Scholarly discussion about changes in biblical texts

[RabbiO]

From my reading about this, it looks to me like Funk thought that the voice of liberal Christian scholarship was not being heard, and that it needed to be publicized more. The Jesus Seminar was not a research project, it was not based on any new findings or research. Its purpose was simply for people to be better informed about the liberal side of Christian scholarship.

And you arrived at that assessment how?

 

[Longfellow]

And you arrived at that assessment how?

From reading what Funk and some of the participants said about it.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

If you consider it to be a valid 5th source, then feel free to provide some facts and reasoning for your opinion. I'd be interested in seeing what's new about it.

I've written in my introductory chapter to my gospel edition:

The “Gospel of Thomas”​

All but the four Gospel accounts have been graded “apocryphal”, meaning that their origin is not known. This would correspond to the weak grade. There among are not many scriptures that are considered to possibly contain true relation.

The Gospel of Thomas (also Gospel according to Thomas, short: Th) is a collection of 114 logia (proverbs) and short dialogues. In its form, it is very similar to a small collection of Islamic Hadith. However, it lacks information about the chain of transmission and we have no information about who wrote it and when it was written. It is attributed to the Apostle Thomas in the header of the book.

Th 0​

These are the sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.

This attribution is certainly a secondary addition; neither was Thomas the author or the (only) source of the transmission, nor did the person who collected these sayings intend to publish them under the name of the Apostle, since Thomas is referred to in the third person in several verses. The header of P. Oxy. IV 654 begins with the words "These are the sayings, Jesus spoke..." whereas the Gnostic Coptic version begins with the words "These are the secret Words, Jesus spoke..." due to the Gnostics' penchant for secret teachings.

The Coptic text has the title “Gospel of Thomas” in subscript.

The remainder of the comparison indicates that the Coptic version is not a translation of the Greek version found in Oxyrhynchos. However, the differences do not demonstrate any additions or alterations that would suggest an adaptation to Gnostic teachings. This is significant, as the Oxyrhynchos fragments represent only a small portion of the collection (fragments 1-7, 26-33, 36-37, 39) with numerous lacunae. As a result, we are effectively compelled to rely on the Coptic manuscript for our understanding.

It was never part of the Christian canon and was lost until it was discovered in the 20th century. The full text of this collection exists in a Coptic version written around 350 AD. This text was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945, among a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi Library. Three Greek fragments (P. Oxy. IV 654, IV 655 and I 1) written around 200 AD, which had been found before in Oxyrhynchos, were subsequently identified as part of this collection. The writing was rejected as apocryphal by the Orthodox Churches and was found in an entirely Gnostic collection. Consequently, many authors have included it among the Gnostic literature. However, it does not contain any of the Gnostic teachings (see below) and is probably an earlier text than the Gnostic sect. The Oxyrhynchos papyri were not a library but a paper dump that contained mostly commercial and administrative writings. Only a small proportion of the fragments are literary, philosophical and theological in nature. The theological writings in this dump are almost entirely mainstream Christian writings, with only two out of more than two hundred Christian writings being Gnostic (not counting fragments, but writings).

Clement of Alexandria writes in Stromateis II,9:45: “So also in the Gospel to the Hebrews it is written, ‘He that wonders shall reign, and he that has reigned shall rest’.”, and he quotes a longer version without citing the source in Stromateis V,14:96: “He, who seeks, will not stop till he find; and having found, he will wonder; and wondering, he will reign; and reigning, he will rest.”, which is evidently the pericope Th 2. There are three possible explanations:

• Clement wrongly attributed the saying to the Hebrew Gospel he knew, rather than to the Gospel of Thomas, which he also knew.
• Clement had a copy of a Hebrew Gospel which contains the same saying but is different from the Gospel of Thomas. This Hebrew Gospel is the source of some of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, or they both come from the same oral tradition.
• Clement had a copy of the Gospel of Thomas without the attribution to Thomas, which was said to be a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic (Clement was a pagan convert to Christianity living in Alexandria, so that he was probably unable to read Hebrew or Aramaic).

The collection contains correspondences to Jesus' words known in the four Gospels of the Christian Canon, but also several otherwise unknown Jesus words.

It certainly comes from a purely oral tradition. Some authors suggest that it dates from as early as 50 CE, before the larger compilations were written, some suggest that the parallels with other Gospels come from an oral tradition derived from other written Gospels, and suggest a date of composition as late as 120 CE. It is unlikely that the author had any of the four canonical Gospel accounts in his hands. The deviations are too many, the choice is to small, and the sayings that have a parallel to one or more of the canonical Gospels are arbitrarily spread over the entire collection.

The attribution of Th 2 to “the” Hebrew Gospel by Clement of Alexandria, the attribution of the Gospel to Thomas, who is said to have been a missionary in the East, the reverence to James in Th 12, who was an Elder of Jerusalem for about 25 years and some observations in the Coptic text which point to a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic independent of the parallel passages in the canonical Gospel accounts, argue in favour of a Hebrew or Aramaic original that has been composed in a place near or in Judea.

