Dating the Gospel of Thomas - Very Clear Clues to a Late Date

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


How is that the case when Matthew is almost entirely based on Mark, which was written in Greek?

I don't know where you got your numbers from, but it is a very small minority who think Matthew was written in Aramaic or Hebrew. Most scholars agree that it was originally written in Greek, mostly based on the fact that it relies heavily on the Greek gospel of Mark for its composition.

From what I've researched, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that points toward Matthew ever being written in Aramaic or Hebrew.




posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Here is what Papias said:


And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman31 who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.] (Source)

What is important is not what Matthew wrote down, but that fact that he did.


Actually, what Matthew wrote down is important, because what he wrote down determines whether it was the gospel or just a group of sayings attributed to Jesus.

What Papias says about the "sayings of Jesus" doesn't exactly point toward it being his gospel. It could just as easily (if not more so) be interpreted as being something similar to Thomas, which is a group of unrelated, non-linear sayings.


What is your proof of this claim?


The fact that Irenaeus is the one who attributed names to the gospels.



What reason would there be? The only thing that made him notable was his authorship of the gospel, so if you want to take that away from him, there is no reason for anyone to "assign" that text to him -- Peter, Andrew or James would have been far more likely choices.


Maybe it's possible that Matthew was the one who said it? That's definitely a reason don't you think?



Already addressed in the OP.


The reason was because Salome and Mary were confidants of Jesus. If I'm not mistaken, all the apostles were confidants of Jesus, otherwise they wouldn't have been his apostles.

Are you saying that even though Matthew was an apostle, he wasn't a confidant of Jesus? That's a bit of an oxymoron don't you think?



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Really ?

I wish I was there to slap these apostles in the face. Following an important figure in their lives, and then cause numerous ways of what could be regarded for the truth... Bloody fools should have worked together to spread the words of Jesus, as a single strong story.


In court when witness get together to decide on an official story that's called "collusion", and the testimony is invalid.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Unity_99
1. a certain passage was competitive with the gospels, ie matthew. hmmm.... that would put it in the same time frame actually.

That does not follow at all.
The logic is that if it deliberately offers an alternative view to Matthew, it would have to come after Matthew in time, but there's no necessity that it should be soon after.
It could be written a hundred years later.


It would mean that both versions were out and influencing people and they were competing with each other, like pepsi and coke.

The real Christians were the essenes, who to me were the Cathars.

And again, Paul, Seneca, "Luke" all had many roles to play........

That there may have been a wonderful Teacher/Higher Up in the world, an Historical Christ, is possible, but not necessary to the believe in what the message is about.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 

The logic is still failing.
Suppose Matthew to be written at a certain point in time.
And suppose Thomas to be written a hundred years later.
From that moment only they can be said to be "competing".
But that doesn't put the writing of them "in the same time-scale".

So your jump from "they were competing" to "they were in the same time-scale" is a non-sequitur.
It does not follow
I might write a book now that would challenge and compete with "Das Kapital", but that woudl not put me "in the same time-scale" as Karl Marx.



edit on 11-7-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 05:01 AM
link   
BO XIAN

I think you have inadvertantly illustrated the limitations of human long term memory. You seem to have conflated Morton Smith (Secret Mark) with Thomas. Secret Mark may well be a hoax, but Smith is unlikely to have been the hoaxer, in my view. Smith wasn't "up for tenure." You may be remembering a famous quotation attributed to Smith in a NY Times interview, "Thank God I have tenure," which many senior academics have had occasion to say.

In any case, Thomas was physically realized by sometime in the Fourth Century, when a translation of it was hidden at Nag Hammadi. There is no controversy whatsoever that.it is genuinely an ancient work. The rest is debatable.

adj


In other words, the order in his gospel is simply the order in which Peter recalled the stories.

That depemds on how you interpret what Eusebius said that Papias said that elder John said about what Mark wrote. Here's one uncontentious translation (Eusebius, Church History III.39.15; I notice you quoted something similar, along with comments on Matthew, III.39.16, in answer to another poster. I'll just stay with Mark.)

www.newadvent.org...


This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

There is a rat's nest of pronouns there. I parse it that Peter preached sermons about Jesus' words and deeds, composed as Peter's ministry required ("with no intention of giving a connected account..."). Later, Mark chose to present Peter's preachings not as a book of sermons (such as the Koran is) but rather as a chronological sequence of the events which Peter witnessed and testified to in the body of Peter's sermons. In this reading of Eusebius, Mark arranged the incidents which Peter supplied, preserving the accuracy of the incidents. There was, however, little or no chronological order for Mark to preserve. (And there is more sequence to the Gospel's events than just that Jesus' death comes near the end
).

