Talk:Gospel of Thomas
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gospel of Thomas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
"Gnostic" or "gnostic"
[edit]At least in the first section, the term "gnostic" varies in its case, and it varies in similar contexts: E.g., one finds "Gnostic teaching" here, and "gnostic belief" there. I'm not sure if there's some particular, esoteric reason for the variation, but if so, such variation is a grammatical anomaly and as such ought to be taken under consideration by page monitors.
Google Preview of Date Range Inaccurate
[edit]Hello! I noticed the Google preview of this page gives a 60 A.D. to 140 A.D. date range, as opposed to the 60 A.D. to 250 A.D. date range written (and backed up by citations) in the article itself. I searched "Gospel of Thomas date" and this inaccurate 60-140 date from Wikipedia was the first result. I'm not sure how to correct this, so I'd appreciate it if someone else could do so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.93.215.128 (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The prose of the article is sufficiently clear: most scholars date it to between 60 and 140, while some date it as late as 250. We need do nothing to the article; the Google search results are Google's problem. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Hyperlink to the "Thomasine" page
[edit]Under the religion part, it says Christanity (Thomasine), but it links to the Saint Thomas Christians in India, these two groups are unrelated, but I'm not sure if I should link it to the "Thomasine" Christians that we know existed in the 1st and 2nd century AD in the Eastern Mediterranean, because scholars are unsure if the Gospel of Thomas was even revered by this community. Thoughts? Maybe just removing the hyperlink entirely, or adding a "possibly?" to the proper Thomasine hyperlink TablemannDanny231 (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Update, I just hyperlinked it, I saw on the Thomasines page there's an image of the Gospel of Thomas so I assume some scholars at least relate the two sects — Preceding unsigned comment added by TablemannDanny231 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
John is mistakingly called a synoptic Gospel
[edit]Please correct this to "is a non-canonical Gospel
The Gospel of John is the only canonical one that gives Thomas the Apostle a dramatic role and spoken part, 50.217.112.30 (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Edit war
[edit]@DefimZ: The statement you seek to remove is WP:V in WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
We don't care about your reading of the gospel. We care about what Ehrman published about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- B-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Christianity articles
- Mid-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- B-Class Mysticism articles
- Low-importance Mysticism articles
- B-Class Book articles
- WikiProject Books articles
- B-Class Egypt articles
- Top-importance Egypt articles
- WikiProject Egypt articles
- B-Class Ancient Near East articles
- Top-importance Ancient Near East articles
- Ancient Near East articles by assessment
- B-Class Archaeology articles
- Top-importance Archaeology articles