There are things in the Gospel of Thomas that we do not find anywhere else. It cannot, therefore, be said to be a blend of the 4 gospels. It is simply another witness to Christ. And the fact that it MAY have been writen later is irrelevant since the majority of the books of the bible were also writen at later dates and by people who were not the one who's name is attributed to it.
Well, yes, of course it is more than a blend of the four gospels. My point was that it shows reliance on a blend of the four gospels composed in 180 AD, and thus is very late. A book that late is of minimal historical value.
You're actually incorrect. The books of the New Testament were all written by the people who tradition attributes them to.
@KabaneTheChristian I said the majority of the books of the bible, not the NT.
My point is that the same standard must apply to NT writings as are applied to the OT writings. But this is not done.
How many of the OT books were actually writen by the main character or by the one who's name appears as the title of the book? And when were they writen? How many were actually written during the lifetime of the main characters spoken about?
Silly kid, You mention the word argue. What the fuch you going to argue?, You do anything but take heart for yourself, or any other, for that mater.You go back into time to get close to Christ, but you cant even understand or have ever read any of the generic Christ scriptures. As far as your "blend" thing about scriptures, and you know so much, now think to yourself, dumb ass, raca, Tomas is a right there scribe, as close as we can get to an actual quotation of Christ, or savior, Good luck. :)
The Council of Nicea in 325 also regarded the issue of Jesus' divinity as they began to attack Arius and Arianism for their belief that Jesus was not divine. Out of this came the Nicean Creed. The First Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381 again attacked Arianism and Macedoniasm as they did not support the divinity of the Holy Spirit or the Trinity. There is plenty of support for the view that early christianity was not one big happy family concerning Jesus' status.
Arius caused such an uproar because he contradicted the historical faith of the Church. That is, he did not transmit an ancient apostolic tradition, but created something new. It was the Holy Council at Nicea that promulgated the ancient and historical Christian faith, as witnessed to by the writings of the Fathers and the Liturgies of the Church. As you yourself noted, the controversy wasn't really over the divinity of Jesus until Arius. It was over His humanity.
@KabaneTheChristian Your assuming it was a new event which would not be the case. The Councils were setting the precedence after decades of debate. The church fathers could not have all these varying opinions of issues like the divinity. The Councils purpose among other things was to unify (many times through force) the doctrines of the Church. People of the time would have had to burry their conflicting gospels labeled heresies or face the Church's wrath, which they did up into the 5th cent.
Of course, the attacks on the humanity of Jesus were equally wrong, but you see my point. The earliest Christian writings unequivocally attest to the Lord's divinity.
@KabaneTheChristian I don't consider them wrong or right. There is however enough evidence to see the that not all Christian sects beleived the same concerning Jesus's divinity and it's understandable why. However I consider the action taken against them to be further evidence of the feud of ideas rather than some indication it was a small isolated incident the Church made it out to be. And no, the Cannon attests the lords divinity but not all the suppressed gospels support the status of Jesus.
On the other hand we have the Ebionites who were of the view that Jesus was just a man. Eperfaneus wrote about the Ebionites the Panareum, it is ascribed that they preferred a version of the Gospel of Mathew that was different from the Canon, leaving out the virgin birth, or never making it up one could say. Jesus was born of a sexual union to them. Rejection of the virgin birth casts doubt on Jesus's divinity... and lord knows the early Proto-orthodox church couldn't have doubt.
The Ebionites, arose about 90 AD. They sought to mix Christian faith with Jewish law. The Nazarenes, by contrast, were the Orthodox Christian Jews who kept the Law out of pious devotion and respect for their ancestry, but did not force Gentile Christians to keep it. They firmly professed the virgin birth and divinity of the Lord. The Ebionites split from the Nazarenes a bit before the Christian Gnostics arose.
@KabaneTheChristian Concerning the Docetics I disagree. They arose in 70 AD, which is when most early christian groups could arise during the slow travel of the time period. It's also within Peters lifetime. Peters gospel is mentioned along side Docetists in the Heretical "calling out" of Origen in the 2nd century, linking the two as it makes sense that a gospel proffessing Jesus' ultimate divinity would be in favor in the Docetist view that Jesus was completely divine and not man.
@KabaneTheChristian Scholars link the origen of the Ebionites origens to the First Jewish-Roman War of 66–70 CE. From this early time period they held to the original Mathew (the most jewish and not containing the virgin birth). So they held Jesus as an important man. The Nazarenes may have professed Jesus' divinity but the Ebionites did not. It was not for this reason that they were not popular early on though, it was because of the difficulty of converting gentiles straight into Jewish law.
I know of the Matthew you speak. It never speaks of a sexual union between the Holy Virgin and St. Joseph. The Holy Fathers spoke of it as being written in Aramaic and promulgating Orthodox Christian doctrine. It is very similar to the canonical St. Matthew. In fact, I am of the opinion that this version of St. Matthew is the "Q" that most scholars speak of. St. Matthew the Apostle likely translated this into Greek and combined it with St. Mark's Gospel, creating our present...
@KabaneTheChristian The first two chapters of Matthew, the virgin birth and the genealogy, were not contained in the first versions of Matthew's gospel. I apologize if the absence of the virgin birth does translate to a sexual union to you but to others it would only be rational. The fleshing out of the story later and the possibility that the original Mathew was the Q source used further on by the ebionites only supports my argument that many christians had reason to believe in Jesus the man.
