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

reply to post by adjensen



Continued…

Originally posted by adjensen
We know that the second half of #13 is dated mid-Second Century, because it is clearly Gnosticism from the Valentinus school, so it makes sense that the author would have changed the statement by Peter to remove the Jewish aspect (Messiah) and replace it with a Gnostic aspect (Bringer of Gnosis.)

But more importantly than all the above…

The Gospel of Philip

"Jesus" is a hidden name, "Christ" is a revealed name. For this reason "Jesus" is not particular to any language; rather he is always called by the name "Jesus". While as for "Christ", in Syriac it is "Messiah", in Greek it is "Christ". Certainly all the others have it according to their own language. "The Nazarene" is he who reveals what is hidden. Christ has everything in himself, whether man, or angel, or mystery, and the Father.

The term “Christ” for Jesus, is used by the Gnostics more than the word Messiah, but they (the Gnostics) considered the word Christ, to mean Messiah…


And from the same Gospel…

The Gospel of Philip
The apostles who were before us had these names for him: "Jesus, the Nazorean, Messiah", that is, "Jesus, the Nazorean, the Christ". The last name is "Christ", the first is "Jesus", that in the middle is "the Nazarene". "Messiah" has two meanings, both "the Christ" and "the measured". "Jesus" in Hebrew is "the redemption". "Nazara" is "the Truth". "The Nazarene" then, is "the Truth". "Christ" [...] has been measured. "The Nazarene" and "Jesus" are they who have been measured.

And again here, it’s stated that the word “Christ”, also has the meaning of “Messiah”…

So your whole theory about the Gnostics authors removing the Jewish aspect of Messiah, by changing Peters statement in the “Gospel of Thomas”…seems highly unlikely.

It maybe time to re-think that theory…

Originally posted by adjensen
I get the feeling you didn't fully read my post -- there are only three named apostles in Thomas, Peter, Thomas and Matthew. Peter is a no-brainer, being the voice and face of the early church, Thomas is similarly obvious, as it is "his" gospel, but if you believe that Gospel of Matthew didn't exist at the time #13 was written, what possible reason is there for him to be chosen for such a unique role? Andrew, James or John would be far more likely choices.

I think your looking at this in the wrong way IMO. What do you mean by, ‘chosen for such a unique role”…?

If your looking for reasons why Matthew should have been chosen, then we know he had a keen eye, was good with people, literate and wealthy. Seems like a good choice to me…

Originally posted by Joecroft
Luke 170 AD
Mark 175 AD
John 178 AD
Matthew 180 AD

Originally posted by adjensen
Where on earth did you come up with that? I've never seen anyone put them in that order and your dates are off by over a hundred years.

It isn’t very popular, but those dates stem from a younger hypothesis, of the 4 Canonical gospels, based only around their first mention, in historical texts and documents etc…


- JC

Originally posted by adjensen Okay, what about Peter? The first and second lines of saying #13 are reminiscent of this passage in Mark: "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Messiah." (Mark 8:29 NIV) Note that Peter's response to the question is different -- in one case, he is the Messiah, in another he is "a righteous angel". This is exactly in keeping with Gnosticism, which had no interest in Messiahs, but believed that Jesus was the neoplatonic equivalent of an angel, an aeon.

What if the author of Thomas simply remembered it differently? It's possible that someone else
said "You are the Messiah" and he mistakenly attributed it to Peter? Whoever it's attributed to is completely
irrelevant to the point the author was trying to convey. I think you're seeing something that's simply human error as far as this is concerned. At least, it's a possibility.

To me, the author is trying to give Thomas a superior image in this particular passage, and that in itself raises my eyebrow. For all it matters in relevance to the passage, the author could of said " And Darth Vader says "You are the Messiah". The intent was to drive home the point of some sort of favortism Thomas received.

