The Gospel of Thomas is a rather interesting collection of sayings. Oddly enough, Christianity does not really have a book of aphorisms that is not borrowed from Judaism (i.e. Ecclesiastes and Proverbs). The Gospel of Thomas offers a rather interesting provision for aphorisms lovers and those interested in what Sirach calls the obscure sayings of the wise. But, what makes these sayings interesting or worth reading, especially if one is of an orthodox Christian stance or a non-Christian interest?
Well, it is worth noting that author of this collection is not necessarily discussing a polarity of Christianities. That is to say, the author is not necessarily providing an immediately contrary wisdom of Christianity. In fact, some of the Beatitudes are mentioned as well as other famous sayings of Jesus, such as the seed scattered on the infertile ground, on thorns, and on fecund soil. So, this gospel collects some of orthodox Christianity's most treasured passages, which indicates a sharing of wisdom.
Of course, the context of the Gospel of Thomas lends to recognition of these sayings with a different context than that of Matthew or Luke. For example, the Beatitudes in Matthew are contextualized by a teaching of masses gathered physically before Jesus and his disciples; Jesus lays down a discussion of states of character, which for me are a literary allusion to Moses and the Ten Commandments (please understand that I do not suggest replacement here). Yet, in the Gospel of Thomas there is not a complete sermon. This Jesus is contextualized by the obscurity of aphorisms and their temporal disconnection. Jesus is not part of a story in the Gospel of Thomas. Note an important distinction: Jesus is a character in these books like Socrates for Plato. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is obscured by the immediacy and familiarity whereas the Gospel of Thomas finds Jesus obscure because of the immediacy of the aphorisms and sayings. Why does this obfuscation matter? One theme I find in the Gospel of Thomas is that Jesus really isn't important as a character, which is kind of nice. Jesus, in my reading, is less of a preacher with a message from God, and instead more of a stand-in for a Spirit referred to, of course, as a child and the Kingdom of God. Again, I am not talking about Jesus the person, but Jesus the character in these gospels. This distinction is critical because the intent of the authors of Matthew and Luke's gospels have different intents and literary methods and themes activating around and through the character of Jesus than the author of the Gospel of Thomas. The latter does not seem to want us to have that sort of intimacy that the former authors develop through narratives with the character of Jesus. For me, the idea is something like taking the god of Job, far apart from humanity yet wishful to have a relationship with humans, and giving that God a chance to speak with humans not through rainfall but through a mouth. Interestingly, liquid is still thematically relevant as Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas sometimes relies on imbibing as a symbol, which is interestingly pondered alongside the voice of God through rainfall upon Job. But, I digress. The point is that Jesus is not given an intimacy through narrative and character development in the gospel I am reviewing: Jesus is obscure and the interest is developing an intimacy with spirit/wisdom, which is a sort of union.
Of course, union cannot be discussed without some focus on alterity as well as relationships. The Gnostics are sometimes declared to be dualists. I think this distinction can be problematic if one understands the Gnostics as binarists. I did not see such mutual exclusion, but a great deal more complexity. I found a critical undulating theme to be duality as evinced by interpreting the prescript: "these are the hidden sayings that the living Yeshua spoke and Yehuda Toma the twin recorded". A simple statement that is almost disregardable at prima facie; what does this sentence offer except a by-line? In my reading, I found the point to be the unity that twins share. Twins are an intimate relationship within a family, often one associated with exterior congruence despite varying personalities. Twins may look alike (in cases of identical twins) and come from the same parents, but twins are different people. As for fraternal twins, the point I am discussing is the sharing of parents and intimacy through birth as well as relationship alongside that of differing self-developments. The science is not really important for understanding this text. What is important is the twin Yehuda Toma. The suggestion that I think is developed with contemplation of the gospel is the relationship of Jesus, and the symbolism beneath this character, with the twin: an apostle and attributed author of this gospel. A consideration of dualities, if we maintain this semantic, is transformed by a consideration of twins, however, let us first consider the aforementioned quote. As I read this gospel, the twins of spirit and person (Yeshua as spirit and Yehuda Toma as standing in for the seeker) are a symbolization of the twin relationship. This is not like Cartesian duality with mind or spirit in our case interacting with the more separate and spacial body culminating in the mind-body problem. I am not discussing the location of Cogito vis-a-vis that of a disparate body I am trying to prove exists after doubt. Nor an alignment with authorities like adhering to a rabbi, which I am not arguing for or against except in conceptual underpinning. My fear with trying to place the Gospel of Thomas into these categories is the prevention of the text's meanings and insights as opposed to finding insights within the structures being activated. The twins are a little more apparent here not through polarity, but through relationship. This text deploys meaning with cloisters of twins. Yeshua and Yehuda, for example, are placed into a union not so much as polarities or binaries but as two beings with a union. Yeshua the living speaker and Yehuda the collector of the speakings provide a sort of parallel with each other that is not meant to be mutually exclusive as I read the text because the focus is their relationship's bond rather than an analytical partitioning.
Unfortunately, my first review was lost after this point, which provides a fortunate opportunity of reconsideration. The themes I see in this text are often lifted out of the words with a consideration of the twins, and the subject of relationship is a primary tool of the creation of the text's meaning as well as its literary devices such as symbolism, parallelism, and personfication .