According to Robinson (Nag Hammidi Library text) one of the Greek copies of
Thomas is dated older than 200 ce.  However, he does not say where and I cannot
find the location where this Thomas was found.  Can anyone tell me?

Irenaeus identifies around sixteen Gnostic sects in the 'Against Heresies' text.
Perhaps the location of the find might pin down who had it.

Robinson also claims Irenaeus in his books 'Against Hereseys' identifies the
'Apochrophon of John' in conjuction with Gospels of Mark, Luke, Matt. and John. 
I found that this is not the case in that it is the Apocalypse of John, which
Irenaeus identifies.  The Apocalypse text is much more like that of Clememt,
Polycarp, Ignacius, and even more like Barnabas than the Apocraphon in the Nag
Hammadi.  The contrast in styles of the texts seems very plain to me after
reading both.  From this experience I think most of the Nag Hammadi is
Valentinian and can be seen as such just from writings styles.

Thoughts?

Tom Saunders
Platter Flats, OK




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Tom Wrote:]

According to Robinson (Nag Hammidi Library text) one of the Greek copies of
Thomas is dated older than 200 ce.  However, he does not say where and I
cannot find the location where this Thomas was found.  Can anyone tell me?

Just to clarify- There are four extant mss. of Thomas. One is the
(presumably complete) Coptic version found at Nag Hammadi in 1945. There are
3 additional Greek mss. that are only fragmentary. The latter were recovered
from the trash dump at Oxyrynchus, Egypt at the end of the 19th century.
They are cited as P. Oxy. 1 (sayings 26-33; 77a); P. Oxy. 654 (Incipit,
sayings 1-7), and P. Oxy. 655 (sayings 24; 36-39). Paleographic evidence
originally placed P. Oxy. 1 ca. 200, P. Oxy. 654 ca. 250, P. Oxy. 654 ca.
250-300. Earlier dates for the mss. have been proposed, however.

[snip]
Robinson also claims Irenaeus in his books 'Against Hereseys' identifies the
'Apochrophon of John' in conjuction with Gospels of Mark, Luke, Matt. and
John.  I found that this is not the case in that it is the Apocalypse of
John, which Irenaeus identifies.

Citation, please.

Rick

Thank you Rick..

The reference to Robinson is page 124 of his "Nag Hammadi Library."  This is the
introduction to Thomas by Helmut Koester.  It states: "At least one of these
Greek fragments comes from a manuscript that was written before 200 C.E. : thus
the Greek version of this gospel was used in Egypt as early as the second
century."

Below is a web address for the Gospel of Marcion.  This site also contains a
portion of Charles B. Waite's "History of Christian Religion to the Year 200." 
Waite compares Marcion to Luke comparing and speculating the Marcion document to
the age of Luke.  What Waite has missed is the fact that Marcion contains
numerous 'direct hits' to Thomas, especially saying number 3.  So many in fact
that I must speculate that Marcion had Thomas.  This puts Thomas before Marcion,
hence probably before 144 and even older.  Nowhere in any of the other Gospels
or NT writings does saying 3 exist that I know of.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/Library.html

   [snip]
   Robinson also claims Irenaeus in his books 'Against Hereseys' identifies the
   'Apochrophon of John' in conjuction with Gospels of Mark, Luke, Matt. and
   John.  I found that this is not the case in that it is the Apocalypse of
   John, which Irenaeus identifies.

   Citation, please.
   Rick

   This is from Book 4, "Against Hereseys"

   <!--StartFragment-->John says in the Apocalypse, "And the temple of God was
   opened:"(11) the tabernacle also: "For, behold," He says, "the
   tabernacle of God, in which He will dwell with men."

   Tom Saunders
   Platter Flats, OK

Luke 17:20: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of
God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not
with observation:
21: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom
of God is within you.

Why is it always assumed that this notion of the Kingdom being found within
is a purely Gnostic idea when Luke also records this same concept?  Was
Jesus gnostic in that way?  How are we defining gnostic concepts?

[Tom wrote:]
Below is a web address for the Gospel of Marcion.  This site also contains a
portion of Charles B. Waite's "History of Christian Religion to the Year
200."  Waite compares Marcion to Luke comparing and speculating the Marcion
document to the age of Luke.  What Waite has missed is the fact that Marcion
contains numerous 'direct hits' to Thomas, especially saying number 3.  So
many in fact that I must speculate that Marcion had Thomas.  This puts
Thomas before Marcion, hence probably before 144 and even older.  Nowhere in
any of the other Gospels or NT writings does saying 3 exist that I know of.

Presumably you are aware (but then again, maybe not) that the Gospel of
Marcion is nothing other than an edited version of the Gospel of Luke. It is
therefore not too remarkable that there are some apparent isomorphs between
this "gospel" and GTh. In fact, in the Brill critical edition of CGII, 2-7,
Koester identifies about 80 instances where Lk and GTh appear to touch
points.

Any conclusion, however, about the direction of literary dependence between
GTh and the intra-canonical gospels should be stated carefully, in my mind.
There are (what I regard as persuasive) arguments that if there are direct
literary relationships between Thomas and the Synopticists they are NOT
NECESSARILY indicative that one used the other. There remains the
possibility that each was drawing from some kind of "common source." For a
concise and easy to read discussion of this issue, I recommend QTR 85ff. If
you don't own this book, buy it. It relatively cheap and frankly,
indispensable, for anyone who wishes to engage in serious dialogue about
Thomas.

Rick Hubbard
Humble Maine Woodsman

Jesus gnostic in that way?  How are we defining gnostic concepts?

Indeed! How ARE "we" defining gnostic concepts?

Responses are encouraged.