...version of St. Matthew's Gospel. If this other version of Matthew contradicted Orthodoxy, the Holy Fathers never would attribute the respect they did to it.
Unfortunately quoting from a canonical Pauline letter does not reinforce the point that "all" forms of early christianity were agreed on Jesus's divinity. We already know the outcome of Pauline views on Jesus. The Gospel according to Peter seemed to suggest that Jesus was not a man as he experienced no pain during crucifixion. This was a popular view of the Docetists.
Right, the docetic Gnostics who had no connection to Judaism or the historical St. Peter. They arose at about the turn of the second century, counting them out as having real connections to the Holy Apostles. St. Paul knew and spoke with the step-brother of the Lord and the eleven Apostles, making him a prime source for primitive and authentic apostolic teaching.
You have made some valid arguments for the "late" camp and of course there are good arguments for the early camp. The one I find quite compelling is the way Jesus is referred to in Thomas as opposed to the some of the canon gospels. He is referred to only as Jesus, never the son of god and never as a high power. This would be in line with an earlier account rather a later one where concensus and conformity among the church would declare his deification.
There's no support for the idea that Jesus was not thought of as divine in the very early church. St. Paul quotes in Phillipians 2:6-11 an early Christian creed (10 years after Christ) that refers to Christ being in the "very nature of God." St. Paul refers to Jesus as possessing the "fullness of deity in bodily form" (Colossians 2:9) The Gospel of Thomas rather indicates that it came from a sect that didn't consider Jesus the "son of God" in the Orthodox sense, like the Gnostics.
So essentially, there's no reason to presume that because of the lack of divine claims, this means an early date. His divine claims were found very early, and Thomas rather espouses a form of Gnosticism.
I’m a Kerala (india) christian, or Thomas Christian. Our mass is in Syriac. Thomas died in India and supposedly came in AD 52. We sing hymns that rhyme sorta... i don’t really know what it means “Subaho lobo labrolbalro Kadisho. Minamolam meleymo Mulmeen Ameen"
@KabaneTheChristian I think I am orthodox. It’s called Malankara Catholic?? You may know better than I, but it’s a strange history... i watched a video about the early christians of India and they have a very old relic of Jesus that looks like a Buddhist sculpture, this is strange bc when i read the Gospel of Thomas is sounds SO MUCH like buddhist concepts. And buddhism isn’t really practiced in Kerala
Few serious academic scholars feel that all of The Gospel of Thomas was written as late as 180. Infact more scholarly concensus is going toward the view that this gospel is actually earlier than any of the four canonical gospels! The parables and sayings are in a more original and seem less tampered with than the canonical gospels! I agree that the later gnostic gospels are of a later dating. I enjoyed your presentation and will agree to just disagree with you on this one. Good Job though
This video is taken almost entirely from information derived from Evans and Perrin, two serious academic scholars. The idea that Thomas predates the canonicals is not trending towards a consensus, but is a Seminar idea that really has not moved outside the Jesus Seminar.
Good job, and good research. However, remember that all of these "facts" are in question. Very little of ancient antiquity is settled as firm fact, this is especially true when we are dealing with something like the Gosepl of Thomas. Keep up the good work.
Thomas = Egyptian deity Tum from Atum (aka Tomos)
Read the 'Sayings of Jesus' found at Oxyrynchus and you'll find references to 'the living one'. This is the god Tum; the living god. In thomas it says 'thus saieth the Lord'. In the Egyptian Tum, it states 'so saieth Tum'.
It is inaccurate to describe the Gospel of Philip as a "collection of sayings" in the same way that Thomas is. It is true that it does not contain a narrative as the four main Gospels do, but nor does it contains sayings from Jesus as the Gospel of Thomas does. In fact, it does not contain a single quote from Jesus, only a collection of theological and mystical sermons.
John was written AT THE VERY EARLIEST around 90. It is usually placed later, with some scholars placing it as late as 140. So it's still a minimum of 60 years after the death of Jesus, and there is NO evidence that John the Apostle wrote it.
I won't pretend to be an expert, but I think you are letting your faith color your interpretation of facts. And I must add that I hardly think that you have the linguistic expertise to overturn the scholarship that disagrees with you.
John is usually dated around 90. Dates have been suggested around 60, but I personally disagree with those dates. The first biography of Alexander the Great comes from a couple centuries after his death, while John is within two generations of Jesus' death, There is evidence that the Apostle John wrote the GoJ. Go to Tektonics and read that article.
And there are scholars that agree with me as well, so appeals to authority aren't going to get you anywhere here.
Tektonics? You're joking, right? I don't think there is a single serious NT scholar who takes the apologetics of "J.P. Holding" (aka Robert Turkel) seriously. I'll not waste my time there. I prefer REAL scholarship to the rantings of a proven liar, who hurls insults whenever confronted with informed opposition.
You should really check up on your sources. Use the same skepticism you apply to YEC. I know you're capable.
Funny, over on theologyweb, folks who "know" him have told me he has "legally changed" his name to JP Holding. What, did he change it to Robert Turkel during his stint as a prison guard and then CHANGE IT BACK???
