Re: Thomas logion 71. Response. Re-submitted
- Thank you both Dr.Bóid and Mike Grondin for your insightful
contributions on my question regarding Thomas 71.
If indeed "The Greek of the New Testament and related texts usually
follows standard Hebrew technical terminology, even to the point of
sounding artificial" and if "the word temple is misleading" (both
quotes Dr Boid), then I will have to find another way of resolving
why the discrepancy still seems so real to me in a dogmatic sense
(body vs "what have you") between John and Thomas. Perhaps others
can make equally insightful contributions.
Had your (Dr Boid)note not arrived when it did, I might have been
tempted to argue on Mike's closing comment (his Post of one day
earlier) about "One possibility is that the Temple was no longer
relevant (because it was no longer in use) when L5 reached the form
in which we find it" ... that if Thomas was written as an integral
manuscript at one specific point in time (this, of course being
contrary to the "manuscript evolutionists'" views about Thomas) that
given Jesus' suggestion to his Disciples in Logion 12 (because James
died c. 62 C.E. and the temple was only destroyed 8 years later in
70 C.E.) that Jesus, in suggesting that the disciples "go to James"
for proper advice, Jesus would have been suggesting a chronological
impossibility ... thus throwing Thomas' reliability into a bit of
Again, thank you both for your valuable insights ...