RH

In a message dated 06/04/2002 9:21:57AM, rhubbard@... writes:

<< Any conclusion, however, about the direction of literary dependence between
GTh and the intra-canonical gospels should be stated carefully, in my mind.
There are (what I regard as persuasive) arguments that if there are direct
literary relationships between Thomas and the Synopticists they are NOT
NECESSARILY indicative that one used the other. There remains the
possibility that each was drawing from some kind of "common source." For a
concise and easy to read discussion of this issue, I recommend QTR 85ff. If
you don't own this book, buy it. It relatively cheap and frankly,
indispensable, for anyone who wishes to engage in serious dialogue about
Thomas. >>

John asks for a clarification>

   Are you suggesting that Thomas is the middle source between the Q source and
The Synoptics, or that Thomas and the Q source are the double source to the
synoptics or other (As oral tradition)?

    IF Thomas predeceases the Synoptics. (AS might be indicated by the
primitive style and the fact that it is a sayings list.) Whereas dependence
might be the wrong word it may be argued that the Synoptic writers had
knowledge of the sayings list.

     However I would request your position based on the aforementioned (Book)
be elaborated on or summarized.

      Many Thanks.

                              Regards,
                                            John Moon
                                            2401 Crescent DR
                                            Springfield, TN
                                              johnmoon3717@...

Tom,

Could you give us the location of Thomas saying three where it occurs in
Marcion's Gospel. Or quote Marcion's version for us?

Since this saying has no parallels in any of the Synoptic Gospels (although
something like it occurs in two different places in the Old Testament), I
would be inclined to accept it as possible evidence that Marcion had seen
Thomas, depending on how alike the parallel saying is to logion 3.

The Thomas-Lukan parallels are a different matter entirely, and in my view
came about when Mark, Thomas and Q accessed a still earlier common source
document, Luke subsequently borrowing his versions from Mark and/or Q. Since
Marcion used Luke, that Marcion has some of these Thomas-Lukan parallels
should come as no surprise then, and these alone cannot be used to show a
direct Marcion-Thomas connection.

Saying 3 on the other hand, could.

Have you spotted any other Thomas-Marcion parallel sayings which do NOT have
a Synoptic parallel saying?  That is, a Thomas saying not found in Matthew,
Mark or Luke? These would strengthen your argument.

On the dating of Thomas issue, I once presented an argument to this list,
based on some fragments found in early writings, that Valentinus (100-160 CE
?) was aware of logion 4 (Questioning Newborns)- another Thomas logion with
no Synoptic counterpart- and thus perhaps the Gospel of Thomas, itself.

Ron McCann
Saskatoon, Canada

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Hubbard" <rhubbard@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:14 AM
Subject: RE: [GTh] Dating evidence.


> [Tom wrote:]
> Below is a web address for the Gospel of Marcion.  This site also contains
a
> portion of Charles B. Waite's "History of Christian Religion to the Year
> 200."  Waite compares Marcion to Luke comparing and speculating the
Marcion
> document to the age of Luke.  What Waite has missed is the fact that
Marcion
> contains numerous 'direct hits' to Thomas, especially saying number 3.  So
> many in fact that I must speculate that Marcion had Thomas.  This puts
> Thomas before Marcion, hence probably before 144 and even older.  Nowhere
in
> any of the other Gospels or NT writings does saying 3 exist that I know
of.
>
> Presumably you are aware (but then again, maybe not) that the Gospel of
> Marcion is nothing other than an edited version of the Gospel of Luke. It
is
> therefore not too remarkable that there are some apparent isomorphs
between
> this "gospel" and GTh. In fact, in the Brill critical edition of CGII,
2-7,
> Koester identifies about 80 instances where Lk and GTh appear to touch
> points.
>
> Any conclusion, however, about the direction of literary dependence
between
> GTh and the intra-canonical gospels should be stated carefully, in my
mind.
> There are (what I regard as persuasive) arguments that if there are direct
> literary relationships between Thomas and the Synopticists they are NOT
> NECESSARILY indicative that one used the other. There remains the
> possibility that each was drawing from some kind of "common source." For a
> concise and easy to read discussion of this issue, I recommend QTR 85ff.
If
> you don't own this book, buy it. It relatively cheap and frankly,
> indispensable, for anyone who wishes to engage in serious dialogue about
> Thomas.
>
> Rick Hubbard
> Humble Maine Woodsman
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
> To unsubscribe from this group,
> send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

--- In gthomas@y..., "Rick Hubbard" <rhubbard@m...>
wrote:.........................
  For a
> concise and easy to read discussion of this issue, I recommend QTR
85ff. If
> you don't own this book, buy it. It relatively cheap and frankly,
> indispensable, for anyone who wishes to engage in serious dialogue about
> Thomas.
>
> Rick Hubbard
> Humble Maine Woodsman

--- In gthomas@y..., "swallison" <dermarc@c...> wrote:
> --- In gthomas@y..., "Rick Hubbard" <rhubbard@m...>
> wrote:.........................
>  For a
> > concise and easy to read discussion of this issue, I recommend QTR
> 85ff. If
> > you don't own this book, buy it. It relatively cheap and frankly,
> > indispensable, for anyone who wishes to engage in serious dialogue
about
> > Thomas.
> >
> > Rick Hubbard
> > Humble Maine Woodsman

What does QTR 85ff mean?

Sorry that I accidentally hit the send button the previous post before
asking the question.

Steve Allison

Steve Allison asks:

>>What does QTR 85ff mean?<<

_Q-Thomas Reader_, pages 85 through end of section. Includes
Coptic text and English translation of the Gospel of Thomas
and an English translation of the Q passages in the Gospels
of Matthew and Luke, as presented in: Q parallels / John S.
Kloppenborg. 1988.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Hubbard" <rhubbard@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:21 AM
Subject: RE: RE: [GTh] Dating evidence


> Jesus gnostic in that way?  How are we defining gnostic concepts?
>
> Indeed! How ARE "we" defining gnostic concepts?
>
> Responses are encouraged.

