'Gospel of Judas' discovered

Link to NY Times.

Interesting; after 1700 years, the 'Gospel of Judas' has surfaced. Apparently, the document details how Judas didn't just betray Christ, but was prompted by Jesus to turn him in. From what I read, that's not a new idea, since prior documents already pointed to this type of scenario, but it's fascinating none the less just to see how this might change our interpration of Judas himself.

I'm not a religious person at all, but I find this historically fascinating anyway.

Far out, man. That is some interesting news. I wonder how the different Christian sects will take the news. Judas was always the epitome of traitorhood. Maybe he was a good guy after all.

I don't think you're allowed to add new source material after a thousand years or so. It's somewhere in the big handbook of religions or something.

Interesting that there is no mention of the crucifixion and resurrection. I look forward to reading the translation.

Blatantly ripped off Jesus Christ Superstar!

Robear wrote:

Interesting that there is no mention of the crucifixion and resurrection. I look forward to reading the translation.

Hmm. I think you have Yeshuach bin Yusef confused with Apollonius of Tyana. It's an easy mistake. Modern Christians make it all the time.

I think all the early christian apocrypha are fascinating. The amount of writing that has been discovered or hinted at suggest a much more active and splintered Christianity of its first few centuries than the New Testament would imply. Obviously there was a culling of information by the Catholic church, which presently calls these works "fictional romances." The same thing happened to the Qu'ran, supposedly there were 3 versions at the time of Muhammad's death, and 2 were destroyed.

But before you jump on the "fictional bible" bandwagon, another interesting point is that the New Testament is highly accurate up to the earliest copies of it that we have, from about 45-70 AD, long before the other gospels where culled. So the data in the New Testament has not be manipulated through the centuries, only perhaps by the early writers through the natural process of subjective point of view. There is still remarkable agreement among them, so it is safe to say that Jesus probably existed as a human being and said some of the things he said.

It's cool to think that some ancient text might suddenly be discovered which could potential change our views of everything.

I can't believe I haven't heard about this, before now. Fascinating. I agree with Dutty, though, that the reaction to this will be far more interesting than the manuscript, itself.

Religious institutions get together all the time to decide what to call "official" and what to ignore/scorn/deny. For me, it doesn't get any better than when your religious beliefs are shaken to their foundations. That's when real faith happens, or in some cases, begins. We too eagerly think it must be Safe to be True.

That said, it sounds like this is a gnostic text? And if so, gnostics never made it into the "orthodoxy club." So it will be much easier to add to the apocrypha instead of printing whole new Bibles. I'm definitely interested to see how this goes. I look at it as a great opportunity to get discussion going, at the least.

Interesting quote from the originally posted article.

Scholars say that they have long been on the lookout for the Gospel of Judas because of a reference to what was probably an early version of it in a text called Against Heresies, written by Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, about the year 180.

The Gnostic Gospels are nothing new. In fact this "Gospel of Judas" is not even all that new a discovery. The 62-page papyrus manuscript of the text was uncovered in Egypt during the 1950s or 1960s. The Gnostic Gospels were all rejected from inclusion in the Bible.

There is a whole collection of books called the Secret Gospels that give far-fetched details about the early life of Jesus. The leaders of the early church recognized these to be fictitious. History shows that legends always develop around famous figures, and we should not be surprised that some people would attach superstitions to Jesus. These books were never seriously considered as part of canonical Scripture. Not even the most radical scholar would suggest that any of the Gnostic Gospels were written by the person it is named for. (ie., The Gospel of Philip was written in the 3rd century and most likely in Syria.) The Gnostic Gospels also differ in content greatly from the 4 Gospels in the canon. Unlike the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John they are often nonhistorical, even anti-historical. They contain little narrative and have no sense of chronology. They show no interest in research geography or historical contexts. These documents often contain foolish things like a woman must first become a man before she can enter the kingdom of heaven, or if a lion eats a human it becomes human and many other ridiculous things. (both of these can be found in the Gospel of Thomas) These gospels are not included in the Apocryphal books either due to their fraudulency.

Gnosticism is not new. It's followers derive much of their thinking from Plato. They see religion as a path to self-enlightenment. Jesus saw religion as man's futile attempt to reconcile with God. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) Only by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ can we have forgivness and reconciliation with God.

