we have in Thom. 24 and 77.


second and the more mature stage in the development of the notion ofpersonal deification. Among the most prominent formal changes, the shiftfrom collections of wise sayings to poetry (or, in the case of Tatian, tophilosophical treatise) should be mentioned. In some respects, changes incontent corresponded to those in form. The creation of more or lesscohesive poetic texts led to the shaping of more or less elaborated mythol-ogy about the itinerant redeemer, most fully developed in the Hymn of thePearl. The story became more “mythopoetic” both in its form and con-tent. Simultaneously, the theology of personal deification was developedin the direction of ascetic practices, quite in agreement with the overallspiritual tendencies of late antiquity. Thus, while the third-century Syriacwritings preserved a considerable part of the early theology, they alsoreflect significant developments which occurred since the Gospel of Thomashad been written down.

The idea of Jesus as personified wisdom could exist in parallel with, orbe an early attempt at taming, personal deification theology. It is impor-tant, however, to see that originally the two of them were clearly differentif not directly opposed to each other. The very emphasis on the signifi-cance and uniqueness of wisdom as personified in the historical Jesus rancontrary to the major postulate of the deification theology, namely, thatthe heavenly Jesus is a state of being, which was most fully displayed inthe historical Jesus, but which is by no means limited to him. As a result,the whole notion of discipleship had to be changed from following theexample of Jesus through self-deification, to the more modest quest forheavenly wisdom uniquely revealed in Jesus. It seems that at least in theGospel of John the idea of Jesus as personified Logos developed as adirect response to and rebuttal of deification theology.

If we accept the hypothesis of Thomas’ early provenance, it gives us akey to understanding what could be labeled “prepersonified wisdom”mythology in early Christianity. It remains to be seen whether the samecluster of ideas can be discerned in other branches of the early Christianmovement (I have specifically in mind the Pauline churches and theirtheology). However, it seems fair to maintain that, prior to the develop-ment of the personified wisdom tradition, early Christian groups hadalready possessed a theological doctrine with a clearly articulated mysticalkernel. If accepted, this conclusion could significantly contribute to ourunderstanding of the genre of saying traditions and its theological setting.

Alexei Siverstev is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Hebrewand Judaic Studies at New York University

The Gospel of Thomas and Early Stages in the Development of the Christian Wisdom Literature - O...

Documents

Transcript of The Gospel of Thomas and Early Stages in the Development of the Christian Wisdom Literature - O...