Some Thoughts on Miracles and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas presents a significantly different picture of Jesus than the four canonical gospels. In a somewhat similar fashion to the canonical gospels, especially the Gospel of John, Jesus is connected to divinity and proclaimed as “something great: a god, an angel.”[1] Others affirmed that “the Spirit of God lives in this child.”[2] One of the earliest infancy gospels, the text was most likely written in the second century CE within a Greek language context.[3]  In their compilation of documents for the study of the canonical gospels, David Cartlidge and David Dungan relate that this infancy narrative devoted itself to “filling the gap left by some of the other gospels,” a turn of phrase used constantly by scholars, regarding the first twelve years of Jesus’ life.[4] In crafting this narrative, the author self-identified as Thomas, details the struggles of Mary and Joseph as they sought to raise an omnipotent prepubescent child. J. R. C. Cousland, in Holy Terror: Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, describes the infancy narrative “as a ‘paraevangelical’ work related to, but also independent of, the canonical Gospels in virtue of its being a rounded-off story in itself.”[5] In this context, paraevangelical refers to the infancy narrative’s supplemental purpose regarding other existing narratives of Jesus’ life.

The purpose behind such a complex gospel narrative is unclear. Particularly striking is how much room Jesus has for moral development.  Throughout ancient Greco-Roman literature, protagonists in historical biographies were largely static. As Bart D. Ehrman writes in his New Testament textbook, “For the ancient biographer, character traits were thought to be relatively constant throughout a person’s life. A person’s experiences were opportunities to demonstrate what those traits were, rather than occasions for these traits to develop.”[6] In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is presented as angry, vindictive, and unlikeable, to the point that Joseph insists to Mary that she “not let him [Jesus] go outside the door, because anyone who angers him dies.”[7] It would seem that if readers are to assume that this Jesus becomes the Jesus of the canonical gospels, there would be significant moral growth within his life. Because of this, it might be reasonable to conclude that Thomas was not working exclusively from the traditional four canonical gospel accounts (since the account ends with Jesus in the temple quoting Luke, we can be confident that at least one canonical gospel was utilized by Thomas).

Amidst the angry portrayal of Jesus, it might be surprising that no one associates him with Belial or another agent of darkness and evil.  Indeed, throughout the killing Jesus is reaffirmed and worshipped as “a god, an angel…child of god or an angel of god,” possessing the “Spirit of God,” and as a gift from God.[8] Throughout the ethical failings he demonstrates and while the locals’ fear remains constant, he is repeatedly absolved and his stature as divine asserted. When understood in the context of a family drama, this portrayal may come to make some more sense. “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [sic]” Christopher A. Fillingos writes, “offers an intimate portrayal of a household in tumult. It is, in other words, a family drama. How do Mary and Joseph take up the task of raising such an unusual child? Do they understand him? Does he understand them?”[9] With this reading, the divinity of Jesus is assumed by the reader and the author. The story’s aim is on the family dynamics given the exceptionally odd situation Mary and Joseph have found themselves in.

Within the gospel, Jesus is presented as having some sense of his identity as divine. “I am from above,” Jesus says, “in order that I may curse them and call them into the things which are above, because he who sent me on your account ordered it.”[10] In a literary narrative context, it seems like Jesus might assert such a claim because he has been called divine consistently. However, from a more historical perspective, it seems as though the author Thomas seeks to make clear that Jesus was aware of his divinity. Indeed, the author seems to tap into the concept of Jesus as some type of eternally begotten divinity. One of the many locals, upon witnessing Jesus’ miracles, proclaims: “This child is not earthborn; he is able to tame even fire. Perhaps he was begotten before the world’s creation.”[11] The suggestion that Jesus was begotten and not born became a significant element of Christian belief.

Without a doubt, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas deserves a significant amount of study.It is certainly the most interesting and entertaining gospel this scholar has yet to come across. The narrative construction of Jesus as a “holy terror” presents a striking alternative to his portrayal in the four canonical gospels.The narrative is best read as a case study in family dynamics crafted for the early Jesus movement’s engagement.It seems possible that the narrative would fit into a kind category of texts meant to describe every moment of a leader’s life (somewhat like Islam’s Hadith, although that would come at least 500 years later).

Notes

[1] David R. Cartlidge and David L. Dungan, Documents and Images for the Study of the Gospels, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 76.

[2] Cartlidge and Dungan, Documents, 77.

[3] Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 7th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020), 227; Kristi Upson-Saia, “Holy Child or Holy Terror? Understanding Jesus’ Anger in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” Church History 82, no. 1 (March 2013): 1; Reidar Aasgaard, Review of Holy Terror: Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, by J. R. C. Cousland, Catholic Biblical Quarerly 82, no. 2 (April 2020): 314.

[4] Cartlidge and Dungan, Documents, 74.

[5] Riedar Aasgaard, Review of Holy Terror, 314.

[6] Ehrman, The New Testament, 95.

[7] Cartlidge and Dungan, Documents, 78.

[8] Cartlidge and Dungan, Documents, 76-78.

[9] Christopher A. Fillingos. “Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” Bible Odyssey, accessed 28 February 2022.

[10] Cartlidge and Dungan, Documents, 76.

[11] Cartlidge and Dungan, Documents, 76.

Bibliography
Aasgaard, Reidar. Review of Holy Terror: Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, by J. R. C. Cousland. Catholic Biblical Quarerly 82, no. 2 (April 2020): 314-315. https://doi.org/ezproxy.bu.edu/10.1353/cbq.2020.0059.

Burke, Tony. Review of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph: Family Trouble in the Infancy Gospels, by Christopher A. Frillingos, and Holy Terror: Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, by J. R. C. Cousland. Journal of Early Christian Studies 27, no. 3 (Fall 2019): 500-504. https://doi.org/ezproxy.bu.edu/10.1353/earl.2019.0046.

Cartlidge, David R. and David L. Dungan. Documents and Images for the Study of the Gospels. 3rd edition. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015.

Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.

Fillingos, Christopher A. “Infancy Gospel of Thomas.” Bible Odyssey. Accessed 28 February 2022. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/people/main-articles/infancy-gospel-of-thomas.

Upson-Saia, Kristi. “Holy Child or Holy Terror? Understanding Jesus’ Anger in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.” Church History 82, no. 1 (March 2013): 1-39.