I'm sort of with Mike Shermer on this one in that the folks that are espousing the historical accuracy or scientific infallibility of the bible are completely missing the message. It is highly allegorical and is unashamedly a conglomerate of fables, moral stories, and romantic histories.

The triune god was borrowed from Mithraism (not surprising since Saul was from Tarsus where Mithraism was a dominant religion). The crucifixion and resurrection was borrowed from the account of Apollonius of Tyana (Roman records mention Yeshuach, but do not validate that he was crucified). Even monotheism was borrowed from the Egyptian god Amon Rah.

This should not diminish the spiritual aspect if one requires such an aspect in their lives. One gets into trouble though when they insist that the religion itself is able to determine its own origins for its own interests.

Pale, you will be hard pressed to find a competent history scholar today that will disagree that the Bible is one of the most accurate historical resources availible. Just because you believe you can see a similarity in the creation and crucifixion accounts and ancient mysticism does not invalidate their authenticity. Does this mean that Abraham Lincoln was never assasinated because it was probably a derivation of the story from Julius Cesear?

Nomad wrote:

Pale, you will be hard pressed to find a competent history scholar today that will disagree that the Bible is one of the most accurate historical resources availible. Just because you believe you can see a similarity in the creation and crucifixion accounts and ancient mysticism does not invalidate their authenticity. Does this mean that Abraham Lincoln was never assasinated because it was probably a derivation of the story from Julius Cesear? :)

Actually, you wouldn't have a hard time finding competent historical scholars willing to challenge large parts of the bible for historical accuracy. I know of very few, for instance, that would argue for the historical accuracy of the literal account of Noah's Ark. Either it is highly allegorical or it is not.

But before you jump on the "fictional bible" bandwagon, another interesting point is that the New Testament is highly accurate up to the earliest copies of it that we have, from about 45-70 AD, long before the other gospels where culled. So the data in the New Testament has not be manipulated through the centuries, only perhaps by the early writers through the natural process of subjective point of view. There is still remarkable agreement among them, so it is safe to say that Jesus probably existed as a human being and said some of the things he said.

My particular interest here is in the presence in the early texts of miraculous events. Got a good book or source for that sort of discussion? I read one years ago, and I subscribed to BAR for quite a few years, but I've lost touch with the topic lately and I'm interested in current scholarship on it.

I agree that from what I've seen the Gnostic texts are "spin-offs" from the "universal" church doctrine (or other branches lower on the timeline), and I tend to think of them as straddling the line between Christian and Something Else. Culling is a good term, but it's interesting to note that that simply circumscribed Christianity as a subset of material related to Jesus, rather than the more commonly understood "one true account" Bible. I find some of the early splinter writings to be very interesting, with good lessons to teach.

Pale, you will be hard pressed to find a competent history scholar today that will disagree that the Bible is one of the most accurate historical resources availible.

I think this is a misleading statement -- certain parts of the text which we call the Bible have been cross-validated with other sources. There are historical accounts mixed in with mythology, just like many other texts. What I would rather you say is that "Parts of the bible are suspected to be historically accurate" - remember, all we can do is feel that it is likely something happened based on what evidence is avaliable.

You won't find any competent scholar saying it's historically accurate that Jesus walked on water, but rather that in seemed likely that the Hebrew army invaded Jericho in year XXXX.

DrunkenSleipnir wrote:
Pale, you will be hard pressed to find a competent history scholar today that will disagree that the Bible is one of the most accurate historical resources availible.

I think this is a misleading statement -- certain parts of the text which we call the Bible have been cross-validated with other sources. There are historical accounts mixed in with mythology, just like many other texts. What I would rather you say is that "Parts of the bible are suspected to be historically accurate" - remember, all we can do is feel that it is likely something happened based on what evidence is avaliable.

You won't find any competent scholar saying it's historically accurate that Jesus walked on water, but rather that in seemed likely that the Hebrew army invaded Jericho in year XXXX.

A lie is most convincing when sandwiched between two truths.

Nomad wrote:

History shows that legends always develop around famous figures, and we should not be surprised that some people would attach superstitions to Jesus.

