D.W. Kim, «What Shall We Do? The Community Rules of Thomas in the ‘Fifth Gospel’», Vol. 88 (2007) 393-414
This article argues for the diversity of early Christianity in terms of religiocultural communities. Each early Christian group, based on a personal revelation of leadership and the group’s socio-political milieu, maintained its own tradition (oral, written, or both) of Jesus for the continuity and prosperity of the movement. The leaders of early Christianity allowed outsiders to become insiders in the condition where the new comers committed to give up their previous religious attitude and custom and then follow the new community rules. The membership of the Thomasine group is not exceptional in this case. The Logia tradition of P. Oxy. 1, 654.655, and NHC II, 2. 32: 10-51: 28 in the context of community policy will prove the pre-gnostic peculiarity of the creative and independent movement within the Graeco-Roman world.
What Shall We Do? The Community Rules 413
Thomasine movement in the history of early Christianity. Many of the
anti-Jewish traditions and customs were rejected by the Jesus of
Thomas; this means not only the undeniable population of Jews in the
community, but also that the community policy was not really parallel
with Judaism, but had its own unique formula. The positive laws on
family testify that the Thomas people were not somatic celibates, but
that they desired the sacred family as spiritual celibates who had left
their mother’s religion. The anti-family rules in this respect were for
those who were newly converted to the Jewish-Christian community.
The negative perspective of family (112) was a psychological barrier the
new converters faced at the beginning. The unfriendly thoughts of
Thomas against the religious leaders continuously recount that the
community leader did not compromise with those religious formalists.
Such an anti-Jewish attitude is revealed through the view that the
Jewish customary practices of “e...nhsteue (fasting)â€, “e...¯lhl
(praying)â€, “e...elehmosunh (almsgiving)â€, “keeping the “sab´baton
(Sabbath)†and “p•s‰be (circumcision)†were reinterpreted according
to the intention and purpose of the Logiographer of Thomas. The Jesus
of Thomas did not criticise the rituals itself, but, rather, disagreed with
the formal attitudes of the practitioners. The word of advice, “¯vpe
etetÓ•Ä•parage (Become passers-by)†(113) is applicable in this context;
one no longer wishes to be part of the original Jewish group, so gives
up his/ her previous identity and becomes a new insider of the
Thomasine-Jesus movement in early Christianity. The socio-ethical
rules on managing money, diligent behaviours and desire for peace and
unity in the community life, generalises Thomas not as gnostic, but as
the socio-ethical Christian group in a semi-ascetic context. The
makarios Logia of suffering, being hated, persecuted, poor and hungry,
illustrate the ways to be blessed, when the new proselytisers overcame
their internal and external circumstances. These community rules of
Thomas that do not hold the dualism of “spirit and soul†or “soul and
bodyâ€, but keeping the independent faith of a “Trinity†(114), ultimately
(112) Logia 16, 55, 79, 86b, 99a, 101 and 105.
(113) Logion 42.
(114) The triangle-relationship of the Trinity is particularly reflected in the
saying of “where there are three Gods, … where there are Two or One, I (Jesus)
am with Him†(Logion 30). The following Logia tradition also supports the
individual roles of the Trinity: 1) The Logia regarding to the Father (p•eivt) are
27b, 40, 50, 69b, 79b, 83, 99d, 100 (God) and 113.2) The Logia regarding to the
Son (p•¯hre) are 44, 86 and 100.3) The Logia regarding to the Holy Spirit (p•ÌÓ‹
et•ouaab) are 44 and 53c.