"the author of Mark invented the disciple Thomas because he was well acquainted with the Gospel of that name"

[MrMacSon]

"The author of John used the Gospel of Thomas extensively as a source but he has both Thomas and Judas in his Gospel as two separate characters. So his version of the Gospel of Thomas could not have been attributed to Judas Thomas.

"The first mention of the disciple Thomas is in the Gospel of Mark. The practice of attributing a later writing to a person who was a supposed eyewitness was common among the early Christians. We find it, for example, in three of the four New Testament Gospels. The universal assumption among scholars is that the Gospel of Thomas was named after the obscure disciple who was one of the Twelve. But what has not been considered seriously is the idea that with Thomas the process worked the other way around, so that the author of Mark invented the disciple Thomas because he was well acquainted with the Gospel of that name.

"... Whoever put Thomas in its final form came up with the first version of the miracles of the loaves and fishes, the version that was used by the author of Mark as a source. So the author of Mark would have been familiar with the Gospel of Thomas and [either] thought that there must have been a disciple of that name [or decided to invent one whole cloth].

< . . snip . . >

"In the Gospel of Thomas, we reach back before the Gospels, yet it is unlike anything that conventional scholars would expect from the early Jesus movement. The Gospel of Thomas is clever, very clever. It is cleverer than anything in the New Testament, and this ironically was its downfall. People preferred the simple story and explanations of the New Testament Gospels, rather than the paradoxes of the Gospel of Thomas. The sayings are terse and enigmatic; they function like riddles, intended to hide as much as to reveal. The Gospel is self-aware, using deliberate contradiction and paradox."

Laurie, S.P. The Thomas Code: Solving the mystery of the Gospel of Thomas (pp. 231ff). Hypostasis Ltd.

There's a lot of speculation about mathematical formulas etc in The Thomas Code but there's a few other non-mathematic propositions eg., -

"Simon Gathercole* suggests that Thomas 53 on circumcision has been influenced by Paul’s argument in Romans 2:25-3:2." [p.324]

* Gathercole, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences, First paperback ed., (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014)

[Giuseppe]

The legend of Thomas disciple of Jesus finds his origin in separationism and docetism: respectively,

• the idea that Jesus had a double/twin in himself,

• the idea that Jesus had an apparent double/twin of himself.

• The separationism is confuted having Thomas as a distinct disciple of Jesus.

• The docetism is confuted having the Thomas's finger in the pierced side of Jesus: his body is real.

[MrMacSon]

• The docetism is confuted having the Thomas's finger in the pierced side of Jesus: his body is real.

John 20:27 is a separate issue to John (or Mark, Matthew or Luke) using Thomas (besides: v.28, "Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!".).

[Giuseppe]

• The docetism is confuted having the Thomas's finger in the pierced side of Jesus: his body is real.

John 20:27 is a separate issue to John (or Mark, Matthew or Luke) using Thomas (besides: v.28, "Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!".).

no, my point is that the name ("Twin"), the role (a disciple) and the action (the finger) are all part and parcel of the same anti-separationist and anti-docetic polemic.

[mlinssen]

There's a lot of speculation about mathematical formulas etc in The Thomas Code but there's a few other non-mathematic propositions eg., -

"Simon Gathercole* suggests that Thomas 53 on circumcision has been influenced by Paul’s argument in Romans 2:25-3:2." [p.324]

* Gathercole, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences, First paperback ed., (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014)

The usual circular reasoning applies to Gathercole here (from his Thomas commentary):

Thomas thus joins a wider argument about circumcision which we first see in Paul’s letters. As almost all agree, GTh 53.2–3 cannot go back to Jesus. Paul never makes such arguments about circumcision, and never rejects it altogether: indeed, the formulation here in Thomas draws on Paul’s language of circumcision in the Spirit, and the value of circumcision (Rom. 2.25–3.2), disagreeing with Paul’s appraisal of its value.