I'm sorry, but considering this is Jesus we're talking about, I find that phrasing absolutely hilarious.

A lie is most convincing when sandwiched between two truths.

Those are pretty antagonistic words Pale. It is one thing to have a differing opinion from someone else. It is quite another to flat out call them a liar. (or were you saying that the Bible is full of lies?) Either way, not very compliant with the P&C Forum rules.

Nomad wrote:
A lie is most convincing when sandwiched between two truths.

Those are pretty antagonistic words Pale. It is one thing to have a differing opinion from someone else. It is quite another to flat out call them a liar. (or were you saying that the Bible is full of lies?) Either way, not very compliant with the CoC.

I was translating what DS seemed to be saying.

In any event, I don't think it is contraversial at all to state that the bible was written by humans who, at times, had very clear agendas. The depiction of the Moabites and Edomites as the product of incest served very well as a justification for genocide. The fact that they were at war with the Israelites is archeologically verifiable (the two truths). The propaganda that they were inbred, polluted enemies of god is not (the lie).

Nomad wrote:
A lie is most convincing when sandwiched between two truths.

Those are pretty antagonistic words Pale. It is one thing to have a differing opinion from someone else. It is quite another to flat out call them a liar. (or were you saying that the Bible is full of lies?) Either way, not very compliant with the P&C Forum rules.

I agree with Nomad, Paleocon - I think there is a tendancy here to become antagonisic and it's uncalled for. I usually don't say anything since I try and leave such things for the mods but such a broad brush accuses lots of people of deliberate deception and misconduct, and I think that's hardly fair.

Also, ALG is absolutely right - that phrase is hilarious

These documents often contain foolish things like a woman must first become a man before she can enter the kingdom of heaven, or if a lion eats a human it becomes human and many other ridiculous things. (both of these can be found in the Gospel of Thomas)

That's not quite fair, since those are not literal statements. The Gospel of Thomas states:

These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.

1 And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

So these are deliberately cryptic and allegorical. It would not surprise me to find that an oral tradition of secrets complemented them.

For example,

7 Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."

We can say that's cryptic, but fraudulent? How do you conclude that from an allegory? Also, it is obviously not to be taken literally. If the doctrine of the transubstantion existed at that time, then there's an interesting modern take there, but I really doubt that we have the background to understand exactly what he meant here. What's "the lion"? What is it that when we consume it, it is raised up, but when we are bad and it consumes us, it is still raised up, and what does that mean for the bad person? (Not good things, I assume.)

There are familiar elements that blur the line of fraudulence.

9 Jesus said, Look, the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), and scattered (them). Some fell on the road, and the birds came and gathered them. Others fell on rock, and they didn't take root in the soil and didn't produce heads of grain. Others fell on thorns, and they choked the seeds and worms ate them. And others fell on good soil, and it produced a good crop: it yielded sixty per measure and one hundred twenty per measure.

And then back into the mysteries, this time of the dual nature of things (something that would appeal to people with mystical religious philosophies of the time, like the dualistic elements of Judaism (male and female uniting into one soul and the like).

22 Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the kingdom."

They said to him, "Then shall we enter the kingdom as babies?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

So I think these reflect less fiction - whatever that would be - and more mystery cult. Naturally they would be culled from the mainstream, but that's not because they were somehow "fictitious" (what that means in this context is confusing, as you admit that none of the New Testament books were authored by the disciples). They did represent living versions of Christianity at one time, and that should be remembered and considered. Mistaking the tenets of a mystery cult for superstition would be poor scholarship. Likewise, accusing them of a false literalism is kind of mean, since nothing in there is intended to be taken literally.

I can clearly see that your beliefs would take these as perhaps Satanic, and certainly misleading, but looked at objectively, these are relevant to the understanding of how Christianity developed. I'm willing to wager that if an apocrypha showed up that happened to mention that Jesus was actually so-and-so, and that name was found in Roman execution records, it would suddenly be the holiest document in existence, regardless of whether it instructed readers to eat babies or convert to Baal worship.

Nomad wrote:

These books were never seriously considered as part of canonical Scripture. Not even the most radical scholar would suggest that any of the Gnostic Gospels were written by the person it is named for.