And the only "scholar" that I have heard of that dares to date John that late is Earl Doherty. This is impossible because we have a fragment of John dating to 125.
As a second point dealing with Johannine authorship, it could also be written by an eyewitness named John the Elder. This is argued in the book "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony"
Your Syriac arguments are based on assumptions made in translating this gospel from the Greek into Syriac. Unless you have examined the original document, AND you have a thorough understanding of ancient Greek and Syriac, you are also in the position of "appealing to authority."
By the way, the P52 "fragment" of John of which you speak consists of small parts of 5 verses of John 18, and the dating to 125 is itself not without controversy. The script of P52 suggests a date from 125 to 160.
Apologies for not getting back to you on this one. Please specify these assumptions. I get my arguments from Dr. Perrin and Dr. Evans, both fluent in Greek. My point is that you said I don't have the knowledge to overturn scholarship that disagrees with me. I responded by saying that there are scholars that agree with me. Yes, 160, at the very latest, 100 at the earliest. It forms a consensus that it dates to 125.
The earliest date I have seen ascribed to it, based on the script, its source as a codex (as opposed to a scroll), and other paleographic evidence, is 125. This earliest estimate hardly constitutes a "consensus."
If you are going to include 100 as the earliest possible date, you must also include scolars such as A. Schmidt, who dates it at 170AD +/- 25... pushing the possible date to as late as 205.
I said 100 at the earliest. My source is Dr. Craig Blomberg. I favor the 125 date, and so do most scholars. 125 is not the earliest estimate. 100 is the earliest estimate. Schmidt is on the fringe with his dating, you know. And you are wayyy on the fringe with your dating of John to 140. Most scholars accept a date of 90, with some going as far back as 60.
Schmidt is most certainly no more "on the fringe" than Craig Blomberg, who doesn't have proper training in dating historical documents. His technique is based largely on hermeneutics, and as such it justifiably comes under fire from experts in linguistics, paleography, and papyrology.
As for "my" dating of John to 140, I said "some scholars" place it as late as 140, with the same degree of confidence as the date of 60. (con'd)
Most scholars date John to c. 90-100. In your comments, you tend to present only the earliest possible and the generally accepted dates, disregarding later dates. This could be interpreted as disingenuous.
An analogy: I am going to roll two dice. Most people agree that the most likely result is a seven. Some will point out that I may roll as low as a two. So the possible range of results is from 2-7.
In my citation of later dates, I am only trying to restore the balance.
Returning to P52, the most common scholarly viewpoint is actually that paleography and papyrology evidence is insignificant to meaningfully date the fragment. Where a date is suggested, the "consensus" range is 125-160. It is NOT 125. You are showing a bias when you present this as a "consensus" date.
Most scholars who favor earlier dates also believe that accepting Christ is the only way to salvation. So I'd be more likely to discount their estimates on the basis of conflict of interests.
Whenever I present the earliest possible dates, it is always accompanied by the latest possible. When I mention the date of a document, I use the consensus date.
How exactly does Syriac authorship "alone" date Thomas to the 2nd century?
Many scholars do believe that the Gospel of Thomas was composed in Syriac, but that is where their agreement with Perrin stops. Ron Cameron agrees with Syriac authorship, but believes that it was drawn from an independent oral tradition, from which the Diatesseron also drew. He finds a late 1st century date to be far more likely than mid-late 2nd century.
Stephen Patterson likewise agrees with Syriac compostion, but dates Thomas to c.70-80. Patterson and Cameron are among the most frequently cited scholars on Thomas, so the "on the fringe" argument won't work here.
Just wanted to add something else. The Diatesseron contains a significant amount of Johannine material, yet the Gospel of Thomas contains none. If the Diatesseron was the source, why does Thomas show no obvious knowledge/use of this material? This question comes from Mark Goodacre, Assoc. Prof. of the NT at Duke, who regularly participates in the Yahoo Group on the Gospel of Thomas (along with several other noted scholars). You may be interested:
Lastly, John (latest of the canonical gospels) is the ONLY gopel to regard Thomas the apostle specially (the "doubting Thomas" portrayal.) Some scholars argue that this arises from the author's acquaintance with the Gospel of Thomas (or at least with a sect that held similar ideas to those found in Thomas) BEFORE John was written.
This doesn't explain the absence of this event in the other three gospels... in fact, if it was a historical event, doesn't this seem important enough to appear in all four?
That's my point. It WASN'T important until there was a sect of Christianity based on the writings of Thomas. THEN it became important enough to be dealt with.
So the author of John decided to include that event as a rebuke on the "doubting Thomases," who believed in a spiritual, not a physical, resurrection.
By the way, John is a fairly late document, too (no earlier than 100, 70 years after the death of Jesus); and it introduces many ideas not apparent in the remaining canonical gospels (chiefly the claims of exclusive divinity). So this gospel too should be discarded.
You mean Irenaeus? The same Irenaeus who misrepresented gnostic beliefs in order to persecute it as a "heresy?" That Irenaeus?
Ironically, it was the same library (Nag Hammadi) in which the Gospel of Thomas was discovered that also proves Irenaeus was willing to distort facts to further his own agenda. Anything he writes should be taken with a large grain of salt.
