The writings we call gnostic generally depend on the four gospels, as can be seen in Robert Miller’s “The Complete Gospels”: the apocryphal ones rely on the “orthodox” narratives, particularly, surrounding the passion and post-resurrection stories, if only to subvert them. At the same time, as Kurt Rudolph discusses in “Gnosis,” gnostic tendencies were evidently present in the community at Corinth, which Paul addresses in 1Corinthians: members who “are pneumatics and perfect, men who are proud of their knowledge and to whom all things are permitted” (citing 1Cor. 8:1-3, 10:,23-31, 12:3, 14:2-19, 11:5 & 17-34, for a variety of what seem like “new age” understandings and practices). Similar views seem also to have arisen in Thessalonika, Ephesus and Colossae. Ephesisians, in particular, refers at 6:12, and in passing elsewhere, to hostile heavenly powers, which imply an understanding of the the cosmos which is assumed in the 2nd century gnostic writings: the 7 planetary spheres, and their unfriendly archons, who run the world. The Pastoral and Catholic Epistles, Hebrews and Revelation, and the gospels, all drop hints of heterodox views at the time of their writing. The actual texts and schools of gnostic teaching, however, and the elaborations of complex mythic systems, all seem to date from the 2nd century and later. Elaine Pagels’ “The Gnostic Gospels” (1979) is stlll a good, brief, clear introduction to this.
There’s a decent case that it was specifically proto-Thomas that preceded Paul’s first letter to Corinth given the degree of overlap between Thomas and the letter.
Consider Thomas 17 and 1 Cor 2:9 both talking about giving what no eye has seen or ear has heard, or heart has come upon.
Marvin Mayer, The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, p. 76:
This saying is also cited in 1 Corinthians 2:9, perhaps as a wisdom saying in use among the enthusiasts of Corinthians.
Grant and Friedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus, p. 137:
The apostle Paul quotes something very close to this saying, perhaps from a lost document, in 1 Corinthians 2:9
You have 1 Cor 5:6 with Paul noting that Corinth knows a little yeast levens a whole batch of dough and Thomas 96 on the kingdom like a woman with a little leaven who makes loaves.
Paul in 1 Cor 7:17-19 on circumcision not being necessary and Thomas 53 on circumcision not being useful.
Paul talking about his faith moving mountains in 1 Cor 13:2 and that being the end result of Thomas 48 and 106.
In many ways, 1 Corinthians reads like Paul was provided some form of proto-Thomas by Corinth and is arguing against it and employing some of its phrases.
Where Thomas advises being like children in 4, 22, 37, and 46, Paul famously goes on about putting childhood behind in 1 Cor 13:11, 14:20.
Where Thomas seems against giving what one has to messengers and prophets in saying 88, Paul makes a case to Corinth that he has a right to earn a living in 1 Corinthians 9 (and while he claims not to make use of that right, he does solicit donations not long thereafter).
One of the most interesting is Thomas 81:
Let one who has become wealthy reign, and let one who has power renounce .
Compare with what Paul acknowledges is already believed by some in Corinth in 1 Cor 4:8:
Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! You have begun to reign—and that without us! How I wish that you really had begun to reign so that we also might reign with you!
Then there’s the very interesting aspects of the intersection of Thomas and 1 Corinthians with Epicureanism.
The denial of a physical resurrection in Acts 19 is connected to the Epicureans. Denial of Jesus’s physical resurrection in John is associated with Thomas, argued by Paigels in Beyond Belief to be a commentary on a Thomasine tradition. And in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul mentions how his audience doesn’t believe in physical resurrection (interpreted as a response to Epicureans in Syzmek, The Corinthian Opponents of the Resurrection in 1 Cor 15:12 (2020)). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343042651_The_Corinthian_Opponents_of_the_Resurrection_in_1_Cor_1512
He goes on in 1 Cor 15:35-55 about transformation from a physical body of dust to a spiritual body of heaven. This calls to mind Thomas 29, 87 which reflects Epicurean notions of the relationship between soul and body with the added admonishment of the latter relative to the former.
And Paul’s Adam of dust and Adam of heaven calls to mind Thomas 85 admonishing the first born Adam, as well as 19 and 84 where it presents a concept of coming into being after what had already been. This “theory of forms”-esque picture is expanded in line with Paul’s discussion in the later Thomasine tradition with the discussion of the Adamas first man.
The parallels somewhat extend into 2 Cor. You have in Thomas 11 the notion that the first two heavens will pass away, and then Paul in 2 Cor 12:2 just so happens to know someone that went to the third heaven. A thread he ends with complaining he’s not being treated as the “super-apostles” – a concept he introduced when addressing Corinth in 2 Cor 11:4-5:
For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough. I think that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles.
in light of 1 Cor 1:12 or the canonical sources such that it is suggested he’s referring to canonical apostles, but it’s useful to remember that Thomas as a nickname means “twin” and in the Book of Thomas the Contender attributed to Matthias (attempting to claim priority on Thomasine traditions by alleging a direct transcription of a conversation), the tradition has Jesus saying to Thomas “since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion” – which apostles were ‘super’ may well have depended on the respective tradition.
Leave a Reply