Actually, they were considered seriously by early church leaders for hundreds of years. Furthermore, most modern scholars don't believe the canonical gospels are written by the person they were named for either. The first known list of the canonical books was written by Athanasius 367 AD (Athanasius was known to use violence to silence his enemies), and the Council of Carthage in 397 AD formed the Catholic Bible. However, there is a list called the Muratorian fragment, around 200 AD which is very similar to the modern bible but included the Apocalypse of Peter, a sensational visual account of heaven and hell.

I agree that some of the secret gospels have a very different tone and philosophy that would be difficult to reconcile with the canon. Yet there certainly wasn't any strong agreement by the early church leaders.

Robear wrote:

My particular interest here is in the presence in the early texts of miraculous events. Got a good book or source for that sort of discussion? I read one years ago, and I subscribed to BAR for quite a few years, but I've lost touch with the topic lately and I'm interested in current scholarship on it.

Oh nice. Could you expand on that? Do you mean, descriptions of miracles, or maybe teachings that explain miracles versus religious philosophy and allegory, a word I am seeing frequently here.

Mr P&C wrote:

In any event, I don't think it is contraversial at all to state that the bible was written by humans who, at times, had very clear agendas.

I hope you realize that this is true of all historians, each of whom have a different purpose and subjective point of view. The very idea of objectivity is different today than it was in ancient times. So this statement, while true, does not make any distinctions for religious writings.

Robear wrote:

Mistaking the tenets of a mystery cult for superstition would be poor scholarship. Likewise, accusing them of a false literalism is kind of mean, since nothing in there is intended to be taken literally.

Great quotes from the Gospel of Thomas, Robear. That is one of the most popular noncanonical texts among christians. Perhaps by "mystery cult" you mean mysticism? i.e., that knowledge and union with God is not possible through intellectual understanding? (you asked a while back why I thought philosophy was flawed? It's because mystics aren't completely wrong)

My experience with mystical religious leaders who spoke in allegorical language and whom I could interact with directly (asked questions) is that they mean exactly the words they say, and that most of the subjects they talk about don't have language to accurately describe it. Plus, the very idea of an all-encompassing divine implies that human beings cannot know God, can never know God, because of our limited linear lives.

Many, many religions possess this philosophy, that divinity transcends human limitations, and thus we will most likely never know everything. To give a concrete, real-world example, we were discussing the inflation theory of the Big Bang. As much as I love thinking about that theory, I'll never know as much as having been there and watching it, which is impossible. There are plenty of aspects of the universe that humans can never experience directly.

However, this does not mean that allegorical writings are somehow less accurate. They almost always have very specific meanings and specific uses, often known to the master. A great, great example is Dropping Ashes on the Buddha a collection of zen koans from both hundreds of years past and present day. These writings make no sense- intentionally. Eventually you see there is a system to the madness, and even can find that system beautiful.

Actually, they were considered seriously by early church leaders for hundreds of years.

Really? Could you show me some evidence of that. Gnosticism was seen as heresy in every council of the early church.

Furthermore, most modern scholars don't believe the canonical gospels are written by the person they were named for either.

I'd be interested in some details here as well. I can't seem to find many "modern scholars" that agree with your point. See the last quote in this post.

I agree that some of the secret gospels have a very different tone and philosophy that would be difficult to reconcile with the canon. Yet there certainly wasn't any strong agreement by the early church leaders.

There was almost no disagreement on the adopting of the canon. The coucil votes were almost all landslides.

We have discussed the formation of the canon in other threads like this one.

Here are some excerpts from a very thorough write up.

article wrote:

The earliest manuscripts we have of major portions of the New Testament are p 45, p 46, p66, and p 75, and they date from 175-250 A. D. The early church fathers (97-180 A.D.) bear witness to even earlier New Testament manuscripts by quoting from all but one of the New Testament books. They are also in the position to authenticate those books, written by the apostles or their close associates, from later books such as the gospel of Thomas that claimed to have been written by the apostles, but were not.