I also didn't mean to suggest that Mark's organization made his Gospel fully "tamper proof." We know that something happened to the text at the ending, after 16: 8, and we think the opening verse identifying the work could also be later. Finally, Morton Smith reminds us that it is at least possible to add and remove material undetected from the middle of Mark, too.

Nevertheless, a loosely assembled collection of largely independent and mostly short sayings like Thomas is especially vulnerable to alteration. Such a collection might "invite" editing. A church receives the collection to use as a lectionary. The church supplements the collection with some local traditional sayings, and rarely recites some other items that the locals don't like as much. When the time comes for the church to make a new copy of its well-worn lectionary, the locally loved sayings fit right in, and the locally disused ones aren't missed when they're left out.

If my copy of Mark differs from your copy, then people will talk, as Morton Smith also reminds us. If my copy of Thomas differs from yours, then people might not even notice for a long time, much less complain.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


You fellas realize when it's talking about Mark and Peter that Mark is "John Mark", Peter's paid amanuenses. His services were basically what a secretary does when she writes a letter dictated orally to her by her boss.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


How is that the case when Matthew is almost entirely based on Mark, which was written in Greek?

Matthew is not almost entirely based on Mark.
There are a number of theories on the order that the Synoptic Gospels were written in, including two that say Matthew was first. Though the current majority thinking is that Mark was first, ultimately, there is no way to know.


From what I've researched, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that points toward Matthew ever being written in Aramaic or Hebrew.

As you are not a scholar, I'll take that as a less than conclusive result. As I have said, theories exist that such a text did exist, Papias indicates that Matthew wrote something in Aramaic, and it is logical that a gospel which is intended for a Jewish audience would have been written or translated into their native tongue.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Have you heard of the two-source hypothesis? It's the most widely accepted theory that solves the synoptic problem, and it states that Matthew is largely based on the Greek Mark and a Q source.

Well, most real scholars agree that no Aramaic version of Matthew's gospel ever existed, mainly because there is no evidence that points to it ever existing at all. The Greek gospel doesn't show any signs of it being a transliteration either, so most scholars also agree that the Greek version is the original.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I was taught early in my life as a Christian under the tutelage of an Evangelical Pastor, to dismiss all Gnosticism and not to ask so many questions......

When I read Thomas early on, many of the teachings/sayings did not make sense, very cryptic like puzzles.

Later when I was indwelled with the Holy Spirit and began to experience ego deaths, illumination, transcendence, timelessness, and then began to glimpse Union with God is when Thomas finally began to make sense.

Jesus is teaching nondual teachings on Enlightenment. When two things are no longer two, the you will know God, know thyself, when male and female are no longer male and female....etc....... I experienced all of that directly and that's when It all made sense.

The NT is all parables watered down teachings being taught to average folks stuck in judaism.

Thomas is deeper things being taught, super-galactic type zen koans, cutting through all the dross.

I don't think your points hold weight on this thread......as far as Thomas not being legit than earliest gospels.

If you study Thomas Aquinas, a well respected Xtian Theologian, the guy WROTE VOLUMES of material. Then later in his life he experienced God directly, and you want to know what he said about everything he wrote? "It is all like straw to the wind" ....in comparison to the actual experience.

This is what I find with Thomas critiques. Western Xtianity spends volumes and decades in apologetics, but Gnosticism/Thomas also has it's own apologetics in that of direct experience.

There is so much to doubt. The Nicean counsels for example: Did all the people in the counsel have the Holy Spirit guiding them? Any political influences? Why was the apocolypse of peter left out as the last book in the Bible (which was more popular at the time) instead of revelations?

It's just a book of directions, words, pointers, a map.........which itself is not God, Christ, Spirit. Even then Bible itself says, "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." That's what all this debate becomes, mental masturbatory intellectual fanaticism. After we all die, people will continue to debate these things for another 1000 years and nothing changes.
edit on 11-7-2013 by dominicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


Have you heard of the two-source hypothesis? It's the most widely accepted theory that solves the synoptic problem, and it states that Matthew is largely based on the Greek Mark and a Q source.

Of course I've heard of it, I even referenced it in the post above yours



Well, most real scholars agree that no Aramaic version of Matthew's gospel ever existed

What is your evidence of that statement? If there is an academic consensus regarding Matthew in another language, it would be that there is insufficient evidence to positively say that there was.


The Greek gospel doesn't show any signs of it being a transliteration either, so most scholars also agree that the Greek version is the original.

I don't remember claiming that the Greek Matthew was translated from Hebrew.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



What is your evidence of that statement? If there is an academic consensus regarding Matthew in another language, it would be that there is insufficient evidence to positively say that there was.


