The Pope and the Gospel of Thomas at Easter Vigil
Thanks to Fr. Imbelli for drawing our attention to the Pope’s homily from Easter Vigil (full text here). I am always enriched by Pope Benedict’s utilization of early Christian texts and traditions in his explication of Catholic faith and practice. The Vigil is the perfect time to recall the centrality of “illumination” (photismos) in the early Church. For contemporary listeners, ideas of illumination or enlightenment might sound more at home in Buddhism or even “new age” spirituality, but in fact, they were at the heart of early Christian initiation, especially in the east (Egypt, Palestine, and Syria). For example, when Cyril of Jerusalem describes those preparing for initiation, he often calls them “those about to be illuminated/enlightened” (photizomenoi). Moreover, the “light from light” image was so indispensable as a symbol of the idea of undiminished giving that it can rightly be thought of as the foundational image of Nicene Christology (cf. Jaroslav Pelikan’s little gem of a book, The Light of the World: A Basic Image in Early Christian Thought, 1962).
But what caught my attention even more is the quotation of Jesus with which Fr. Imbelli’s excerpt concludes. The Pope said: “‘Whoever is close to me is close to the fire,’ as Jesus is reported by Origen to have said.” It’s true that this is one of the so-called agrapha from the early Church, things which early Christian writers said that Jesus said, but which the New Testament does not record. And it’s true that Origen said that Jesus said this, and Jesus certainly might have said this.
But another true way of reporting the quote would be: “‘Whoever is close to me is close to the fire,’ as Jesus is reported by the Gospel of Thomas to have said.” (It’s logion #82, for those interested.) When the Nag Hammadi hoard was discovered in 1945, and the Gospel of Thomas came to light in full for the first time, this agraphon of Jesus was thus corroborated by a text, albeit a noncanonical one. It also appears (in a probable textual reconstruction) in the recently published and obscure Gospel of the Savior of unknown date and provenance (line 71, published by Stephen Emmel).
What impresses me is the openness of the Pope to noncanonical influences on his view of Jesus, even at the summit of the liturgical year! The Pope is a scholar of the highest order, and he certainly knows that this agraphon was corroborated by the Gospel of Thomas. Even Origen himself is not necessarily a “canonical” figure, his memory and ideas having been controversial in Christian history (see the Second Council of Constantinople, 553). And lest we think the quotation of this noncanonical agraphon is anomalous, let’s recall that in the first volume of the Pope’s Jesus of Nazareth, he uses both the Gospel of Thomas (logion #108) and the noncanonical Didache to illuminate aspects of the Gospel of John. In short, then — and if I may quote myself — despite the Pope’s championing of “canonical exegesis” (“reading the individual texts of the Bible in the context of the whole”), he does not in practice treat the canonical boundary as an impermeable wall. It is a barrier, to be sure, but more like a fence, through whose gaps the Spirit can still blow insightful seeds — or sparks of illumination — from outside.
If we were to emulate the learned B16, what other “enlightenment” or “illumination” about the Easter events could we obtain from the examination of the gnostic gospels?
Thank you for this insight. It is strange since I had just mentioned The Gospel of Thomas another post. Perhasp this will open up the other rather pejoratively called “gnostic” texts including the Gospel of Mary Magdalene which has contributions that are also echoed, I’m told, in deutero-canonical apostolic age documents.
Michael P. –
Fascinating. Was the illumination metaphor common in the early desert mystics? My first thought that it might be from Plato, but I don’t remember any explicit uses in him, though I could easily be wrong. Were the Egyptian desert fathers in contact with the Eastern Church?
Michael,
thanks for your illuminating post and for providing the link to the Pope’s text which I inadvertently failed to do. I like your metaphor: “more like a fence;” would you accept a guard rail?
Quoting from the Gospel of Thomas! This will just add fuel to the sede-vacante hysteria of the likes of SSPX and other heretics. It will simply make it more difficult for them to rejoin Peter.
Good.
The Gospel of Thomas is interesting. I do think it preserves authentic non-canonical sayings, but the author of the text was influenced by the more Gnostic-side of things and so I think caution with the text is correct (especially if people are prone to read works literally — then the Gospel of Thomas, with its anti-feminine stand, is a must to avoid).
For non-canonical sayings, I think it is good to see if a large number of people, including those within the line of “tradition” have any knowledge of it or not. Origen for example would be “in the tradition” even if he were later “questioned” as well. He is far more important in developing traditional theology than Thomas, for example. Thus, we can see quotes from other sources as acceptable even if with caution — but the further one goes into the “Gnostic” region, the more likely it is a mythic invention (Gnostics had a tendency of creating texts out of ideologies). Thus, when we enter an early text like Thomas, with Gnostic tendencies, it is obvious why there is caution — yet it is also obvious for this text (and a few others) it seems to pick up on common knowledge and write it down, too.
Ann
The Desert Fathers of Egypt were highly connected to the Christian East; though many of them could only write in Coptic, Alexandria was a major source of Christian thought in the early era of the Church.
Moreover, it is quite clear (through various studies) that the foundation of the desert fathers with figures like St. Anthony lie with Origenist thought (living out the allegorical commentaries of the Old Testament in the desert, making combat against the allegorical foes of Israel within oneself). Anthony, as can be seen in his letters, was quite the Origenist. And though Origen had things not picked up later, I would say he set the stage for Eastern theology in general.
The light imagery at Easter is very prominent also in Augustine’s preaching around the Great Feast. “You are light in the Lord” occurs frequently.