I like to define Gnostic as 1) the God beyond God (which is actually one of
Jewish theologian Martin Buber's terms), 2) the Made Maker and 3) the
Redeemed Redeemer.

Jim Bauer

Ron asks,

   Could you give us the location of Thomas saying three where it occurs in
   Marcion's Gospel. Or quote Marcion's version for us?

   I think Rick and Michael Mozina have shot down my number 3 saying, and I was
wrong about it.  I have shot at the side of the barn and missed.  I will stand
closer and take more careful aim.   The wonderful thing about being an 'Oakie'
is I can be worng.  I will go through the Marcion text and compare them with
Throckmorton's "Gospel Parallels" who has a list of noncanonical parallels
(Thomas) in an index.  In the meantime Marcion can be found at 
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/Library.html

   Where can I get QTR 85ff?

   Normally I have to drive to Oklahoma City or Dallas to find a decent outlet
for texts.  I did find Throckmorton and "The Gospel of Thomas" by Richard
Valantasis.  His section on dating of Thomas explains a great deal and reflects
the sentiment that Thomas is indeed very old, at least in part.

   Tom Saunders
   Platter Flats, OK



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tom Saunders asks:

>>  Normally I have to drive to Oklahoma City or Dallas to
find a decent outlet for texts.  I did find Throckmorton and
"The Gospel of Thomas" by Richard Valantasis.  His section
on dating of Thomas explains a great deal and reflects the
sentiment that Thomas is indeed very old, at least in
part.<<

Try finding a university library near you, pay a deposit
(usually $75-$150 or a valid credit card), and you can check
out books. If they don't have *good* books, like Q-Thomas
Reader, you can order them through some sort of interlibrary
loan arrangement.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Bauer" <jbauer@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: RE: [GTh] Dating evidence


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rick Hubbard" <rhubbard@...>
> To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:21 AM
> Subject: RE: RE: [GTh] Dating evidence
>
>
> > Jesus gnostic in that way?  How are we defining gnostic concepts?
> >
> > Indeed! How ARE "we" defining gnostic concepts?
> >
> > Responses are encouraged.
>
> I like to define Gnostic as 1) the God beyond God (which is actually one
of
> Jewish theologian Martin Buber's terms), 2) the Made Maker and 3) the
> Redeemed Redeemer.

In the embryonic stages of gnosticism. it would be unthinkable to suggest
that the Old Testament was less than historical.  Everything from the
talking snake and jackass and the little man bobbing about with the entire
earthy land fauna.  The books depict a sulking, petty, vindictive creator
demanding praise and worship and being pissed off if he doesn't get it.  His
favorite people in the books get to break every one of the 10 rules he is
supposed to have written in stone.  They commit incest, murder, genocide and
child sacrifice.  How then could this disparity of behavior be explained?
The Gnostic decided that the Bible depicted a lesser god of less than good
character who created everything material and the "Big Guy" was of the
spirit and was the "good guy."  Since the bad guy made us, we could only
join the "good guy" in the spirit world if we had the secret recipe.

Hey, sounds reasonable to me. <g>

Jack

[John Moon Wrote:]
   Are you suggesting that Thomas is the middle source between the Q source
and
The Synoptics, or that Thomas and the Q source are the double source to the
synoptics or other (As oral tradition)?

I don't think I could marshal the evidence to say that "Thomas is the middle
source between the Q source and the Synoptics." I'm not even sure I'm
completely persuaded by arguments that the Synopticists used Thomas. I'm
inclined to think that there were many more "sources" from which the
literary artifacts we have at hand drew their "inspiration." Only a few have
been preserved and I'm am getting less and less comfortable with the notion
that we can piece together the "whole story" from what are figuratively
"fragments."

As long as I am the "doubt mode" I may as well add that I am beginning to
wonder *why* we exhibit such fascination with the question of literary
relationships. If it could be established beyond any doubt that, for
example, Thomas copied words directly from some mss. collection that
contained Matthew, Mark, and Luke, what would that contribute to our
understanding of the origins of Christianity? Would it more carefully define
what Burton Mack repeatedly calls that "remarkable moment"?

I just don't know. Anyone with ideas? Speak Up!

Rick Hubbard
Humble Maine Woodsman

I look at it this way:  The implications of when Thomas was written has the
potential here to be quite important theologically.  There are for instance
at least 4 separate implications of "preexistence" found in Thomas.  In
533AD the church deemed this concept heresy, yet in Thomas, you see clear
evidence that Jesus subscribed to the idea of preexistence, and taught it to
his students.  If Thomas turns out to be an authentic list of Jesus'
teachings, then this utterly lays waste to the notions of hell, and opens up
a whole debate about the notion of reincarnation as it relates to
"Christianity".

I'm personally of the opinion that the GOT could in fact be a list of Jesus'
sayings compiled *DURING* his lifetime.  I've yet to see a cohesive set of
really good arguements to prove that it could not be exectly what it claims
to be, a list from one of his disciples.

How will the church justify itself theologically as it relates to
reincarnation, and preexistence considering these ideas that Jesus lays out?

(19) Jesus said: Blessed is he who was before he came into being. If you
become my disciples and hear my words, these stones shall minister unto you.
For you have five trees in Paradise which do not move in summer or in
winter, and their leaves do not fall. He who knows them shall not taste of
death.

(49) Jesus said: Blessed are the solitary and the elect, for you shall find
the kingdom; for you came forth thence, and shall go there again.

