Seek to See Him: Ascent & Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas (review)

This significant contribution to Thomas studies is the author’s revised 1994 doctoral dissertation written at the University of Michigan under Jarl Fossum. In her book, DeConick offers a serious alternative to the common classification of the Gospel of Thomas as Gnostic and provides a helpful, needed exposition of the role of ascent and the visio Dei in Thomas’ anthropogony and soteriology.

DeConick divides her study into four parts. The first part begins by tracing the development of G. Quispel’s three-source theory for the heritage of Thomas: a written encratite source (Gospel of the Egyptians?), a Jewish-Christian gospel (Gospel of the Nazorees?), and a written Hermetic gnomology. She then documents the confusion that has resulted by attempts to classify Thomas as Gnostic and dependent on Gnosticism when the Logia seem to lack mention of ideas exclusive to Gnosticism. Next, against the background of this contemporary confusion, DeConick challenges the assumption that Thomas is Gnostic by showing its differences with Gnostic thought on the themes of pre-mundane Fall and theological dualism. She completes her challenge by advancing the additional source of early Jewish mysticism into Quispel’s mix. Here is a tradition which interfaced with the vision mysticism of Hermeticism and shares with Thomas the teaching on ascent into heaven, after preparation, and attainment of a transforming visio Dei.

The second part focuses attention upon Logion 50. She finds this saying with its triad of questions and answers to be the earliest, least developed rendition of an early Jewish mystical tradition on angelic tests during the soul’s pre-mortem, mystical ascent. The responses reflect an anthropogony of Jewish and Hermetic confluence, where the encratite mystic presently participates in God’s nature as a child of light. The Logion does not present the ideas of ascent found in two Gnostic apocalypses. Those ideas, she believes, reflect later manipulations of a tradition least embellished in Thomas.

In part three DeConick analyzes the Thomas Logia on vision mysticism and finds them echoing themes in Jewish mystical visionary experiences and Hermeticism. First Logia 15, 83, and 59 are treated. They present redemption as an ecstatic (not eschatological) experience where the true divine Self, concealed in body, is known, and the mystic transformed, deified. Second, she analyzes two Logia, 27 and 37, which she insists are not Gnostic in heritage, but Jewish and encratite. They combine to teach a preparatory encratite code of behavior for ascent involving Sabbath Law, diet, and sexual abstinence. Third, she treats Logion 84. Again, she does not see it as Gnostic, but as echoing Judaism and Hermeticism. The saying teaches the burden the mystic must bear when the divine Self is encountered.

DeConick then concludes her study. The analysis of the Logia, with their repeated parallels to early Jewish mysticism, hermeticism, and encratite teachings, leads her to identify these traditions as those which informed Thomas’ sources. She does not find strong evidence of literary dependence in the Logia. Furthermore, she is cautious about too strictly separating encratite motifs from Jewish-Christian ones and sees Hermeticism informed by Judaism. Thus she prefers to speak of traditions, religious influences, written or oral, rather than to postulate any particular written sources. Her conclusion ends with a summary of the mystical soteriology of Thomas.

DeConick’s argument is impressive. Her distancing of Thomas from known written sources is carefully developed. Her inclusion of early Jewish mysticism into the mix of sources is enlightening, as is her exposition of the visio Dei motif. But whether she has convinced the world of Thomas studies that the text is not Gnostic, or whether she has shown more firmly that Thomas cannot be associated with any particular Gnostic school or sect, remains to be seen.