Metacrock wrote:Fortigurn wrote:* The earliest text of GThomas we have date to no earlier than the 3rd century AD (this is significant, since GThomas quotes John's gospel, and the earliest text of John's gospel dates to almost 100 years earlier)
* The earliest reference we have to GThomas in any Christian writing dates to no earlier than the 3rd century AD (this is significant, since GThomas quotes John's gospel, and the earliest references to John's gospel date to almost 100 years earlier)
But that just applies to the finnished product. The document found at Nag Hammadi is a composit of an older saying source put into a latter Gnostic framework. Its' the core sayings that are called "earlier," the finnished version we have is clearly latter.
Speculation.
* GThomas was found in the Nag Hammadi collection of Gnostic writings, and it is clear that the text was still unstable - it had been edited and revised a number of times, which is what is expected of a text which is either still being drafted, or which is still being adapted from an earlier text (the gospel of John), contributing to the argument for a date beyond the 1st century
The core sayings are not from John. there are also Q sayings, and there are origianl saying not in any canononical form, but which seem to match the style of the canonical sayings. The fac that it is a saying source indicates that it's earlier than the canonicals.
I didn't say that the core sayings were from John. I was pointing out that its quotes from John indicate that it is partly adapted from that gospel, and that the text was unstable, indicating an authorship after the 1st century.
I honestly dont' know why christains can't see the enormous hell we can get form this.This is not at attack on the Bible, it' wonderful news from an apologetics stand point. Open your eyes! no offense.
I don't see that we can get a lot from it without speculating wildly.
* GThomas contains quotes from John's gospel which have undergone obvious conflation and expansion, a typical indication of a text which is adapting an earlier text (early, original texts do not show these signs, so this indicates that GThomas was adapting the earlier gospel of John)
most texual critics see an easlier stage of devleopment. See Helmutt Koster.
Ancient Christian Gosples (1992).
* GThomas occasionally quotes phrases from the letters of Paul, and attributes them to Jesus - not only does this prove that GThomas must have been written after these letters of Paul (which are dated late, not early), but it shows that the author of GThomas cannot be relied on to quote accurately the other New Testament texts
show me a prhase from Paul in Thomas? I've never seen any.
The comments on 'circumcision of the spirit [heart]' are a case in point.
how do you know this doesn't indiate that Paul used the oroignal GT saying source?
Firstly because there's no evidence that such a source existed, and secondly because there is no evidence that Christ said these words and that Paul later quoted them.
These are also very good reasons to reject the canonicity of GThomas.
No one wants to canonize it.
Some do.
It's an invaluable historical artifat that proves the validity of the NT. How? Because it proves that the sources of a Pre Markan redaction were circulating much earlier than AD70 and that they basically agree in substance with canonical sources.
It would be lovely if there was any textual evidence to support this. As it is, this is mere speculation which we are best to avoid.[/code]