I think you have the relationship between the diatesseron and the Gospel of Thomas backwards.
About the source material for the canonical gospels: The hypothetical text Q is written in three strata: Q1, Q2, Q3. No Q3 material appears in Thomas (but does in John), which argues for an early date. Thomas also lacks Gnostic influence, which certainly would appear in a work of the late 2nd century. Video response to come.
The Diatessaron literally means "through the four" It is a blend of the four gospels and used nothing from any other. So you think that instead of a blend of the variations of sayings in the canonicals, the author of the Diatessaron took straight from Thomas?
When a 1st century writer would use something as a source, they took notes on their source and used their notes. The only thing that could explain the identical sayings in Matt. and Luke is oral tradition, not Q.
Hmm, why don't you stop thinking everyone is criticising you if they don't praise you? The estimates for these things always varies wildly; my contribution was to add another estimate to yours, or otherwise there's only oen person's opinion on how old the Gospel is.
Hi Kabane, if you could cite some of your sources, particularly the order of sayings correlating between the order of the diatesseron and the order of thomas, I'd appreciate it. thx.
My source for the correlation is a study by Dr. Nicholar Perrin, assistant Professor of New Testament studies at Wheaton, and author of the book "Thomas: The Other Gospel"
You actually didn't have to tell me this part, as Dr. Perrin is the ONLY scholar who embraces this theory. He has been unable to convince other scholars in the field, largely because no Syriac or Greek manuscript of the Diatesseron exists. It is known mainly through medieval translations into Arabic and Latin.
He appears to have convinced you, though, despite these shortcomings...
In The Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is quoted as saying, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."
This doesn't sound like something Jesus would say. This (and the rest of the GoT) sounds more like a poor man's version of Proverbs.
"This doesn't sound like something Jesus would say."
Compared to the Jesus of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) doesn't sound like something he'd say, either. In fact, many of the Johannine scriptures are very unlike the other three gospel accounts...
There are things in the Gospel of Thomas that we do not find anywhere else. It cannot, therefore, be said to be a blend of the 4 gospels. It is simply another witness to Christ. And the fact that it MAY have been writen later is irrelevant since the majority of the books of the bible were also writen at later dates and by people who were not the one who's name is attributed to it.
TrustinJC 1 month ago
@TrustinJC
Well, yes, of course it is more than a blend of the four gospels. My point was that it shows reliance on a blend of the four gospels composed in 180 AD, and thus is very late. A book that late is of minimal historical value.
You're actually incorrect. The books of the New Testament were all written by the people who tradition attributes them to.
KabaneTheChristian 1 month ago
@KabaneTheChristian I said the majority of the books of the bible, not the NT.
My point is that the same standard must apply to NT writings as are applied to the OT writings. But this is not done.
How many of the OT books were actually writen by the main character or by the one who's name appears as the title of the book? And when were they writen? How many were actually written during the lifetime of the main characters spoken about?
con't
TrustinJC 1 month ago
@KabaneTheChristian Pt 2 If you applied the same standard to the OT writings as you do to NT writings your bible would be much much smaller.
So what if the origional writings of Thomas are lost. Jesus never wrote any of the gospels. The gospels are still about his life and teachings.
In the same way, the Gospel According to Thomas is a recording of the things he taught regarding the teachings of Christ.
Now what about the book of Hebrews. Who wrote it?
TrustinJC 1 month ago
Kool...
Manikhayya 7 months ago
Silly kid, You mention the word argue. What the fuch you going to argue?, You do anything but take heart for yourself, or any other, for that mater.You go back into time to get close to Christ, but you cant even understand or have ever read any of the generic Christ scriptures. As far as your "blend" thing about scriptures, and you know so much, now think to yourself, dumb ass, raca, Tomas is a right there scribe, as close as we can get to an actual quotation of Christ, or savior, Good luck. :)
YouSpamTard 10 months ago
The Council of Nicea in 325 also regarded the issue of Jesus' divinity as they began to attack Arius and Arianism for their belief that Jesus was not divine. Out of this came the Nicean Creed. The First Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381 again attacked Arianism and Macedoniasm as they did not support the divinity of the Holy Spirit or the Trinity. There is plenty of support for the view that early christianity was not one big happy family concerning Jesus' status.
nicfirebear 1 year ago
@nicfirebear
Arius caused such an uproar because he contradicted the historical faith of the Church. That is, he did not transmit an ancient apostolic tradition, but created something new. It was the Holy Council at Nicea that promulgated the ancient and historical Christian faith, as witnessed to by the writings of the Fathers and the Liturgies of the Church. As you yourself noted, the controversy wasn't really over the divinity of Jesus until Arius. It was over His humanity.
KabaneTheChristian 1 year ago
@KabaneTheChristian Your assuming it was a new event which would not be the case. The Councils were setting the precedence after decades of debate. The church fathers could not have all these varying opinions of issues like the divinity. The Councils purpose among other things was to unify (many times through force) the doctrines of the Church. People of the time would have had to burry their conflicting gospels labeled heresies or face the Church's wrath, which they did up into the 5th cent.
nicfirebear 1 year ago
@nicfirebear
Of course, the attacks on the humanity of Jesus were equally wrong, but you see my point. The earliest Christian writings unequivocally attest to the Lord's divinity.
