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

James Brother of Jesus

Expand Messages
  • Tom Saunders
    Thank you Frank, great post. The version we have, if you mean the one like the Coptic, being written between 60, and 95 CE, I think that is reasonable. This
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 11, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you Frank, great post.

      The version we have, if you mean the one like the Coptic, being written between 60, and 95 CE, I think that is reasonable.

      This would put the construction of the GThom in the vain of an early work, as early as any of the other gospels.

      Witherington points out that after James was killed, Symeon was in charge, until the reign of Trajan. Symeon and the Elders fled to Pella sometime between 67-70 CE. I have not heard Pella mentioned as a possible place for the construction of Thomas.

      Frank says...

      In excavations of Nazareth, no first century CE synagogue has been found.
      This raises questions about the historical accuracy of Luke 4:16-20.

      Perhaps, but as Crossan and others point out there does not have to be a building for 'Synagogue,' or churches of the time. As I understand it translations do not always clarify whether or not there is an actual building for a congregation.

      Frank)
      Tom, the apostles were Galileans. They moved to Jerusalem only after the
      crucifixion of Jesus. So, I think, the literacy rate in Galilee is what we
      need to work with rather than the literacy rate in Jerusalem.

      Good point but the field or pool of study is the literacy rate in Jerusalem. The Apostle's Village had to have produced the first written material. It is most likely that talented scribes gave their services to even those Apostles most likely to have been literate. Their would have been a huge motivation to develop material from both oral and any written documents from the Apostles, including anything written in the Galilean times. (parables?)

      The GThom was formulated out of the first material from what Crossan points out are from independent references. If we look at these independent sources as core material (Q?) then in order to show cause that the GThom was not constructed from this material, what do we have to show?

      There is also the possibility that we could show the source and time of Thomas from the different known motivations in early Christian history. The only thing that sticks out are the issues surrounding the Jerusalem Council. This puts the construction of Thomas in terms of motivation within this time period, very early. Possibly before the ideas of perpetual virginity, and non corporeal or other type of resurrection.

      "Doubting Thomas" explains this mysticism perfectly. "You come from the 'light,' and you go back to it." (As a Karate Master I have to explain the concepts of 'Qi,' vital energy, and you cannot do better than the above. As a mystic and a Thomist I have to say the guy who stuck his fingers in J's wounds would have to have explained the mystical events in just this manner. Nothing else works, especially Luke. )

      Just a bit of professional input above, I realized full well that mystics don't always meet the limits of scholarship on this list. But Apostles had to explain 'spirit.' The point is I do not think you can asses the GThom on the basis of what is not in it, especially things that are thought to be as late as in the GJohn, or Gospel of Peter.

      Tom Saunders
      Platter Flats, OK

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.