(50) Jesus said: If they say to you: Whence have you come?, tell them: We
have come from the light, the place where the light came into being through
itself alone. It [stood], and it re- vealed itself in their image. If they
say to you: Who are you?, say: We are his sons, and we are the elect of the
living Father. If they ask you: What is the sign of your Father in you?,
tell them: It is a movement and a rest.

(84) Jesus said: When you see your likeness, you rejoice; but when you see
your images which came into being before you -- they neither die nor are
made manifest -- how much will you bear?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Hubbard" <rhubbard@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 10:39 AM
Subject: RE: [GTh] Dating evidence.


>
> [John Moon Wrote:]
>   Are you suggesting that Thomas is the middle source between the Q source
> and
> The Synoptics, or that Thomas and the Q source are the double source to
the
> synoptics or other (As oral tradition)?
>
> I don't think I could marshal the evidence to say that "Thomas is the
middle
> source between the Q source and the Synoptics." I'm not even sure I'm
> completely persuaded by arguments that the Synopticists used Thomas. I'm
> inclined to think that there were many more "sources" from which the
> literary artifacts we have at hand drew their "inspiration." Only a few
have
> been preserved and I'm am getting less and less comfortable with the
notion
> that we can piece together the "whole story" from what are figuratively
> "fragments."
>
> As long as I am the "doubt mode" I may as well add that I am beginning to
> wonder *why* we exhibit such fascination with the question of literary
> relationships. If it could be established beyond any doubt that, for
> example, Thomas copied words directly from some mss. collection that
> contained Matthew, Mark, and Luke, what would that contribute to our
> understanding of the origins of Christianity? Would it more carefully
define
> what Burton Mack repeatedly calls that "remarkable moment"?
>
> I just don't know. Anyone with ideas? Speak Up!
>
> Rick Hubbard
> Humble Maine Woodsman
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
> To unsubscribe from this group,
> send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Michael Mozina wrote:
> How will the church justify itself theologically as it relates to
> reincarnation, and preexistence considering these ideas that Jesus lays
out?

Pre-existence and re-incarnation are not the same thing. The sayings you
quoted suggest the former, but there's no suggestion that I can see of more
than one incarnation of the individual soul or spirit (or both?). Since it's
reincarnation, not pre-existence, that gets everybody excited, we need to be
clear about this. As to pre-existence, I wouldn't mind seeing a good
description of it, and an explanation of why it was considered heretical,
since as you say it does figure prominentlly in GThom.

Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI

Rick wrote:-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Hubbard" <rhubbard@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 11:39 AM
Subject: RE: [GTh] Dating evidence.


(material edited).
>
> As long as I am the "doubt mode" I may as well add that I am beginning to
> wonder *why* we exhibit such fascination with the question of literary
> relationships. If it could be established beyond any doubt that, for
> example, Thomas copied words directly from some mss. collection that
> contained Matthew, Mark, and Luke, what would that contribute to our
> understanding of the origins of Christianity? Would it more carefully
define
> what Burton Mack repeatedly calls that "remarkable moment"?
>
> I just don't know. Anyone with ideas? Speak Up!
>
> Rick Hubbard
> Humble Maine Woodsman

Rick,

I can't speak for others here. Only myself.

For me it is a matter of authenticating that any given saying is, in fact
the vox Jesus. This with the broader goal of determining who/what the
Historical Jesus was and said.

For that, I think we have to get to the earliest form of the sayings. Who
got what from whom and where, becomes important.

I am well aware of the Jesus seminar's conclusions in this regard, and don't
mind saying they have likely thrown the baby out with the dirty bathwater.
My own view is that maybe as much as 80% of the "preserved" sayings of Jesus
should have been designated pink or red.

For me, whether you use the Two-Source theory or the Four-Source Theory, the
result is the same. Evidence and good arguments exist that Mark, Q AND
Thomas each accessed and borrowed from a still earlier written sayings
collection in creating their "Gospels", which can be reconstructed by a
double or triple attestation in those Gospels. It is even possible in some
cases to determine what the actual original form of the saying was, in it.

If such a collection was circulating when these "Gospels" were created, we
may be pushing the envelope back into the 30-50 CE period as the time in
which this earliest of sayings collections was collected and put in writing.
That said, we can recover a significant corpus of sayings which may reflect
the true vox Jesus and the teachings of the Historical Jesus.

As for Thomas, whenever a "synoptic" parallel occurs, we are likely looking
at a saying taken from this earliest of collections. I deem these authentic
(although, clearly, some of them have been "dicked with" by later editors
and scribes). What is more perplexing is the Thomas sayings with NO
"synoptic" counterpart. Do any of these sayings represent the vox Jesus? If
so then he seems to have actually given a "secret" gnostic-like teaching,
and earliest Christianity may, in fact, have been a two-tier system, one
tier for the "many" and one for the "few". If that in turn is so, then quite
clearly, Christianity lost the second tier and it wasn't transmitted. Is it
"recoverable"? A significant question for any professing Christian.

My current focus is to see whether these new, unique and "off the wall"
sayings can somehow be authenticated as genuine Jesus sayings, because if
so, our current picture of the Historical Jesus needs a radical overhaul. At
least a dozen of these are likely products of a late circa 90"s CE
redaction, but as for the remainder- it's still an open question. Original
to Jesus, or not?

So I think who got what from whom is still a valid enquiry.

Best,

Ron McCann
Saskatoon

Michael,

Well said.
You might, however, reconsider the reincarnational aspect. I don't see this
as at all supported by Thomas.
The "pre-existence"- certainly- but that is an "incarnational" rather than
"reincarnational" hypothesis.
The Hymn of the Soul (Pearl) likely reflects the view set forth in Thomas.
Souls from the pre-existence, leaving some part of themselves behind,
incarnate; and may or may not reunite with the "rest" of themselves and get
back "home".
Where do you see "reincarnational" material?