Based on this particular passage we can't put an accurate date on anything.

supremecommander
The Gospel of Thomas is more profound than anything I've read in the Christian bible

The Gnostic Gospels are not "non-Christian", they are "Christian" too. They are called "heresy" that means deviation from truth but within the same general religion. Muslims were called "heresy" at their earlier stage too. Interesting enough, the first councils of the then united Church APPROVED the validity of Baptism to heretics. The heretics are Christians TOO even according to the most conservative and today outdated church fathers of early centuries.

I doubt it those who called the Gnostics heretics had the right to do so. They acted from position of power. if it were the Gnostics to politically marry pagan Rome, it would be otherwise.

We have sacred texts and those sacred texts should be studied.

Book of Henoch is included in the Ethiopian Bible. Ethiopian church is apostolic too.

2 Esdras is deutero-canonical book and is included in the Latin Vulgate, although it was not in Orthodox Bibles.

Everything depends on the perspective, and in many cases it is not the goal to establish the factual truth, but a political motivation, to say the least.

The Gospel of Thomas, along with other forbidden books, shows the life of Jesus Christ on earth contained many more facts and wordings than what reach us as "canonical" books.

I don't think the Gnostic gospels contain all the truth either. Much more is needed. We have 33 years earthly lifespan of our Lord, from which only 3.5 are recorded and that is not a full record, and is full of controversy within itself. Studies have been made only upon the 4 canonical gospels, how it was impossible practically for Jesus to be tried, tortured, crucified and die ALL on one single day Friday. The mere logic of the sequence of events require more time than one day. Some put the crucifixion on Thursday, others on Wednesday, with the Last Supper going respectively one or two days earlier. If the 4 canonical gospels cannot provide irrefutable proof for the biggest events of the life of Jesus, the supper-suffering-death-resurrection week, how can we be certain for anything else? You may count by yourself that late Friday - early Sunday are not 3 days as He promised. But that is made for convenience of "pastoral care" as the church fathers would say. It has to be made somehow and it was made this way. Not that it was correct. As much as the pagan feast of "Christmas" on 25th. Jesus was not born on 25th. The Roman feast was celebrated that week.

You may find those articles online, it is not my job to do everything ready to be swallowed, as some other posters do. I don't have that time and resource. Thank you!

reply to post by adjensen


Why don't you use the same effort and knowledge to prove what is evident about the so called canonical gospels? That they are nowhere near to the first century? We cannot have 3 synoptic gospels nearly identical, different only by the style of writer much later than the apostles, and to pretend we have some authentic gospel. Seems those 3 re-wrote from one another or from one common source. I don't want to use more wording and arguments here, that I already said in my threads.
John's is another story. Seems there are 3 different Johns. I posted the link in another thread, search wikipedia apocalypse of John.

Seems when it is non canonical text, whichever text we are talking about, all efforts are employed to prove how wrong it is. Especially when it comes to the "private life" of Jesus, i.e. whether He was married or not.

But this is not the only problem. We have 30 missing years that EVERYTHING could happen. We have missing angels that abound in the Old Testament. Why? Because those church fathers who canonise the books had a good reason to keep those thinks secret. With illiteracy and lack of contact it wasn't that difficult. Other factors are included that I will not put them here. Seems the first fathers after the apostles had a big split with the angels that appeared on Ascension and to Peter. Not just spirits but beings that open prison gates. They did not help the Christians in the persecutions whatsoever. Why? Because the early fathers got the wrong direction never taught by Jesus. We bear consequences until now.

Israel was saved many times in history by Direct intervention of God thru Angels who were named. Michael, Gabriel are named in Daniel, others in other books.

Why doesn't it happen in post-Jesus time for the Christian church? It was persecuted unimaginably more than the Jews in Old Testament. It was left alone for centuries, until some of its leaders decided it is better to survive by political marriage with Rome. Constantine was not even baptized and was still holding the pagan hi-priest position in Rome, when he called Nicaea council and stamped all dogmas. Not that they were wrong. The political marriage was wrong. Those who didn't take part, were banned as heretics. it didn't happen in one day. Perhaps in a century or two.