Funny, because you had this to say earlier:


Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


It is commonly believed that Matthew, the most Jewish of the gospels, existed in both Hebrew (Aramaic) and Greek versions. Whether they were written separately or one was translated from the other is unknown.


So it's not commonly believed anymore? Now there isn't sufficient evidence to assume an Aramaic version existed?


I don't remember claiming that the Greek Matthew was translated from Hebrew.


You implied in the earlier post that I quoted that there was a possibility that it is a translated version of the Aramaic gospel of Matthew, when evidence points to the Greek version being the original.
edit on 11-7-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 



What is your evidence of that statement? If there is an academic consensus regarding Matthew in another language, it would be that there is insufficient evidence to positively say that there was.


Funny, because you had this to say earlier:


Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


It is commonly believed that Matthew, the most Jewish of the gospels, existed in both Hebrew (Aramaic) and Greek versions. Whether they were written separately or one was translated from the other is unknown.


So it's not commonly believed anymore? Now there isn't sufficient evidence to assume an Aramaic version existed?

Yes, I misspoke there.



I don't remember claiming that the Greek Matthew was translated from Hebrew.


You implied in the earlier post that I quoted that there was a possibility that it is a translated version of the Aramaic gospel of Matthew, when evidence points to the Greek version being the original.

No, that is not what it says.

edit on 11-7-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Since their is no known Aramaic version, your statement doesn't make any sense unless you were implying that the Greek version was the transliteration. You'd have to assume the Aramaic version does exist for the statement to apply at all.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
The bible is all about interpretation. Hebrew wasn't even a language at the time of moses and all they have for the more modern translation the literal hebrew, still AD, is consonants without vowels. And that means up to 70-80 translations possible. We are always sold propaganda.

The literal translations in themselves are interesting and imply annanuki for el and Et presence.

As for the Greek debate. Well Alexander the Great, did conquer the whole region and they all spoke, and wrote in Greek.

I doubt it was a re-translation. Any more than an inuit person would have to write it out in english, then retranslate in their people's historic language, then retranslate again in english. Seems like it didn't happen that way and that the writers used the Greek they obviously knew well.
edit on 11-7-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Still trying to validate your exoteric exegesis I see.

Well, whatever floats yer boat. Carry on Christian soldier. Love is coming. Love is coming to us all.



edit on 11-7-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


Since their is no known Aramaic version, your statement doesn't make any sense unless you were implying that the Greek version was the transliteration. You'd have to assume the Aramaic version does exist for the statement to apply at all.

Here's what I said:


Matthew, the most Jewish of the gospels, existed in both Hebrew (Aramaic) and Greek versions. Whether they were written separately or one was translated from the other is unknown

Therein, I presented two options:
  1. they were written separately
  2. one was a translation of the other
Now, kindly indicate where the words "The Greek is a translation of the Hebrew" appear in either of those options.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I think dating is a problem with an awful lot of parts of the Bible, the Gospels and many other books linked to Christianity.

The major problem is the political adaptations used to mould the Christian Church away from other groups, which has led to utter confusion. Part of the difficulty is the battle between the Gnostic Schools of Valentinus and Basilides and the Christian Church when Iranaeus of Lyon in Gaul supressed Jesus teachings to his inner circle of disciples in the penultimate decade of the second century AD.

Fortunately Jesus asked Thomas, Philip and Matthew to write down all he said. This is in accordance with `Jewish Law (Deuter 19:15 .... three witnesses, every word may be established. These three disciples were scribal-witnesses and so would have been accepted as proof of authenticity among the early Gnostic readers and gives credence to the claim that these Discourses are the true Gnostic New Testament recorded some six decades before the first Synoptic Gospel.

The documents used for making the translations are the Askew and Bruce Codices held in the British Museum and is written in Greek uncials in the `upper Egypt Coptic dialect.

I would wonder if a late date for the Gospel of Thomas as he was a scribe is right. When it comes to authenticity I can't help feeling that the Church has somewhat shot itself in the foot. Also its interesting that the Gospels of Thomas and Phillip were not included in the Bible as they were actual disciples. The trouble is that we rarely find original writings and there were so many different branches of Christianity all competing with each other whilst the original disciples seemed to stay in Jerusalem whilst Paul literally took over.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


That's still assuming an Aramaic version actually existed, which there is no evidence of apart from a very ambiguous quote from Papias which points more toward a list of sayings than an actual gospel with a story structure.

We know that Matthew's gospel doesn't have any of the tell-tale signs of being a translation from Aramaic, so it couldn't have been that, and there is no evidence for an Aramaic version at all, much less one translated from the Greek version. So your point is moot on all counts.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Oh Thank You

Crosby, Stills Nash and Young one of the greatest groups of their time. I was gutted when Neil Young decided to depart and it all fell apart.






top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join