It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It appears that women played a more prominent role in the myths and communities that arose among Christian Gnostics than they did in society at large. In the capital of King Mazdai, wherever that may have been, Thomas had an important following among women -- the wives of notables at the court, including the queen herself. And early Christian heresiologists accused Gnostic leaders of seeking out women, ones described by the heresy-hunters as weak and gullible, as easy converts. In Marcion's church women were full participants and could administer baptism. Apocryphal writings of Gnostic origin made certain of the women in Jesus's inner circle recipients of secret learning from him after his resurrection. They as well as men could be inspirited.
Salome (not to be confused with the princess who demanded John the Baptist's head) and Mary Magdalene were confidantes of this sort. In the canonical gospels, Salome appears by name only in Mark , who gives her a role of highest importance : she is a witness of both the crucifixion and the empty tomb. The later gospels --Matthew, Luke , and John -- do not refer to her at all. It has been suggested that she was left out because the later gospel-writers disapproved of various Christian groups who invoked her as authority for what had become, in their eyes, dubious doctrine. The prominent role she plays in Gnostic literature and the conspicuous silence of later orthodoxy writers strongly support such a view. (Source)
Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like."
Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel."
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like."
Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out."
And he took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"
Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up."
"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Messiah." (Mark 8:29 NIV)
It is clear that saying #13 is intended to discredit competing and pre-existing gospels, that of Mark and Matthew, meaning that we can positively date Thomas after those texts. In addition, because the parallel passage between Thomas and Mark, regarding Peter's statement, appears to exhibit the "more primitive" textual style, when we know it cannot possibly be earlier, I believe that calls the authenticity of the entire text into question.
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.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by adjensen
How are we sure that #13 was included to discredit the pre-existing Gospels?
And, are you fairly sure that "because the parallel passage between Thomas and Mark, regarding Peter's statement, appears to exhibit the "more primitive" textual style . . . " is also definite proof? The "appears" makes me a little nervous.
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.
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.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
Matthew was a name thrown onto the gospel a hundred years after the fact. The authors were anonymous until Irenaeus named them, so what if Matthew really didn't write that certain gospel?
Honestly, this is a pretty flimsy premise and you're basing your dating off of one line among hundreds of others. Not a very good foundation to set your whole argument on top of.
Papias was not referring here to the Gospel of Matthew. We know this because he was referring to a work in Aramaic, and the Gospel of Matthew can be clearly identified as having been composed in Greek. Therefore, while we have no reason to doubt that Matthew wrote logia in Aramaic, we have to rule out the possibility that he also wrote the Greek Gospel of Matthew.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
From what I've gathered, Papias only mentioned a compilation of Jesus' sayings written down by Matthew, he doesn't say anything about the gospel or the story contained within it, only "sayings of Jesus".
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)
The gospel of Matthew wasn't attributed to Matthew until Irenaeus named it so.
If Matthew was an apostle of Jesus and walked with him during his ministry, then that's a pretty good reason to name him don't you think?
Mary Magdalene didn't write a gospel, but she is named in Thomas as well. What do you think they were saying about her by mentioning her name?