97-180 AD doesn't match up to well with "hundreds of years" of being undecided toward the Gnostic Gospels, especially since some of them weren't even written until 300+AD.

article wrote:

1. Clement (30-100 A.D.) wrote an epistle to the Corinthian Church around 97 A.D. He reminded them to heed the epistle that Paul had written to them years before. Recall that Clement had labored with Paul (Philippians 4:3). He quoted from the following New Testament books: Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, and James.
2. The apostolic fathers Ignatius (30-107 A.D.), Polycarp (65-155 A.D.), and Papias (70-155 A.D.) cite verses from every New Testament book except 2 and 3 John. They thereby authenticated nearly the entire New Testament. Both Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of the apostle John.
3. Justin Martyr, (110-165 A.D.), cited verses from the following 13 books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and Revelation.
4. Irenaeus, (120-202 A.D.), wrote a five volume work Against Heresies in which,
1. He quoted from every book of the New Testament but 3 John.
2. He quoted from the New Testament books over 1,200 times.

article wrote:

# The Early church had three criteria for determining what books were to be included or excluded from the Canon of the New Testament.

1. First, the books must have apostolic authority-- that is, they must have been written either by the apostles themselves, who were eyewitnesses to what they wrote about, or by associates of the apostles.
2. Second, there was the criterion of conformity to what was called the "rule of faith." In other words, was the document congruent with the basic Christian tradition that the church recognized as normative.
3. Third, there was the criterion of whether a document had enjoyed continuous acceptance and usage by the church at large.

# The gospel of Thomas is not included in the Canon of the New Testament for the following reasons.

1. The gospel of Thomas fails the test of Apostolic authority. None of the early church fathers from Clement to Irenaeus ever quoted from the gospel of Thomas. This indicates that they either did not know of it or that they rejected it as spurious. In either case, the early church fathers fail to support the gospel of Thomas' claim to have been written by the apostle. It was believed to by written around 140 A.D. There is no evidence to support its purported claim to be written by the Apostle Thomas himself.
2. The gospel of Thomas fails to conform to the rule of faith. It purports to contain 114 "secret sayings" of Jesus. Some of these are very similar to the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Four Gospels. For example the gospel of Thomas quotes Jesus as saying, "A city built on a high hill cannot be hidden." This reads the same as Matthew's Gospel except that high is added. But Thomas claims that Jesus said, "Split wood; I am there. Lift up a stone, and you will find me there." That concept is pantheistic. Thomas ends with the following saying that denies women salvation unless they are some how changed into being a man. "Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life." Jesus is quoted as saying, "Lo, I shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven."
3. The gospel of Thomas fails the test of continuous usage and acceptance. The lack of manuscript evidence plus the failure of the early church fathers to quote from it or recognize it shows that it was not used or accepted in the early Church. Only two manuscripts are known of this "gospel." Until 1945 only a single fifth-century copy translation in Coptic had been found. Then in 1945 a Greek manuscript of the Gospel of Thomas was found at Nag Hammadi in Egypt. This compares very poorly to the thousands of manuscripts that authenticate the Four Gospels.

Evidence points to the 4 canonical gospels being written by the authors they were named for. It also shows that the Gnostic Gospels could not have been "considered seriously by early church leaders for hundreds of years" unless you have some new groundbreaking evidence that I cannot find. (even on the all seeing eye of Google ) If you do have such evidence please post it. I would love to check it out.

Really? Could you show me some evidence of that. Gnosticism was seen as heresy in every council of the early church.

Here.

Namely: Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, the Muratorian Fragment, Origen, Didymus

Of course, Marcion and Valentinus as well.

Perhaps I am being more broad that you are.

I'd be interested in some details here as well. I can't seem to find many "modern scholars" that agree with your point. See the last quote in this post.

Here, citing as its source this book from an ordained minister.

souldaddy wrote:

(you asked a while back why I thought philosophy was flawed? It's because mystics aren't completely wrong)

I think your conception of philosophy may be a bit too narrow, here. Since at least the Medieval period in Europe, philosophy has seen many rich discussions relating to the import, viability, and ostensible consequences of mysticism. Many analytic philosophers discredit mysticism as a means of gaining useful insight or knowledge about the world (or about God, depending on the religious content of the experience), but some do not, and non-analytic philosophers are more receptive. And prior to the last few centuries, even this muddled division between the camps did not exist at all.

It's never easy to ascribe a single approach or opinion to the whole of philosophy, but if I were to try my hand at it, I'd say it would be more accurate to describe philosophers as interested in mysticism, rather than opposed to it. Being fascinated by all aspects of epistemology, I know that I am.