Best,

Ron McCann
Saskatoon, Canada

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Mozina" <michael@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [GTh] Dating evidence.


> I look at it this way:  The implications of when Thomas was written has
the
> potential here to be quite important theologically.  There are for
instance
> at least 4 separate implications of "preexistence" found in Thomas.  In
> 533AD the church deemed this concept heresy, yet in Thomas, you see clear
> evidence that Jesus subscribed to the idea of preexistence, and taught it
to
> his students.  If Thomas turns out to be an authentic list of Jesus'
> teachings, then this utterly lays waste to the notions of hell, and opens
up
> a whole debate about the notion of reincarnation as it relates to
> "Christianity".
>
> I'm personally of the opinion that the GOT could in fact be a list of
Jesus'
> sayings compiled *DURING* his lifetime.  I've yet to see a cohesive set of
> really good arguements to prove that it could not be exectly what it
claims
> to be, a list from one of his disciples.
>
> How will the church justify itself theologically as it relates to
> reincarnation, and preexistence considering these ideas that Jesus lays
out?

I recognize that the concepts of reincarnation and preexistence are
different issues ultimately.  Where I specifically get the notion of
reincarnation is in saying 84.  Perhaps you could explain what Jesus meant
by "your images which came into being before you", if he's not talking about
a previous physical incarnation.

(84) Jesus said: When you see your likeness, you rejoice; but when you see
your images which came into being before you -- they neither die nor are
made manifest -- how much will you bear?

# 19 is also noteworthy in this discussion since one could interpret "leaves
(that) do not fall" as memories of previous lifetimes which the soul retains
when "reunited" with it's collected memories after death.

(19) Jesus said: Blessed is he who was before he came into being. If you
become my disciples and hear my words, these stones shall minister unto you.
For you have five trees in Paradise which do not move in summer or in
winter, and their leaves do not fall. He who knows them shall not taste of
death.

I think what this all suggests however is how important the GOT really is to
"Christianity". There were notions of reincarnation among some sects of
Judaism during the lifetime of Jesus.  Assuming these saying are authentic,
it suggest that a complete rethink of the notion of preexistence, of hell
and reincarnation are in order.  These issues are all influenced by which
documents came first and whether or not these are "authentic" sayings of
Jesus.  It's also worth pointing out that the notions of gehenna in Judaism
were more along the lines of "soul cleansing" that Origen describes to early
Christians than to the notions of perpetual torment that the church peddles
today.  In short, it's my opinion that the GOT turns Christian theology on
it head on some core and important issues.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron McCann [mailto:ronmccann1@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 12:08 PM
To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [GTh] Dating evidence.


Michael,

Well said.
You might, however, reconsider the reincarnational aspect. I don't see this
as at all supported by Thomas.
The "pre-existence"- certainly- but that is an "incarnational" rather than
"reincarnational" hypothesis.
The Hymn of the Soul (Pearl) likely reflects the view set forth in Thomas.
Souls from the pre-existence, leaving some part of themselves behind,
incarnate; and may or may not reunite with the "rest" of themselves and get
back "home".
Where do you see "reincarnational" material?

Best,

Ron McCann
Saskatoon, Canada

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Mozina" <michael@...>
To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [GTh] Dating evidence.


> I look at it this way:  The implications of when Thomas was written has
the
> potential here to be quite important theologically.  There are for
instance
> at least 4 separate implications of "preexistence" found in Thomas.  In
> 533AD the church deemed this concept heresy, yet in Thomas, you see clear
> evidence that Jesus subscribed to the idea of preexistence, and taught it
to
> his students.  If Thomas turns out to be an authentic list of Jesus'
> teachings, then this utterly lays waste to the notions of hell, and opens
up
> a whole debate about the notion of reincarnation as it relates to
> "Christianity".
>
> I'm personally of the opinion that the GOT could in fact be a list of
Jesus'
> sayings compiled *DURING* his lifetime.  I've yet to see a cohesive set of
> really good arguements to prove that it could not be exectly what it
claims
> to be, a list from one of his disciples.
>
> How will the church justify itself theologically as it relates to
> reincarnation, and preexistence considering these ideas that Jesus lays
out?


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
To unsubscribe from this group,
send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Using Throckmorton, I have compared the parallels of Thomas to Luke, Matthew,
Mark, and Marcion.  I find no matches from NT works to Marcion and Thomas in
sayings 24, 26, 33, 34, 35, 45, 61, 64, 66, 73, 89, 94, and 97.   Please feel
free to correct of supplement the list below.

Thomas Logion no. 1

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other See Thomas 18 and 19

Thomas Logion no. 2

Matt: 7-7, 11-29

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 3

Matt:

Luke: 17-21

Marcion: The Kingdom of God is Within You 20,21

Other

Note: see also 113 of Thomas to compare with Marcion

Thomas Logion no. 4

Matt: 11-25

Luke: 10-21

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 5

Matt:

Luke: 12-2

Marcion: Parable of the Lamp 17, Leaven of the Pharisees 2

Other

Thomas Logion no. 6

Matt: 10-26

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 7

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 8

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 9

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 10

Matt:

Luke: 12-49

Marcion: Fire On Earth 49 to 51

Other

Thomas Logion no. 11

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion: Beware of Scribes 32, 33

Other

Note: Marcion and Thomas differ as to make these sayings only similar

Thomas Logion no. 12

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 13

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 14

Matt: 15-11

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 15

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 16

Matt:

Luke: 12-51,52

Marcion: Fire On Earth 50 to 53

Other

Thomas Logion no. 17

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 18

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 19

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 20

Matt: 13-31,32

Luke:

Marcion: Mustard Seed

Other

Thomas Logion no. 21

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 22

Matt: 19-12

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 23

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 24

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion: Leaven of the Pharisees 3

Other

Note: This Marcion reference appears to be a cross between sayings 24 and 33.