What follows is a power-rule of Chritsian now empire for centuries. No other religion exersized so much political power. Not even the Muslims who never realized their dream to conquer Rome. Byzantium outlived Rome by some 1000 years before it was invaded by Ottoman muslims. To transfer the Third Rome in Moscow. That didn't stop the First Rome, now ruled by popes, to invent the Inquisition, religious wars, crusades, and conquistadors who destroyed entire civilizations. It will take me too long to go thru all history. Others have done it much better and it is all online. I don't invent anything new.

What should be considered new though, is why the angels did not help the early christians to avoid what happened in history later. That is a logical assumption. Those early disciples of the apostles (or even some of the apostles, but I think more likely the second generation) had a very serious split with those angelic forces. It cannot be explained otherwise. God who crucified Himself to save humanity, didn't come to crucify the believers in Him as well. Jesus didn't come to let the millions Christians be eaten by lions and killed in most cruel way by pagan Rome. Jesus didn't come that to be repeated by those who would call His representatives in the fires of inquisition and crusades. Otherwise, the Old testament is better and easier to do, the NT doesn't make sense. This is a gross misunderstanding and abuse of the New testament that marked the entire Christian history and let very little "Christian: within the power structures. (Not the common people of course! Pls do not mess these two cathegories of people!) It is a false image of God who wants the suffering and death of his followers. It is a very false image. It only fuels the agenda of the enemies of God. And their agenda lasts for too long to be grasped by one generation. Or one church father. The creation of the image of a cruel God who would throw in hell a baby non-baptized (believed before the invention of limbo) may have repecursions beyond imagination in the wider world.

I hope in this era will be delivered all of the secret knowledge and will be corrected the gross error of first-second centuries' fathers. We need the whole truth of Jesus, 33.5 years earthly walking in life, plus 1980 (something) years in resurrected body. We need nothing less than Jesus himself, all of His life, all of His teachings and deeds. We need nothing less than a fresh start in faith with non-distorted image of a Merciful God. Then, may be, God will forgive the trespasses of the early church fathers and will grant the protection of the angels as He did to Israel.

That may coincide with Israel embracing Jesus as the messiah. Messianic Jews are more and better than ever. They show the real truth cannot be screwed and twisted by doctrines for too long. They just believe Jesus is the Messiah based on the Old Testament books. Those that were posted circa 70 BC in Septuagint and were not later transformed and banned by Rome and Constantinople. There was no way to ban something that the Jewish people held for millenia. Then came the persecutions of the Jews themselves that lasted throughout the Christian history in the so called Christendom. Up until Hitler's last persecution. Make your conclusions, dear friends and believers of our Lord Jesus Christ.

the Christian suffering that marks all the teachings and all the human life, is not explainable by a merciful God who would come to die and to save us from death. If God would require that from us despite His sacrifice, it means the original sin is not erased if we have still to suffer nearly all our lives. That is a false doctrine adopted by early church fathers and skillfully modified earliest texts of all gospels.

I make further conclusions that belong to another thread, pls click on my profile. I will not make advertisement of ideas that do not belong to this thread, so not to be accused falsely that I divert the main topic. And it is the Gospel's truth of Jesus the Lord, is it not?

For the purpose of this thread, let say and may be repeat: all gospels including the non canonical ones, including the gospel of Thomas, give pieces but do not contain the whole truth of Lord Jesus Christ. The whole truth will be given when we have a full record of all His 33.5 years on earth in non-resurrected body, PLUS some 1980 years in a resurrected body in heaven or elsewhere. He lives as we speak. He talks as we speak. He can appear as He did to Paul after the Ascension. He has the power as sovereign king of the universe to make His word known to us. Despite the twisted attempts of temporal unworthy servants to hide it. I believe He will do that soon, to correct the gross errors in Christianity. Even if not personally coming on earth before the appointed time. Because nobody knows the time of his second coming. Making the truth known is something else. The fact we discuss one of his banned gospels shows the time is near. Thank you!

