Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10521Re: [GTh] Authorship and Dating GTh

Expand Messages
  • ronmccann67
    Mar 4, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks, Bruce.
      For what it's worth, some 20 years ago, I did some of what you suggest. I stripped Thomas of all it's sayings with synoptic parallels- to have a look at what was left, and to see if it "made consecutive sense as a text in it's own right".
      It didn't.
      What was left was a dog's breakfast of sayings of different styles, content and ideas, all of them unfamiliar and with little cohesion.
      If anything these seemed like  sayings from a variety of sources that had been added later to the rest of the text by either some later collector or editor or perhaps by slow accretion as Deconick suggested.  Oversimplifying and generalizing, these approaches both hold that the remaining portion of Thomas- pretty much all those sayings in Thomas WITH synoptic parallels (with the exception of a few that might have been lifted from Matthew and Luke later)- was itself the Original Thomas.
      I don't think anyone has suggested that the "dog's breakfast" portion is the original Thomas, although in my own view, at least some of those sayings, more than have been proposed thus far, were probably in the original.
      Ron McCann
      Saskatoon, Canada
    • Show all 29 messages in this topic