I always remember this bit from the gospel of Thomas as it was used in a movie, Stigmata, to justify doing away with an institutional church :) …
“Lift the stone and you will find me there. Split the piece of wood and I am there.”- Gospel of Thomas 30.3-4
I don’t see the benefit, I guess, of quoting Origen quoting a non-canonical gospel and attributing it to Jesus as if we knew it was authentic. If Catholic theologians did this, wouldn’t the CDF be breathing down their necks?
“I don’t see the benefit, I guess, of quoting Origen quoting a non-canonical gospel and attributing it to Jesus as if we knew it was authentic”.
How do you know Origen was quoting from the Gospel of Thomas?
I thought that was what the writer of this post implies …
* The Pope said: ”‘Whoever is close to me is close to the fire,’ as Jesus is reported by Origen to have said.” ‘ … “But another true way of reporting the quote would be: “‘Whoever is close to me is close to the fire,’ as Jesus is reported by the Gospel of Thomas to have said.” *
That part of the blog post is a bit muddled. I think his point was that the Gospel of Thomas backs up what Origen believes Jesus said.
According to Wikipedia, “Origen listed the “Gospel according to Thomas” as being among the heterodox apocryphal gospels known to him (Hom. in Luc. 1).” So Origen seems to have had sufficient knowledge of the Gospel of Thomas to condemn it :-).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas
Given that Origen considered the Gospel of Thomas both heterodox and apocryphal, one could perhaps question whether it would been the direct source for the quote in question here. I understand the Gospel of Thomas is essentially a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus, so perhaps such a collection was known to Origen apart from the Gospel of Thomas?
My recollection is that of all the gnostic text, the gospel of Thomas is closest to the earlier gospels that were composed in the first century and may have even been composed prior to or just after John’s.
As such it really deserves special consideration over and above the much later gnostic texts which clearly drew on existing “canonical” (nothwithstanding the fact that there was no explicit canon until later) texts.
The problem with Thomas is that it does not feature the pashcal mystery as the central and defining moment for the narrative. However, it is interesting and may have some degree of authenticity in terms of being rooted in apostolic tradition.
‘. . . Origenist thought (living out the allegorical commentaries of the Old Testament in the desert, making combat against the allegorical foes of Israel within oneself).”
Henry –
Thanks for the history.
This is probably off-topic, but I can’t resist: to what are you referring above?
Ann,
Well, the Origenist tendencies of the desert fathers can be seen in the fact that they went into the desert to take fight against the “powers of the world,” i.e., demons and the like. This follows the ideas we see Origen’s commentaries as to how we are to understand the wars found in the OT: they are not to be seen as supporting warfare without, but only within, to destroy all that is evil within oneself. Thus, for example, talking about Joshua, Origen says:
“When that Israel that is according to the flesh read these same Scriptures before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, they understood nothing in them except wars and the shedding of blood, from which their spirits, too, were incited to excessive savageries and were always fed by wars and strife. But after the presence of my Lord Jesus Christ poured the peaceful light of knowledge into human hearts, since, according to the Apostle, he himself is ‘our peace’, he teaches us peace from this very reading of wars. For peace is returned to the soul if its own enemies – sins and vices – are expelled from it. And therefore, according to the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we indeed read these things, we also equip ourselves and are roused into battle, but against those enemies that ‘proceed from the heart’: obviously, ‘evil thought, thefts, false testimony, slanders,’ and other similar adversaries of the soul. Following what this Scripture sets forth, we try, if it can be done, not to leave behind any ‘who may be saved or who may breathe.’ For if we gain possession of these enemies, we shall fittingly also take possession of the ‘airy authorities’ and expel them from his kingdom, as they had gathered within us upon thrones of vices.” Origen, Homilies on Joshua. Trans. Barbara J. Bruce. Ed. Cynthia White (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2002), 130.
I think that it should be borne in mind that a saying can be transmitted orally and separately from a text, so you can’t extrapolate from the existence of the logion in the GoT that that is where Origen encountered the saying. Of course, it’s quite possible that he did–or that he encountered it in another similar sayings collection. After all, when it comes to a sayings collection, the expansion and editing of the text can be trickier to track–sayings can be integrated pretty easily.
Also, I think that the term gnostic is just about worthless when it comes to talking about GoT, and a lot of other texts, as well. It doesn’t clarify anything, and instead provides the illusion of orderly categorization.
Thank you, Henry. Very interesting. Those “adversaries of the soul” sound a bit like Augustine later. I mean his looking within the self for explanations.
Ann
True. And it should not be too surprising. St. Anthony, who was a kind of Origenist, had a great deal of impact on St. Augustine. It was not just Anthony, a great deal of the monastic tradition itself had developed along these lines (even wit handbooks explaining the fight). Augustine, of course, took it into a more philosophical direction while the monks engaged it as a matter of praxis, and that does make differences, but yes, there are certainly things which tie with Augustine here [and, of course, without surprise, Ambrose].
Thanks to all for the comments. Regarding one point on which I seem to have been confusing to some readers, I was not claiming that Origen was quoting the Gospel of Thomas. Rather, as some here have noted, that Origen and the Gospel of Thomas (and the more obscure Gospel of the Savior) are all putting down in text a saying that had been passed on through oral traditions. It’s all the more reason to take a “saying-by-saying” approach to adjudicating the Gospel of Thomas’s relative antiquity vis-a-vis other early Christian texts and traditions.
Henry,
It has been proposed that Shakespeare invented human beings. That is, he saw what is unique about us and as well as what relates us to the rest of creation. Would you know if there are any studies which connect his texts with, say, Augustine or any of the other Catholic theologians? (Pretty much everything else about Shakespeare has be studied, and why not that.) Of course, there are those who say S. was a nihilist. Sigh.
Ann,
Sorry, I can’t give any details on Shakespeare like that (I’m not a Shakespeare scholar).