1. OP, in the course of the discussion here, you challenged another poster on their scholarly credentials and experience. May we ask what your scholarly credentials and experience are please?

2. The idea here is apparently to "discredit" Gospel of Thomas in light of the traditional Canonical Gospels. Why?

3. The idea here is also apparently to stake a ancillary claim that Gnostics were not "true" Christians. Why?

4. You conclude that the inclusion of individual names in Thomas is both "intentional and important." What are your scholarly references for that assertion?

5. You state that Gnostics "believed that Jesus was the neoplatonic equivalent of an angel, an aeon." What are your scholarly references for that assertion?

6. You state that Mark (the oldest consensus gospel text) should really be considered to be the work of Peter. What are your scholarly references for that assertion?

7. You state that Matthew the Apostle is a non-descript entity ... aside from the fact that he is credited the authorship of one of the four canonical gospels (???!) You claim that the inclusion of Matthew (the Apostle) within Thomas (the Gospel) is somehow a statement that is intentionally rendered to attempt to discredit Matthew (the Gospel)? What are your scholarly references for that assertion?

8. You claim that the response of Matthew the Apostle (in the gospel of Thomas) "You are like a wise philosopher" is in complete opposition to what Matthew (the Gospel) stated. What are your scholarly claims for that assertion?

9. What is your scholarly basis for your claim "we know it [Gospel of Thomas] cannot possibly be older"?

10. What is your scholarly basis for your claim that there was a competition at Nag Hammadi between Gospels?

11. What is your scholarly basis for your claim that the one flaw you have worked for your entire post to discredit (Saying 13) somehow "calls the authenticity of the entire text [Thomas] into question"?

Many thanks in advance for your responses.

Gryphon66, thanks for making it clear for those of us who are not that deeply into the specifics. Many thanks!


Here is the link to Nag Hammadi Library (The Nag Hammadi Scriptures)

The Nag Hammadi Library, a collection of thirteen ancient codices containing over fifty texts, was discovered in upper Egypt in 1945. This immensely important discovery includes a large number of primary "Gnostic Gospels" -- texts once thought to have been entirely destroyed during the early Christian struggle to define "orthodoxy" -- scriptures such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth.

www.gnosis.org...

reply to post by 2012newstart

Why don't you use the same effort and knowledge to prove what is evident about the so called canonical gospels? That they are nowhere near to the first century? We cannot have 3 synoptic gospels nearly identical, different only by the style of writer much later than the apostles, and to pretend we have some authentic gospel.

All historic and anecdotal evidence indicates that the books that comprise the New Testament are dated from 95AD forward, so, yes, they are all from the First Century. I have never seen any credible evidence for authorship past the First Century, though you are welcome to present it (no, I'm not going to go search through other threads for links you've posted elsewhere.)

As for the rest of it, this thread is in regards to the dating of the Gospel of Thomas, not a debate over Gnostic Christianity. Last December, the ATS owners requested that people in this forum stay on topic, so if you would like to discuss Gnostic versus Orthodox Christianity, please open a thread to do so.

reply to post by Gryphon66

OP, in the course of the discussion here, you challenged another poster on their scholarly credentials and experience. May we ask what your scholarly credentials and experience are please?

Sure. I have a Master's Degree in Geography, with a cognate in history. So academically, I am a Historical Geographer, and took a number of classes as both an undergraduate and a graduate student in historical methodology (as opposed to simply being a student of history, which I am, as well.)

You conclude that the inclusion of individual names in Thomas is both "intentional and important." What are your scholarly references for that assertion?

I believe that I made that quite clear in the OP. Did you have a specific question as regards the statistical anomaly that I pointed out to underlie that statement?