Assume that Jesus existed; assume that he fits the canonical profile; assume that Paul wrote before Thomas - all those assumptions precede this ridiculous straw man

Thomas, naturally, puts down Judaism once again, with feeling:

53. say(s) they to he viz. his(PL) Disciple : the circumcision make-be Benefit Or no say(s) he behold : would/were he make-be Benefit would/were their father will beget they from their(F) mother they circumcise they Rather the circumcision of truth in Spirit did he find profit all he

Circumcision of truth, in spirit. ⲥⲃ̅ⲃⲉ ⲙ̄ ⲙⲉ ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲛ̄ⲁ̄

https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C1789

(ϩⲙ̄ means ϩⲛ̄, the n becomes m because of the following p, just like in the word important)

Religious teachings cut off the truth, take off the edge of Spirit. In the continuous fight against, Paul tries to mitigate that and bend it to his advantage by making it a plus of "Gentiles"

As always, there is not a single argument as to why (and how) Thomas would exploit Paul's argument by constructing his logion this way. Au contraire, good Simon even provides us with evidence of an early Thomas:

Tineius Rufus, governor of Judaea in the early 130s ce and in the Bar Kochba revolt: ‘If God is so pleased with circumcision, why does the child not come out of the womb circumcised?’

[Ben C. Smith]

As always, there is not a single argument as to why (and how) Thomas would exploit Paul's argument by constructing his logion this way. Au contraire, good Simon even provides us with evidence of an early Thomas:

Tineius Rufus, governor of Judaea in the early 130s ce and in the Bar Kochba revolt: ‘If God is so pleased with circumcision, why does the child not come out of the womb circumcised?’

Why is Rufus' parallel statement evidence for an early Thomas?

[Secret Alias]

As we see with the election in the United States, we live in a world where the truth exists independently in the minds of partisans and evidence helps 'suggest' rather than prove its veracity.

[mlinssen]

As always, there is not a single argument as to why (and how) Thomas would exploit Paul's argument by constructing his logion this way. Au contraire, good Simon even provides us with evidence of an early Thomas:

Tineius Rufus, governor of Judaea in the early 130s ce and in the Bar Kochba revolt: ‘If God is so pleased with circumcision, why does the child not come out of the womb circumcised?’

Why is Rufus' parallel statement evidence for an early Thomas?

It isn't, of course! I was just imitating your typical biblical scholar who draws conclusions based on his own wishful thinking and then presents those as fact, exactly like Gathercole does here

[Stuart]

Thomas is an added element from a later writer. It was not part of the first layer. In point of fact it was the last layer. You can easily remove all the Thomas verses from the Gospel and not miss a beat. The only thing he brings you is the claim of a physical resurrection, a theological point not in focus with the original author, and likely a generation or more separation in time. The original author was concerned more about the authority of Jesus, to separate him from the son of David and also the last prophet theology of the Synoptics, rejecting these authorities. (Ben Smith threw out the idea of a competing Jesus origin, as a son of Joseph of Israel, the northern tribes, as opposed to Jacob's linage the son of David, the tribes of Judah. The gospel of John seems to tap into that theme.)

Now it is not at all impossible that the redactor of John knew of a Thomas logia circulating, and that it was used by a sect that claimed a spiritual resurrection. John's gospel, in earlier form may have been the choice of this sect, with John 20:19-23 and the closed doors seem to imply something other than a human body to just appear. That would make it the logical choice to add such a corrective, to shut down interpretation of that passage implying other than a physical resurrection.

[Geocalyx]

Going to take the opportunity to ask here, but in NHC, Thomas is labeled "contender," athletes. The year in which this is relevant enough to preserve by writing it down is 325+, so what exactly is the contest?

"Remember me also, my brethren, in your prayers:
Peace to the saints and those who are spiritual."

"Watch and pray that you not come to be in the flesh, but rather that you come forth from the bondage of the bitterness of this life. And as you pray, you will find rest, for you have left behind the suffering and the disgrace. For when you come forth from the sufferings and passions of the body, you will receive rest from the good one, and you will reign with the king, you joined with him and he with you, from now on, for ever and ever, Amen."

So could he have competed for being included into the Bible or something? Maybe the other label, "twin," means there was a prophet whom someone was trying to equate with Christ and he ended up melding with his group in the end?