May Christ's peace be with you!
KabaneTheChristian 1 year ago
@KabaneTheChristian I don't consider them wrong or right. There is however enough evidence to see the that not all Christian sects beleived the same concerning Jesus's divinity and it's understandable why. However I consider the action taken against them to be further evidence of the feud of ideas rather than some indication it was a small isolated incident the Church made it out to be. And no, the Cannon attests the lords divinity but not all the suppressed gospels support the status of Jesus.
nicfirebear 1 year ago
On the other hand we have the Ebionites who were of the view that Jesus was just a man. Eperfaneus wrote about the Ebionites the Panareum, it is ascribed that they preferred a version of the Gospel of Mathew that was different from the Canon, leaving out the virgin birth, or never making it up one could say. Jesus was born of a sexual union to them. Rejection of the virgin birth casts doubt on Jesus's divinity... and lord knows the early Proto-orthodox church couldn't have doubt.
nicfirebear 1 year ago
@nicfirebear
The Ebionites, arose about 90 AD. They sought to mix Christian faith with Jewish law. The Nazarenes, by contrast, were the Orthodox Christian Jews who kept the Law out of pious devotion and respect for their ancestry, but did not force Gentile Christians to keep it. They firmly professed the virgin birth and divinity of the Lord. The Ebionites split from the Nazarenes a bit before the Christian Gnostics arose.
KabaneTheChristian 1 year ago
@KabaneTheChristian Concerning the Docetics I disagree. They arose in 70 AD, which is when most early christian groups could arise during the slow travel of the time period. It's also within Peters lifetime. Peters gospel is mentioned along side Docetists in the Heretical "calling out" of Origen in the 2nd century, linking the two as it makes sense that a gospel proffessing Jesus' ultimate divinity would be in favor in the Docetist view that Jesus was completely divine and not man.
nicfirebear 1 year ago
@KabaneTheChristian Scholars link the origen of the Ebionites origens to the First Jewish-Roman War of 66–70 CE. From this early time period they held to the original Mathew (the most jewish and not containing the virgin birth). So they held Jesus as an important man. The Nazarenes may have professed Jesus' divinity but the Ebionites did not. It was not for this reason that they were not popular early on though, it was because of the difficulty of converting gentiles straight into Jewish law.
nicfirebear 1 year ago
@nicfirebear
I know of the Matthew you speak. It never speaks of a sexual union between the Holy Virgin and St. Joseph. The Holy Fathers spoke of it as being written in Aramaic and promulgating Orthodox Christian doctrine. It is very similar to the canonical St. Matthew. In fact, I am of the opinion that this version of St. Matthew is the "Q" that most scholars speak of. St. Matthew the Apostle likely translated this into Greek and combined it with St. Mark's Gospel, creating our present...
KabaneTheChristian 1 year ago
@KabaneTheChristian The first two chapters of Matthew, the virgin birth and the genealogy, were not contained in the first versions of Matthew's gospel. I apologize if the absence of the virgin birth does translate to a sexual union to you but to others it would only be rational. The fleshing out of the story later and the possibility that the original Mathew was the Q source used further on by the ebionites only supports my argument that many christians had reason to believe in Jesus the man.
nicfirebear 1 year ago
@nicfirebear
...version of St. Matthew's Gospel. If this other version of Matthew contradicted Orthodoxy, the Holy Fathers never would attribute the respect they did to it.
Peace!
KabaneTheChristian 1 year ago
Unfortunately quoting from a canonical Pauline letter does not reinforce the point that "all" forms of early christianity were agreed on Jesus's divinity. We already know the outcome of Pauline views on Jesus. The Gospel according to Peter seemed to suggest that Jesus was not a man as he experienced no pain during crucifixion. This was a popular view of the Docetists.
nicfirebear 1 year ago
@nicfirebear
Right, the docetic Gnostics who had no connection to Judaism or the historical St. Peter. They arose at about the turn of the second century, counting them out as having real connections to the Holy Apostles. St. Paul knew and spoke with the step-brother of the Lord and the eleven Apostles, making him a prime source for primitive and authentic apostolic teaching.
Peace to you!
KabaneTheChristian 1 year ago
You have made some valid arguments for the "late" camp and of course there are good arguments for the early camp. The one I find quite compelling is the way Jesus is referred to in Thomas as opposed to the some of the canon gospels. He is referred to only as Jesus, never the son of god and never as a high power. This would be in line with an earlier account rather a later one where concensus and conformity among the church would declare his deification.
nicfirebear 1 year ago
@nicfirebear
There's no support for the idea that Jesus was not thought of as divine in the very early church. St. Paul quotes in Phillipians 2:6-11 an early Christian creed (10 years after Christ) that refers to Christ being in the "very nature of God." St. Paul refers to Jesus as possessing the "fullness of deity in bodily form" (Colossians 2:9) The Gospel of Thomas rather indicates that it came from a sect that didn't consider Jesus the "son of God" in the Orthodox sense, like the Gnostics.
KabaneTheChristian 1 year ago
@nicfirebear
So essentially, there's no reason to presume that because of the lack of divine claims, this means an early date. His divine claims were found very early, and Thomas rather espouses a form of Gnosticism.
May the peace of Christ be with you!