You state that Gnostics "believed that Jesus was the neoplatonic equivalent of an angel, an aeon." What are your scholarly references for that assertion?

Well, the texts of the Gnostic Christians. You've been given a link to the Nag Hammadi library, I would suggest that you follow it and read the texts.

Once you've done that, we may resume our conversation, rather than me reiterating points made in previous posts which you are feigning ignorance of.

1. Are you saying that someone has to read every text in the Nag Hammadi Library online before you'll respond to a simple question? As it happens, I have read many of the Gnostic texts. How many have you read? Which did you take your consensus about what "the Gnostics" believed about Jesus? Most scholars are quick to point out that there are as many Gnostic interpretations as there were Gnostics, but you seem to have knowledge those scholars don't possess. Why don't you just cite your specific sources for your specific claim about Jesus as requested?

2. Did you do any special studies in early Christianity in your Masters degree in geography? What was the topic of your Thesis? What was your area of focus? Are you conversant in Hebrew, Aramaic, Ancient Greek, New Testament Greek, Classical Latin, or Ecclisiastical Latin?

3. How exactly am I feigning ignorance? Of what exactly? You haven't provided scholarly references for most of your claims in the thread, and it is reasonable to ask you to do so. How can I feign ignorance of material you haven't provided? I asked you a specific question about a specific claim that you made about Jesus and you haven't answered it either with a quote from your own posts or with a scholarly reference. Why not?

4. Your post focused on one saying out of 113 sayings in Thomas. That's less than 1% of the total work! Your conclusion is contrary to almost all scholarship in the field, and you cited no scholarly work nor original sources to back your claims about that single saying. What kind of statistical methodology do you employ that makes less than a 1% sample a meaningful indicator of anything? Much less something that is contrary to over 100 years of scholarship by hundreds of scholars who are specialists in the field. Can you state what your methods are from the other history courses that you took along with your Geography Masters? I really, truly would like to see that methodology.

5. Why do you take a combative tone with any reasonable questions, submitted politely, to your rather radical claims? I read your Original Post as well as everything you've written in the thread and posted what are very reasonable questions. This isn't an area where amateur opinions are generally considered to hold sway over many years of specialised scholarship.

If I misread your attempt as a serious scholarly position, my apologies. You never mentioned you were indulging in whimsey and speculation and would provide no backup, not even the barest of citations for your extraordinary claims. Your tone here seems quite brittle, and I haven't the foggiest notion why.

Do you have scholarly resources for your assertions, or not? It's okay if you don't, just say so. This is your opinion only, and it's all fun and games, after all, with a few exceptions, we're all armchair specialists here at ATS, no?

Best,

reply to post by Gryphon66

Are you saying that someone has to read every text in the Nag Hammadi Library online before you'll respond to a simple question? As it happens, I have read many of the Gnostic texts.

I'm saying that the assertion of what the Gnostic Christians believed about the nature of Christ is documented in their texts, which you apparently haven't read, or you would know that.

Did you do any special studies in early Christianity in your Masters degree in geography?

What does that have to do with anything? You asked for my academic background in history, apparently assuming that I didn't have one, and when you're given it, that's not good enough for you?

Why are you so belligerent? Address the points I made in the OP, drop the insistence on my documenting every point to your personal satisfaction, because I don't really care whether you agree with me or not, and stop with the ad hominem attacks.

reply to post by adjensen


en.wikipedia.org... (with image)

Papyrus 98 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), designated by \mathfrak[P]98, is an early copy of the New Testament in Greek. It is a papyrus manuscript of the Book of Revelation. The manuscript palaeographically had been assigned to the late 2nd century.[1] The surviving text of Revelation are verses 1:13-2:1 in a fragmentary condition.

I don't say it is wrong, I say it is very poorly preserved in that late 2nd century original document. And taking into account it was canonized 5th century, changes are possible. Humanum est errare, said the Romans.


for those who want to see our discussion with the OP in my OP thread, here it is: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Dead Sea Scrolls: The Coming of Melchizedek
page: 1 www.abovetopsecret.com...