Edit: This, though, is something of a pleasant digression. By my reading of Robear's initial comment, when he wrote "mystery cult" he wasn't talking about mysticism, but rather about cults that have secret rites and beliefs known only to a close group of initiates.

(rubs hands in eager excitement of a discussion with Lobo)

true. But I am referring to the method of discovery, not an acknowledged interest. Am I correct in saying that while philosophers may appreciate mysticism, they still analyze it with an intellectual method? There are large parts of life that are ruined by over-thinking them (sex?) The discussion doesn't end there, but I'm interested in your response. Also, which non-analytical philosophers come to your mind?

souldaddy wrote:

Am I correct in saying that while philosophers may appreciate mysticism, they still analyze it with an intellectual method?

I think that this is true in most cases, yes. But to my eyes, this doesn't mean that they are incapable of undergoing true mystical experiences, or of understanding what mysticism is all about. It was William James who noted that one of the interesting things about mystical experiences is that people of all types seem susceptible to them, including doubters. This holds true even in my own case. Normally I study mysticism with some degree of detachment, but on certain rare occasions--and sometimes with the aid of, er, chemical stimulants--I've had experiences which, to the best of my ability to determine, are mystical. These range from feelings of intense monism and interconnectedness, to the kind of extra-real (i.e., literally extraordinary) paranoia that Philip K. Dick felt.

souldaddy wrote:

Also, which non-analytical philosophers come to your mind?

Many ancient Greek philosophers wove mystical strands into their thought. Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Heraclitus are first in my mind, and also Empedocles--all Pre-Socratics who avoided analytic argument. Even Plato incorporated mystical passages into many of his dialogues (the dialogue form also being non-analytic), and here I am especially considering those dialogues which discuss the nature of the Forms. In more modern times, Husserl and the school of phenomenology have come very close to advocating mysticism. So too with many existentialists, including Heidegger, with his notion of "authentic existence."

For an example of an analytic mystic, see C.D. Broad, who argued that when widely shared experiences posit the same ontological entities, and when the interpretations of those entities are similar, this counts as evidence for the existence of such, barring any outstanding reasons otherwise. So, Broad thought that if many people share in the mystical experience of the redness of grass, we shouldn't believe them, since we have good reason to suppose that grass is green; but if they share in the experience of, say, an underworld, then we shouldn't dismiss that evidence.

Lobo wrote:

Normally I study mysticism with some degree of detachment, but on certain rare occasions--and sometimes with the aid of, er, chemical stimulants--I've had experiences which, to the best of my ability to determine, are mystical.

Lobo Is Pothead, Muawahahahaha!!!

...umm...

Most Has Made A Contribution

Oh nice. Could you expand on that? Do you mean, descriptions of miracles, or maybe teachings that explain miracles versus religious philosophy and allegory, a word I am seeing frequently here.

I'm interested in the origins of the stories of Jesus' miracles, compared to the accounts which don't include them. I am not familiar enough with the accounts to know if they were there from the start, or why some writings mention them and others don't. Any references that would be accessible to a layman would be appreciated.

Perhaps by "mystery cult" you mean mysticism? i.e., that knowledge and union with God is not possible through intellectual understanding?

No, I mean mystery cult in the literal sense, where a person is initiated into a subset of the "mysteries", which represent tasks or understandings he is to achieve in the course of progressing further in the cult. Mithraism uses this system. It seems to me that the Gospel of Thomas is more of an intiate cult than standard Christianity of the period, claiming access to special knowledge given only to Thomas as a way of attracting converts and holding them seperate from the other sects. Am I off here?

As you noted, Zen is a decent example of a system with mysteries, although it's not as rich as some of the ancient Mediterranean cultic religions, which had hidden rituals, symbols, foods, song, all sorts of things. Reading Thomas from this viewpoint suggests that it's a sort of teaser, a starting point for thinking about Jesus in a way that is different from the regular Church of the time. It implies that consideration of the puzzles will lead to better understanding of Jesus and his other teachings, at least to me. So I tend to think of it as having deliberately hidden messages, rather than being literal in the sense you spoke of. Make sense?