Thomas Logion no. 25

Matt: 22-39

Luke: 10-27

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 26

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion: New Edicts for a New God 42

Other

Thomas Logion no. 27

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other: Mark 2-19,20 2-27,28

Thomas Logion no. 28

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 29

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 30

Matt: 18-20

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 31

Matt: 13-57

Luke: 4-24

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 32

Matt: 5-14

Luke:

Marcion: Good Fruit, Evil Fruit 48

Other

Thomas Logion no. 33

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion: Parable of the Lamp 17, also Lamp of the body 33

Other

Note Marcion 17 only similar to Thomas

Thomas Logion no. 34

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion: New Edicts for a New God 39

Other

Note: Similar sayings exist concerning the blind, Throckmorton has not listed.

Thomas Logion no. 35

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion: A House Divided 21

Other

Thomas Logion no. 36

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 37

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 38

Matt:

Luke: 10-24

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 39

Matt: 10-16, 23-13

Luke: 11-52

Marcion: Woe 52

Other

Note Marcion uses lawyers in place of scribes.

Thomas Logion no. 40

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 41

Matt: 13-12, 25-29

Luke: 19-26

Marcion: Parable of the Lamp 18,19. A Certain Nobleman 26

Other

Thomas Logion no. 42

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 43

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 44

Matt:

Luke: 12-10

Marcion: Leaven of the Pharisees 10

Other

Thomas Logion no. 45

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion: Good Fruit, Evil Fruit 43,44,45

Other

Thomas Logion no. 46

Matt: 11-11

Luke: 7-28

Marcion: John the Baptist 48

Other

Thomas Logion no. 47

Matt:

Luke: 5-39

Marcion: Old aand New 36,37,38

Other

Thomas Logion no. 48

Matt: 12-21

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 49

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 50

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 51

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 52

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no.53

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 54

Matt: 5-3

Luke: 6-20

Marcion: New Edicts of the New God 20

Other

Thomas Logion no. 55

Matt: 10-37,38

Luke: 15-26,27

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 56

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 57

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 58

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 59

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 60

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 61

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion: Two will rest in Bed....

Other

Note: Marcion only has similarity to Thomas.

Thomas Logion no. 62

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 63

Matt:

Luke: 12-16,21

Marcion: Who Appointed Me Judge 16 to 21

Other

Thomas Logion no.64

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion: Guest Parable 16 to 24

Other

Thomas Logion no. 65

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 66

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion: Good Fruit, Evil Fruit 48,49

Other

Note: There is only a similarity to Marcion here

Thomas Logion no. 67

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 68

Matt: 5-11

Luke: 6-22

Marcion: New Edicts of a New God 22

Other

Thomas Logion no. 69

Matt: 5-10, 5-6

Luke: 6-21

Marcion: New Edicts for a New God 21

Other

Thomas Logion no. 70

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 71

Matt: 26-61

Luke:

Marcion:

Other: Mark 14-58

Thomas Logion no. 72

Matt:

Luke: 12-13,14

Marcion: Who Apointed me Judge 13,14,15

Other

Thomas Logion no. 73

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion: New Disciples 2

Other

Thomas Logion no. 74

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 75

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 76

Matt: 6-19,21 13-45,46

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 77

Matt: 18-20

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 78

Matt: 11-8

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 79

Matt:

Luke: 11-27,28

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 80

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 81

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 82

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 83

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 84

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 85

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 86

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 87

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 88

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 89

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion: Woe 39-40

Other

Thomas Logion no. 90

Matt: 11-28,30

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 91

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 92

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 93

Matt: 7-6

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 94

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion: Prayer for the Holy Spirit 10

Other

Thomas Logion no. 95

Matt: 5-42

Luke: 6-30

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 96

Matt:

Luke: 13-20

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 97

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion: Leaven bread

Other

Note: Only a similarity exits here between Thomas and Marcion, see 96 also

Thomas Logion no. 98

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 99

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 100

Matt: 22-17ff

Luke:

Marcion: Tribute to Caesar 22 to 26

Other

Thomas Logion no. 101

Matt: 10-37, 38

Luke: 14-26,27

Marcion: Discipleship 26,27

Other

Thomas Logion no. 102

Matt: 23-13

Luke: 11-52

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 103

Matt:

Luke: 12-39

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 104

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other: Mark 11-20

Thomas Logion no. 105

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 106

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 107

Matt: 18-12,13

Luke: 15-37

Marcion: Joy in the Presence of God 3 to 7

Other

Thomas Logion no. 108

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 109

Matt: 13-14

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 110

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 111

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 112

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other

Thomas Logion no. 113

Matt: 24-23

Luke: 17-21

Marcion: The Kingdom of God is Within You 20, 21

Other

Note: See also No. 3

Thomas Logion no. 114

Matt:

Luke:

Marcion:

Other



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think it's important to keep in mind that just because a synoptic parallel
does not exist with a saying found in Thomas does not undetermine the
authenticity of the saying.  It's likely that a lot of material circulating
about Jesus was not used in the Gospels, in many cases because the
"interpretation" of these sayings weren't always geared toward a "simple"
audience, and putting some of them into a story context was difficult in
some instances.  I therefore think the evangelists picked the sayings that
were easiest to work with and explain, and set into the context of a gospel
narrative.  I believe a lot of the material linked to Jesus was simply left
out due to it's content, topic and motives of the evangelists themselves.

