# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1851 08 05_S195
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

195

cannot be proved that the Gospel of Thomas is younger, that is, written later, than the Gospels given out as God's Word." We set up a proof of the untruth of this sentence, in that we said that Papias mentions the Gospel of Matthew and of Mark, Theophilus of Antioch the Gospel of St. John, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian all four Gospels, and only Origen, after all the Church teachers named, the so-called Gospel of Thomas. Mr. S. objects to this that Papias does not mention the Gospel of Matthew, and that the so-called Gospel of Thomas is already mentioned by Irenaeus. Granting now that his objections were valid, our proof, set up for the untruth of his sentence above, would nevertheless stand, since Papias would still have mentioned the Gospel of Mark, and Theophilus the Gospel of John, before the so-called Gospel of Thomas was mentioned. Mr. S. is therefore in any case convicted of ignorance, since we assume that he has spoken untruth out of ignorance. But instead of admitting this, the honest man passes it over in silence, probably in that he, as already before, with a brazen forehead reckons his great nakednesses, which cannot be cloaked in any way, among the things that are not "chief points" —

On the other hand he makes a tremendous noise over the points in our proof against which he has raised objections, in order to turn the readers' attention away from that nakedness; a trick which is really far too simple for one to take the man who uses it, to say nothing of honesty, even for a man of moderate understanding.

To all appearances Mr. S. imagines that in what he says about those points in our proof which he has rejected he has shown wonders; but the dear reader will see at once that Mr. S., without having himself become aware of it, to be sure, has given only new proofs of his already oft-touched evil qualities.

The learned gentleman "must" "inform" us — as if this were something new to us — "that already Irenaeus in the second century in his book "against Heresies" (Bk. 1 Chap. 17) gives testimony to the existence of the so-called Gospel of Thomas, in that "adds the great Thinker" he relates some anecdotes which are found only in this writing, and at the same time states that he has taken these stories from a "writing composed by Gnostics," of which origin — according to the judgment of all experts — our Gospel of Thomas also really is. — Surely proof enough that the Gospel writing in question is older than Origen and had already before Origen been mentioned in the patristic sanctuaries," so concludes the honest man, "mentioned."

It will not escape the attentive reader how Mr. S., in his supposed proof, has substituted for "mention," which among those who have not yet made themselves "free" from common usage of speech means: to cite by name, and which was certainly at first so understood by Mr. S. himself, the words "give testimony to the existence of the book." Again a trick, which, however, even if we grant Mr. S. the advantage he seeks to gain thereby, does him no good.

The 17th chapter of the first book "against heretical parties" or "sects" begins somewhat as follows. "Moreover they (the Valentinians, a Gnostic sect) bring in an unspeakable multitude of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have fabricated, and which proceed from such as know not the word of truth, in order to take the unwary by surprise therewith. In so doing they also make use of the fiction that the Lord, when he was a boy and was learning his letters, as his teacher, as is customary, said "Say a" said "a." But when his teacher further bade him say b, the Lord is said to have answered, "Say thou to me first what a is, then will I also tell thee what b is."" Thereupon follows the account of Irenaeus how they (the Valentinians) expounded that fictitious narrative, with which the chapter closes.

Only one anecdote is mentioned there; and there stand neither the words which Mr. S. cites as Irenaeus's own words, "a writing composed by Gnostics," nor do such occur in the connection given by Mr. S., "Irenaeus has taken these stories from "a writing composed by Gnostics."" Since now, presumably, in all the editions of Irenaeus that have appeared in print the 17th chap. of the first book reads just as in the one we have at hand, one would, if one does not wish to charge Mr. S. with ignorance, almost come to the conjecture that the mine from which already "the old Essene's Revelations" came has opened again, and, since Mr. S. is no longer content with the old Irenaeus, has presented him with a new, more obliging one.

Finally, when Mr. S. says, to make his proof quite concise, that the so-called Gospel of Thomas is, according to the judgment of all experts, of Gnostic origin; this again is a revelation of his ignorance. For although the so-called Gospel of Thomas is most correctly ascribed to a Gnostic author; nevertheless several scholars, following the lead of Cyril of Jerusalem (about the year 350), hold it to be of Manichaean origin, as indeed that apocryphon stood in great esteem among the Manichaeans.

Since now the premises from which Mr. S. draws his conclusion are not correct, his conclusion also is worth nothing, since from an empty nut no kernel can be cracked out.

But granting even that they were correct, only someone whose understanding is accustomed to let five be an even number could say with Mr. S., with respect to them, "Surely proof enough that the Gospel writing in question is already mentioned before Origen in the patristic sanctuaries." For even with those fictitious premises it can easily be thought possible that "the same anecdotes," which Irenaeus is said to have taken from "a writing composed by Gnostics," passed from that very writing into the later-written so-called Gospel of Thomas.

But if one considers how the matter really stands, namely that Irenaeus cites only one narrative (the one communicated above), further that he does not say of it that he borrowed it from a writing composed by Gnostics, but that it is current among the Valentinians, in order to trace their false doctrine of the highest being, Bythos, also called Aeon, back to Christ, so as to beguile the unwary; then, that the false teachers of whom he speaks were very fertile in the production of apocrypha: there is great probability that that narrative was found in many Gnostic writings, and indeed not merely in such as were already written in Irenaeus's time, but also in later ones. The passage in Irenaeus "against Heretics," Bk. 1, Chap. 17, therefore leaves it altogether uncertain whether one is to think of the so-called Gospel of Thomas among the apocrypha of the Gnostics which Irenaeus names, or not. If one adds to this that it is not even certain whether the so-called Gospel of Thomas proceeds from the Gnostics, since it may also proceed from a Manichaean; then, if one will take it exactly, there is more against it than for it that that apocryphon was among the writings of the Gnostics to which Irenaeus alludes.

In the passage in Irenaeus, therefore, we have been able to see no mention of the so-called Gospel of Thomas, and no one who has not made himself "free" from the laws of sound common sense will be able to see such; but everyone will easily perceive, in what Mr. S. says about that passage, proofs of the latter's evil qualities, already so often approved.

In connection with this point the ignorance of Mr. S. makes itself so noticeable in yet another direction that we must call attention to it in a few words. For if Mr. S., in deciding his proposition whether the so-called Gospel of Thomas is mentioned in the writings of the old church fathers as early as any of those contained in the N. T., etc., was concerned with a proof of probability; and if he would let such circumstances as he adduces to show that the so-called Gospel of Thomas was already known to Irenaeus pass as proof — as indeed, in the distorted form which Mr. S. has given them, they would make such an assertion probable: — whence comes his brazen forehead, to deny even the appearance of correctness of the foregoing