For those who want to see my further developing ideas out of the posts presented here, please consider:
Churches, tell us the truth of ET-angels and aliens-demons
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by 2012newstart


Sorry, you've completely lost me at this point. You're mixing the ages of documents with different collections of documents and confusing the date of composition with how old the physical material is.

There are many very valid reasons for concluding that the New Testament was written in the First Century, which is why the overwhelming consensus of New Testament scholars is that it dates prior to 100AD. An excellent recent resource is Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. It is heavier in statistics than a typical historical analysis would be, but he makes a very strong case, and I highly recommend the book.

adjensen
reply to post by 2012newstart

 

As for the rest of it, this thread is in regards to the dating of the Gospel of Thomas, not a debate over Gnostic Christianity. Last December, the ATS owners requested that people in this forum stay on topic, so if you would like to discuss Gnostic versus Orthodox Christianity, please open a thread to do so.

But you discuss the Gnostic christianity and compare it to the canonic books all the time! Not only in this thread but in my thread too where I noticed your writings first! (link above). Then you said, no other documents than the canonical ones! Perhaps you counted on my presumed ignorance. I knew of the gnostic documents of course. I didn't want to enter into so deep discussion. I checked what you are doing in the other threads and saw you not only know in detail those other documents but also try to shred them to pieces. I appreciate your knowledge of the sacred texts. I would appreciate if you also notice they are found, preserved, and worked with by intelligent people whose purpose is not to falsify Christianity but to preserve it. You say Thomas, whom you want to eliminate. What is the next one of your attack? Thomas is as good, and even one of the best in the field. I vote for Thomas to be included in the canonical books in the next ecumenical council! Sorry of my excitement but it cannot be otherwise after I spent the whole day to answer mainly your questions and to search those exact sources. Thanks.

This is my last post in this thread, I will not pour more water into someone else's machine.
en.wikipedia.org... this link gives a clear photo and description of Revelation ch 1 and 2:1 dated late 2nd century. If you search you will find the rest. They are not older than the found ORIGINAL documents, i.e. the manuscripts that are written for a first time and no older ones found (although they might be assumed to exist but not found). It is crystal clear what a document is.

I do not reject the validity of the canonical books. I only say it is very possible they to be changed in the loop of time, on key phrases. Jesus never talked of "taking up one's cross" because it wasn't any custom to do so, nobody spoke so, the cross was the symbol of terrible death. That is inserted later from the early christian period. I can quote a dozen such things.

Thomas is a great discovery, and it should make it to the canonical books if the churches care at all.

reply to post by 2012newstart

I vote for Thomas to be included in the canonical books in the next ecumenical council!

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, but Thomas would never be included in the canon because a) the canon is closed, and b) Thomas is a book from another religion.

Doesn't keep people from trying, though, witness The New New Testament, by the same clowns that brought you the Jesus Seminar. Because Christianity doesn't support the far-left beliefs of the JS crowd, they're happy to just invent one that does.

1. What belligerence? What ad hominem attacks have I made? None. That seems to be your go-to response when called on your poor argumentation.

2. You've answered my general question; you're not posting serious analysis, you're just fronting your opinion. It's not a matter of "to my satisfaction." You have given no references for any question I asked.

Best,

I think it would be very wrong to assume that chronology has anything at all to do with accuracy or truth. Everybody has an agenda, and there's no guarantee that the first people to write down the stories were any different. You can't assume that they were like on-the-scene reporters, faithfully and accurately recording what happened.

A much more accurate version might be one where the writers had time to compare notes and stories, talk to different people and get different points of view in order to discern the truth from the various agendas and fabrications.

I don't really have an opinion regarding your deductions at this point, but I've been reading though various texts and opinions over here :

Early Christian writings

This might provide a good source for comparisons