I personally find Steven Davies arguements about the parallels between Mark
and Thomas quite convincing, particularly the weaving together of sayings
65&66 in Mark.  I also share many of Ricks sentiments about the earliest
copies of these sayings being composed from several documents rather than a
single "Q" type source and that most of these sayings lists were lost over
time.  I get the impression that Thomas does explain some of what is
generally thought of as "Q" material, and is in fact *one* of sources that
was used when compiling the gospels themselves.


-----Original Message-----
From: Ron McCann [mailto:ronmccann1@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 11:55 AM
To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [GTh] Dating evidence.


(material edited)

"If such a collection was circulating when these "Gospels" were created, we
may be pushing the envelope back into the 30-50 CE period as the time in
which this earliest of sayings collections was collected and put in writing.
That said, we can recover a significant corpus of sayings which may reflect
the true vox Jesus and the teachings of the Historical Jesus.

As for Thomas, whenever a "synoptic" parallel occurs, we are likely looking
at a saying taken from this earliest of collections. I deem these authentic
(although, clearly, some of them have been "dicked with" by later editors
and scribes). What is more perplexing is the Thomas sayings with NO
"synoptic" counterpart. Do any of these sayings represent the vox Jesus? If
so then he seems to have actually given a "secret" gnostic-like teaching,
and earliest Christianity may, in fact, have been a two-tier system, one
tier for the "many" and one for the "few". If that in turn is so, then quite
clearly, Christianity lost the second tier and it wasn't transmitted. Is it
"recoverable"? A significant question for any professing Christian.

My current focus is to see whether these new, unique and "off the wall"
sayings can somehow be authenticated as genuine Jesus sayings, because if
so, our current picture of the Historical Jesus needs a radical overhaul. At
least a dozen of these are likely products of a late circa 90"s CE
redaction, but as for the remainder- it's still an open question. Original
to Jesus, or not?

So I think who got what from whom is still a valid enquiry.

Best,

Ron McCann
Saskatoon"


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
To unsubscribe from this group,
send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

As a layman, one thing that bothers me about the methods of the Jesus
Seminar is the *ASSUMPTION* that all these sayings existed only in verbal
form for many decades after the death of Jesus.  I find that belief rather
hard to swallow based upon the actions of modern day cults.  Cults tend to
idolize the "Master", and record his sayings long before the leaders death.
It seems highly likely to me that at least a few of Jesus' traveling
companions were literate and would have been interested in writing these
sayings down, expecially if they were being asked to go out and teach
others.  I'm very skeptical of the notion that Jesus' sayings weren't
written down for several decades after his death.  It seems to me there were
enough reasons to write things down while Jesus was quite alive, and
certainly right after his death.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this?

[Michael Wrote:]
...some instances.  I therefore think the evangelists picked the sayings
that
were easiest to work with and explain, and set into the context of a gospel
narrative.  I believe a lot of the material linked to Jesus was simply left
out due to it's content, topic and motives of the evangelists themselves.

And, a LOT of the material INCLUDED in the various gospels (canonical and
non) likewise bear the imprint of the "motives" of the evangelists. When
sayings known to have originated with Jesus were not available to illuminate
a point they saw nothing wrong with borrowing from entirely unrelated
sources or even forging their own rendition and placing it on the lips of
Jesus. Such practices were routinely used during antiquity and the Jesus
folks saw no good reason not to use it themselves (a large pill to ingest
for some folk).

This tendenz, incidentally, calls into sharper question why establishing an
early date vs. a late date (for any literary artifact) should confer upon
the former any greater degree of "authenticity" than the latter.

Rick Hubbard
Humble Maine Woodsman

Attempting to establish literary relationships is important if you wish to :

1. Make redaction critical arguments which most commonly have been seen as a
means to ananlyse early christian communities and their distinctive views.

2. Want propose a relative dating for various documents prior to using them,
for example, in imaginatively reconstructing the 'historical Jesus' (eg
Crossan).

If good arguments can be made that the production of Thomas should best be
placed, say, 40-60 CE that is, at least to me, an interesting result and
says something about the diverse appropriations of the figure of Jesus at
that point. It may or may not also say something interesting about 'the
historical Jesus' but it would mean that, whatever arguments you wanted to
make, Thomas would have to be, so to say, 'factored in'.

Likewise if it can most plausible be placed, say 90-120 CE then that too is
of utility in understanding a little more about the uses that Jesus
traditions were put to and offering a perhaps rather different perspective
on the use of materials that turn up in Thomas in any work on 'the
historical Jesus'.

Best wishes,
Jacob Knee
(Cam, Glos.)


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Hubbard [mailto:rhubbard@...]
Sent: 06 June 2002 18:40
To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [GTh] Dating evidence.

[snip]

As long as I am the "doubt mode" I may as well add that I am beginning to
wonder *why* we exhibit such fascination with the question of literary
relationships. If it could be established beyond any doubt that, for
example, Thomas copied words directly from some mss. collection that
contained Matthew, Mark, and Luke, what would that contribute to our
understanding of the origins of Christianity? Would it more carefully define
what Burton Mack repeatedly calls that "remarkable moment"?

I just don't know. Anyone with ideas? Speak Up!

Rick Hubbard
Humble Maine Woodsman


[snip]

[Michael wrote:]

It seems highly likely to me that at least a few of Jesus' traveling
companions were literate and would have been interested in writing these
sayings down, expecially if they were being asked to go out and teach
others.

First, why would anyone bothered to have written anything down about Jesus?
Rabble rousers, sages, and "miracle workers" (in general) were about a dime
a dozen in 1 CE Palestine. Second, what credible evidence is there that
Jesus associated with "literati"?