KabaneTheChristian 1 year ago
this guy can really open your eyes!
youtube.com/watch?v=mrZcztxRquo&feature=related
marvelstryfe 1 year ago
I’m a Kerala (india) christian, or Thomas Christian. Our mass is in Syriac. Thomas died in India and supposedly came in AD 52. We sing hymns that rhyme sorta... i don’t really know what it means “Subaho lobo labrolbalro Kadisho. Minamolam meleymo Mulmeen Ameen"
HindiReader 1 year ago
@HindiReader
Ah yes. You are part of the Assyrian Church of the East, which split from the Orthodox Church in the sixth century.
KabaneTheChristian 1 year ago
@KabaneTheChristian I think I am orthodox. It’s called Malankara Catholic?? You may know better than I, but it’s a strange history... i watched a video about the early christians of India and they have a very old relic of Jesus that looks like a Buddhist sculpture, this is strange bc when i read the Gospel of Thomas is sounds SO MUCH like buddhist concepts. And buddhism isn’t really practiced in Kerala
HindiReader 1 year ago
watch google video:
Thomas McEvilley on 'The Shape of Ancient Thought'
check out youtube vid:
Burke Lecture: Buddhism in a Global Age of Technology
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
Didymus mean's Thomas, one relates to the Soul the other the physical body, and the name Didymud Judas Thomas is code for 101!
KaOssis 1 year ago
Stop calling me a HOMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JoNaThAn03GoLaCki 2 years ago
where can i read a legit version of the book of thomas????? with proof that it is legit??
jllaneshernandez 2 years ago
Few serious academic scholars feel that all of The Gospel of Thomas was written as late as 180. Infact more scholarly concensus is going toward the view that this gospel is actually earlier than any of the four canonical gospels! The parables and sayings are in a more original and seem less tampered with than the canonical gospels! I agree that the later gnostic gospels are of a later dating. I enjoyed your presentation and will agree to just disagree with you on this one. Good Job though
TheJerMac 2 years ago
This video is taken almost entirely from information derived from Evans and Perrin, two serious academic scholars. The idea that Thomas predates the canonicals is not trending towards a consensus, but is a Seminar idea that really has not moved outside the Jesus Seminar.
Blessings to you.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Dude whats with the bowl haircut
myjizzureye 2 years ago
Moe-ish or Ish-ish; you decide.
This kid is too smart to remain blind for long.
JPTill 2 years ago
you bring up some interesting points, but you have no refrences to sources, nor did you mention the significance of your findings
democrat142005 2 years ago
Nicely put together. I'm not convinced of a late date for the Gospel of Thomas but your arguments are good and something to think about.
x42
x42brown 2 years ago
You've been brainwashed
TJtough201 2 years ago
I'm reporting the scholarship as I've read it. Perhaps you'd like to rebut a single point?
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
dang, smart kid
logos3in1 2 years ago
Awesome!!
Be Blessed
TakeMyLifeLord 2 years ago
hey, you got good things to say but you need to speak clearer.
yatuiig 2 years ago
pretty good bro
KingKumaForever 2 years ago
I have gained knowledge.
megawolf7 2 years ago
congrats dude
AussieBoyX 2 years ago
Good job, and good research. However, remember that all of these "facts" are in question. Very little of ancient antiquity is settled as firm fact, this is especially true when we are dealing with something like the Gosepl of Thomas. Keep up the good work.
blindvoyager 3 years ago
Thomas = Egyptian deity Tum from Atum (aka Tomos)
Read the 'Sayings of Jesus' found at Oxyrynchus and you'll find references to 'the living one'. This is the god Tum; the living god. In thomas it says 'thus saieth the Lord'. In the Egyptian Tum, it states 'so saieth Tum'.
Want more? Contact me.
martynblackburn1977 3 years ago
Sorry pal, Thomas was originally written in greek, and Thomas could also mean Twin in syriac.
blindvoyager 3 years ago
I know it is written in Greek but the Greeks borrowed from the Egyptians.
That's a fact.
martynblackburn1977 3 years ago
It is inaccurate to describe the Gospel of Philip as a "collection of sayings" in the same way that Thomas is. It is true that it does not contain a narrative as the four main Gospels do, but nor does it contains sayings from Jesus as the Gospel of Thomas does. In fact, it does not contain a single quote from Jesus, only a collection of theological and mystical sermons.
silversoul7 4 years ago
Excellent.
UnionKid15 4 years ago
Michael Tsarion
Dharma2012 4 years ago
Finally, phoenix, your counterarguments don't deal with my arguments relating to Syriac authorship, which alone, dates Thomas to the second century.
KabaneTheChristian 4 years ago
John was written AT THE VERY EARLIEST around 90. It is usually placed later, with some scholars placing it as late as 140. So it's still a minimum of 60 years after the death of Jesus, and there is NO evidence that John the Apostle wrote it.
I won't pretend to be an expert, but I think you are letting your faith color your interpretation of facts. And I must add that I hardly think that you have the linguistic expertise to overturn the scholarship that disagrees with you.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
John is usually dated around 90. Dates have been suggested around 60, but I personally disagree with those dates. The first biography of Alexander the Great comes from a couple centuries after his death, while John is within two generations of Jesus' death, There is evidence that the Apostle John wrote the GoJ. Go to Tektonics and read that article.