Second, the whole business of "going out and teaching others" seems to
reflect the concerns of an emerging church, not NECESSARILY the interests of
a pack of Jesus groupies.

I'm very skeptical of the notion that Jesus' sayings weren't
written down for several decades after his death.  It seems to me there were
enough reasons to write things down while Jesus was quite alive, and
certainly right after his death.

Really? Name a few.

Rick Hubbard
Humble Maine Woodsman

I can't really disagree with your assesment about the evangelists "forging
their own rendition" of sayings, but.....

It seems to me that prior to the creation of the Gospels themselves, there
must have been a number of sayings lists that were "accepted" by or at least
circulating within the various "Christian" communities.  It seems like there
was a lot of credibility that could be gained by sticking with sayings that
were already "proven" and circulating rather than just making stuff up.
"Twisting" the meaning of a saying was a lot less risky than just blatently
forging something nobody had ever seen before, and I do see evidence of that
behavior.  I'm less certain about the notion of pure fabrication however.

I guess that's why I'm not nearly as pessimistic about the sayings
attributed to Jesus as is the Jesus Seminar.  I really think that the
evangelists had a lot to gain by not going too far out on a limb, and by
using material that had already been accepted by the various communites of
that time.

Comments?

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Hubbard [mailto:rhubbard@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:19 PM
To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [GTh] Dating evidence.



[Michael Wrote:]
...some instances.  I therefore think the evangelists picked the sayings
that
were easiest to work with and explain, and set into the context of a gospel
narrative.  I believe a lot of the material linked to Jesus was simply left
out due to it's content, topic and motives of the evangelists themselves.

And, a LOT of the material INCLUDED in the various gospels (canonical and
non) likewise bear the imprint of the "motives" of the evangelists. When
sayings known to have originated with Jesus were not available to illuminate
a point they saw nothing wrong with borrowing from entirely unrelated
sources or even forging their own rendition and placing it on the lips of
Jesus. Such practices were routinely used during antiquity and the Jesus
folks saw no good reason not to use it themselves (a large pill to ingest
for some folk).

This tendenz, incidentally, calls into sharper question why establishing an
early date vs. a late date (for any literary artifact) should confer upon
the former any greater degree of "authenticity" than the latter.

Rick Hubbard
Humble Maine Woodsman


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
To unsubscribe from this group,
send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Just to say that if Thomas is dated late, say, 150-180 CE then it is very
hard to say that this would make no difference to its 'authenticity' (by
which I take you to mean, its use in making arguments about events that
occured in the life of Jesus).

Or at least you would have to make the argument that it is unlike all other
texts of the early patristic era - which are most commonly count for little
or nothing in weighing evidence about events in the life of Jesus.

In addition the wider context of the appropriations of Jesus (or, for
example, the political context) may look significantly different at, say, 50
CE than it does at 150 CE. So if a wider context is at all useful in
understanding Thomas, or if Thomas is to be used to cast light on a broader
context, then some broad sense of its date range might be helpful.

Best wishes,
Jacob Knee
(Cam, Glos.)


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Hubbard [mailto:rhubbard@...]
Sent: 06 June 2002 23:19
To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [GTh] Dating evidence.


[snip]

And, a LOT of the material INCLUDED in the various gospels (canonical and
non) likewise bear the imprint of the "motives" of the evangelists. When
sayings known to have originated with Jesus were not available to illuminate
a point they saw nothing wrong with borrowing from entirely unrelated
sources or even forging their own rendition and placing it on the lips of
Jesus. Such practices were routinely used during antiquity and the Jesus
folks saw no good reason not to use it themselves (a large pill to ingest
for some folk).

This tendenz, incidentally, calls into sharper question why establishing an
early date vs. a late date (for any literary artifact) should confer upon
the former any greater degree of "authenticity" than the latter.

Rick Hubbard
Humble Maine Woodsman

Virtually every cult I've ever seen puts great emphasis on the teachings of
the "Master".  Heaven's gate members for instance put up their own website
even.  Surely  one of his disciples would have found it useful to write some
of his common sayings into list form so that he could recite these later on
to others, and leave this list with others who didn't hang out with Jesus on
the road, but were interested in studying his work.

According to the scriptures, Jesus did send the disciples out on their own
(in two's) to teach their brand of "spiritualism".  Isn't it reasonable to
asssume they'd want some hand reference material?  I agree that cults then
were a dime a dozen, much like cults now, but to member within the cult
itself, documenting the big cheese is certainly a common practice, and one
of the more "prime directives" when evangelizing his/her message.  To the
outside world, Jesus was likely a pretty unimportant character, but to the
disciples themselves, I think there would have been some attempt to document
his teachings along the way.


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Hubbard [mailto:rhubbard@...]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:32 PM
To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [GTh] Dating Issues.


[Michael wrote:]

It seems highly likely to me that at least a few of Jesus' traveling
companions were literate and would have been interested in writing these
sayings down, expecially if they were being asked to go out and teach
others.

First, why would anyone bothered to have written anything down about Jesus?
Rabble rousers, sages, and "miracle workers" (in general) were about a dime
a dozen in 1 CE Palestine. Second, what credible evidence is there that
Jesus associated with "literati"?


Second, the whole business of "going out and teaching others" seems to
reflect the concerns of an emerging church, not NECESSARILY the interests of
a pack of Jesus groupies.

I'm very skeptical of the notion that Jesus' sayings weren't
written down for several decades after his death.  It seems to me there were
enough reasons to write things down while Jesus was quite alive, and
certainly right after his death.

Really? Name a few.

Rick Hubbard
Humble Maine Woodsman


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
To unsubscribe from this group,
send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/