And there are scholars that agree with me as well, so appeals to authority aren't going to get you anywhere here.
Kabane52 4 years ago
Tektonics? You're joking, right? I don't think there is a single serious NT scholar who takes the apologetics of "J.P. Holding" (aka Robert Turkel) seriously. I'll not waste my time there. I prefer REAL scholarship to the rantings of a proven liar, who hurls insults whenever confronted with informed opposition.
You should really check up on your sources. Use the same skepticism you apply to YEC. I know you're capable.
Preparing a video response...
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Oh, trust me, I've read the rebuttals of Tekton just as much as I've read the site. No serious scholar except, Evans, Witherington, Wallace, etc etc.
KabaneTheChristian 4 years ago
Oh, and by the way, his name is JP Holding. At least that is his legal name and the name he was born with.
KabaneTheChristian 4 years ago
Funny, over on theologyweb, folks who "know" him have told me he has "legally changed" his name to JP Holding. What, did he change it to Robert Turkel during his stint as a prison guard and then CHANGE IT BACK???
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Oops, excuse me. That's "prison librarian."
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Yes. He did. And you can email him for the documents that prove it.
KabaneTheChristian 4 years ago
"Tektonics? You're joking right?..." when you dont like the information, smear the source right?
migkillertwo 4 years ago
I don't have to smear the source. The theology community does a pretty good job of exposing his lies without my help.
phoenixshade3 3 years ago
And the only "scholar" that I have heard of that dares to date John that late is Earl Doherty. This is impossible because we have a fragment of John dating to 125.
Kabane52 4 years ago
As a second point dealing with Johannine authorship, it could also be written by an eyewitness named John the Elder. This is argued in the book "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony"
KabaneTheChristian 4 years ago
Your Syriac arguments are based on assumptions made in translating this gospel from the Greek into Syriac. Unless you have examined the original document, AND you have a thorough understanding of ancient Greek and Syriac, you are also in the position of "appealing to authority."
By the way, the P52 "fragment" of John of which you speak consists of small parts of 5 verses of John 18, and the dating to 125 is itself not without controversy. The script of P52 suggests a date from 125 to 160.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Apologies for not getting back to you on this one. Please specify these assumptions. I get my arguments from Dr. Perrin and Dr. Evans, both fluent in Greek. My point is that you said I don't have the knowledge to overturn scholarship that disagrees with me. I responded by saying that there are scholars that agree with me. Yes, 160, at the very latest, 100 at the earliest. It forms a consensus that it dates to 125.
KabaneTheChristian 4 years ago
P52 dated to 100AD? Please cite your source.
The earliest date I have seen ascribed to it, based on the script, its source as a codex (as opposed to a scroll), and other paleographic evidence, is 125. This earliest estimate hardly constitutes a "consensus."
If you are going to include 100 as the earliest possible date, you must also include scolars such as A. Schmidt, who dates it at 170AD +/- 25... pushing the possible date to as late as 205.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
I said 100 at the earliest. My source is Dr. Craig Blomberg. I favor the 125 date, and so do most scholars. 125 is not the earliest estimate. 100 is the earliest estimate. Schmidt is on the fringe with his dating, you know. And you are wayyy on the fringe with your dating of John to 140. Most scholars accept a date of 90, with some going as far back as 60.
KabaneTheChristian 4 years ago
Schmidt is most certainly no more "on the fringe" than Craig Blomberg, who doesn't have proper training in dating historical documents. His technique is based largely on hermeneutics, and as such it justifiably comes under fire from experts in linguistics, paleography, and papyrology.
As for "my" dating of John to 140, I said "some scholars" place it as late as 140, with the same degree of confidence as the date of 60. (con'd)
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Most scholars date John to c. 90-100. In your comments, you tend to present only the earliest possible and the generally accepted dates, disregarding later dates. This could be interpreted as disingenuous.
An analogy: I am going to roll two dice. Most people agree that the most likely result is a seven. Some will point out that I may roll as low as a two. So the possible range of results is from 2-7.
In my citation of later dates, I am only trying to restore the balance.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Returning to P52, the most common scholarly viewpoint is actually that paleography and papyrology evidence is insignificant to meaningfully date the fragment. Where a date is suggested, the "consensus" range is 125-160. It is NOT 125. You are showing a bias when you present this as a "consensus" date.
Most scholars who favor earlier dates also believe that accepting Christ is the only way to salvation. So I'd be more likely to discount their estimates on the basis of conflict of interests.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Whenever I present the earliest possible dates, it is always accompanied by the latest possible. When I mention the date of a document, I use the consensus date.
Kabane52 4 years ago
How exactly does Syriac authorship "alone" date Thomas to the 2nd century?
Many scholars do believe that the Gospel of Thomas was composed in Syriac, but that is where their agreement with Perrin stops. Ron Cameron agrees with Syriac authorship, but believes that it was drawn from an independent oral tradition, from which the Diatesseron also drew. He finds a late 1st century date to be far more likely than mid-late 2nd century.
(con'd)
phoenixshade3 4 years ago 2
(con'd)
Stephen Patterson likewise agrees with Syriac compostion, but dates Thomas to c.70-80. Patterson and Cameron are among the most frequently cited scholars on Thomas, so the "on the fringe" argument won't work here.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago 2
Just wanted to add something else. The Diatesseron contains a significant amount of Johannine material, yet the Gospel of Thomas contains none. If the Diatesseron was the source, why does Thomas show no obvious knowledge/use of this material? This question comes from Mark Goodacre, Assoc. Prof. of the NT at Duke, who regularly participates in the Yahoo Group on the Gospel of Thomas (along with several other noted scholars). You may be interested:
groups. yahoo. com/group/gthomas/message/5652
phoenixshade3 4 years ago 2
Could you simply make a video response to this? And we can do this a bit more easily?
Kabane52 4 years ago
Because Christianity became widespread in Syria in the 2nd century.
Kabane52 4 years ago
Lastly, John (latest of the canonical gospels) is the ONLY gopel to regard Thomas the apostle specially (the "doubting Thomas" portrayal.) Some scholars argue that this arises from the author's acquaintance with the Gospel of Thomas (or at least with a sect that held similar ideas to those found in Thomas) BEFORE John was written.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Or John was writing a historical event. That explains the facts just as well.
KabaneTheChristian 4 years ago
This doesn't explain the absence of this event in the other three gospels... in fact, if it was a historical event, doesn't this seem important enough to appear in all four?
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Why is this important? It seems like a minor event that doesn't affect Christian doctrine anyway.
KabaneTheChristian 4 years ago
That's my point. It WASN'T important until there was a sect of Christianity based on the writings of Thomas. THEN it became important enough to be dealt with.
So the author of John decided to include that event as a rebuke on the "doubting Thomases," who believed in a spiritual, not a physical, resurrection.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
By the way, John is a fairly late document, too (no earlier than 100, 70 years after the death of Jesus); and it introduces many ideas not apparent in the remaining canonical gospels (chiefly the claims of exclusive divinity). So this gospel too should be discarded.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
No, John is usually dated about 90. It is explicitly stated by Iraneaus that John wrote his gospel to supplement the others.
KabaneTheChristian 4 years ago
You mean Irenaeus? The same Irenaeus who misrepresented gnostic beliefs in order to persecute it as a "heresy?" That Irenaeus?
Ironically, it was the same library (Nag Hammadi) in which the Gospel of Thomas was discovered that also proves Irenaeus was willing to distort facts to further his own agenda. Anything he writes should be taken with a large grain of salt.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
I think you have the relationship between the diatesseron and the Gospel of Thomas backwards.
About the source material for the canonical gospels: The hypothetical text Q is written in three strata: Q1, Q2, Q3. No Q3 material appears in Thomas (but does in John), which argues for an early date. Thomas also lacks Gnostic influence, which certainly would appear in a work of the late 2nd century. Video response to come.
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
The Diatessaron literally means "through the four" It is a blend of the four gospels and used nothing from any other. So you think that instead of a blend of the variations of sayings in the canonicals, the author of the Diatessaron took straight from Thomas?
KabaneTheChristian 4 years ago
When a 1st century writer would use something as a source, they took notes on their source and used their notes. The only thing that could explain the identical sayings in Matt. and Luke is oral tradition, not Q.
KabaneTheChristian 4 years ago
You are the coolest kid
JammyTom 4 years ago
Good work Kabane!
StaticBreeze 4 years ago
Gospel of Thomas 50-140AD
earlychristianwritings dot com forward slash thomas
BryanAJParry 4 years ago
Super. Why don't you address the arguments in this instead of citing earlychristianwritings.
Kabane52 4 years ago
Hmm, why don't you stop thinking everyone is criticising you if they don't praise you? The estimates for these things always varies wildly; my contribution was to add another estimate to yours, or otherwise there's only oen person's opinion on how old the Gospel is.
BryanAJParry 4 years ago
No, I don't think that. I dated Thomas at 180. It doesn't contribute unless you provide arguments to support the earlier dates.
Kabane52 4 years ago
Hi Kabane, if you could cite some of your sources, particularly the order of sayings correlating between the order of the diatesseron and the order of thomas, I'd appreciate it. thx.
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
My source for the correlation is a study by Dr. Nicholar Perrin, assistant Professor of New Testament studies at Wheaton, and author of the book "Thomas: The Other Gospel"
KabaneTheChristian 4 years ago
You actually didn't have to tell me this part, as Dr. Perrin is the ONLY scholar who embraces this theory. He has been unable to convince other scholars in the field, largely because no Syriac or Greek manuscript of the Diatesseron exists. It is known mainly through medieval translations into Arabic and Latin.
He appears to have convinced you, though, despite these shortcomings...
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
Dr. Evans also supports the theory.
Kabane52 4 years ago
In The Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is quoted as saying, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."
This doesn't sound like something Jesus would say. This (and the rest of the GoT) sounds more like a poor man's version of Proverbs.
CajunPunk 4 years ago
sounds almost like reincarnation
alienjesus2012 4 years ago
Poor man's Proverbs, haha!
ThatChristian 4 years ago
"This doesn't sound like something Jesus would say."
Compared to the Jesus of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) doesn't sound like something he'd say, either. In fact, many of the Johannine scriptures are very unlike the other three gospel accounts...
phoenixshade3 4 years ago
awesome video tom
UnionKid15 4 years ago 3