As mentioned above, it seems that the author of this Gospel account collected the content from oral traditions. We will call him “Coll” for “collector”. There is no other information about him except what can be inferred from the writing itself:

• Coll was a purist. He never added any explanations from his teachers or his own thoughts to the traditions. His intention was certainly to avoid introducing any bias that would alter the words and deeds of Jesus, instead encouraging his readers to think about them for themselves. He even transmits some sayings in an isolated way that cannot be understood without further information.
• He sometimes transmits two hadiths with the same root but different wording. He is a serious hadith collector who does not want to withhold any information. Furthermore, he collected information from more than one reference person.
• He didn’t intend to publish under Thomas's name because he refers to him in the third person. Forgers usually use the first person to support their false claim to authorship.
• His collection is rather small and the narratives are short. Sometimes, we find two or three traditions combined that Luke and/or Ed report separately. Had he had access to direct witnesses, he would have had much more information.
• Although the author seems eager to avoid introducing bias to his collection, it does have a scholarly tendency. He is certainly at least third in the chain of transmission (with one intermediary between the eyewitness and himself), but he is probably fourth, as traces of a school of thought can be found.

The value of this collection lies in the fact that it is probably independent from the writings of Mark, Luke and Ed, and the signs on the honesty of the author, but not in a short chain of transmission, through which the reliability and accuracy of the text are degraded.

The text's accuracy also suffers from multiple translations: What we read has been translated from Hebrew or Aramaic to Greek, from Greek to Coptic and from Coptic to English (the translators sometimes differ in their interpretation of the Coptic text).

 

[Thomas]

The value of this collection lies in the fact that it is probably independent from the writings of Mark, Luke and Ed,

I think 'probably' might be too strong? Half the sayings have Synoptic parallels, and the rule-of-thumb that the shorter saying is probably the more original is not guaranteed, nor undisputed ... It seems the best we can say is 'may be, maybe not', because to state probability either way places a burden of proof on the proposition, and the age or originality of Thomas simply cannot be proved.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

I think 'probably' might be too strong? Half the sayings have Synoptic parallels,

That's similar with the traditions Luke and the author of Matthews didn't read from Mark.

and the rule-of-thumb that the shorter saying is probably the more original is not guaranteed, nor undisputed ...

I didn't say that.
What I said was that the author evidently did not know the written accounts. We must also consider that there was no copy machine and no internet; all writings had to be copied by hand, so that it took a long while to spread out. Christian authors often overestimate the importance of written material; it was mostly not available and the oral tradition was the predominant source for most people. It's much more likely that the logia he wrote down were taken from a chain of oral traditions rather than that somebody read the other accounts and forwarded them. It cannot be fully excluded though.

It seems the best we can say is 'may be, maybe not', because to state probability either way places a burden of proof on the proposition,

There is no proof for very many things in history. We have sources, and we can try to derive more likely or less likely scenarios from it.

and the age or originality of Thomas simply cannot be proved.

We can only guess; my guess is late 1st century because both orthodox and grostic scriptures from the 2nd century are much different in style and content.

 

[moralorel]

I've written in my introductory chapter to my gospel edition:

The “Gospel of Thomas”​

All but the four Gospel accounts have been graded “apocryphal”, meaning that their origin is not known. This would correspond to the weak grade. There among are not many scriptures that are considered to possibly contain true relation.

The Gospel of Thomas (also Gospel according to Thomas, short: Th) is a collection of 114 logia (proverbs) and short dialogues. In its form, it is very similar to a small collection of Islamic Hadith. However, it lacks information about the chain of transmission and we have no information about who wrote it and when it was written. It is attributed to the Apostle Thomas in the header of the book.

Th 0​

These are the sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.

This attribution is certainly a secondary addition; neither was Thomas the author or the (only) source of the transmission, nor did the person who collected these sayings intend to publish them under the name of the Apostle, since Thomas is referred to in the third person in several verses. The header of P. Oxy. IV 654 begins with the words "These are the sayings, Jesus spoke..." whereas the Gnostic Coptic version begins with the words "These are the secret Words, Jesus spoke..." due to the Gnostics' penchant for secret teachings.

The Coptic text has the title “Gospel of Thomas” in subscript.

The remainder of the comparison indicates that the Coptic version is not a translation of the Greek version found in Oxyrhynchos. However, the differences do not demonstrate any additions or alterations that would suggest an adaptation to Gnostic teachings. This is significant, as the Oxyrhynchos fragments represent only a small portion of the collection (fragments 1-7, 26-33, 36-37, 39) with numerous lacunae. As a result, we are effectively compelled to rely on the Coptic manuscript for our understanding.

It was never part of the Christian canon and was lost until it was discovered in the 20th century. The full text of this collection exists in a Coptic version written around 350 AD. This text was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945, among a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi Library. Three Greek fragments (P. Oxy. IV 654, IV 655 and I 1) written around 200 AD, which had been found before in Oxyrhynchos, were subsequently identified as part of this collection. The writing was rejected as apocryphal by the Orthodox Churches and was found in an entirely Gnostic collection. Consequently, many authors have included it among the Gnostic literature. However, it does not contain any of the Gnostic teachings (see below) and is probably an earlier text than the Gnostic sect. The Oxyrhynchos papyri were not a library but a paper dump that contained mostly commercial and administrative writings. Only a small proportion of the fragments are literary, philosophical and theological in nature. The theological writings in this dump are almost entirely mainstream Christian writings, with only two out of more than two hundred Christian writings being Gnostic (not counting fragments, but writings).

Clement of Alexandria writes in Stromateis II,9:45: “So also in the Gospel to the Hebrews it is written, ‘He that wonders shall reign, and he that has reigned shall rest’.”, and he quotes a longer version without citing the source in Stromateis V,14:96: “He, who seeks, will not stop till he find; and having found, he will wonder; and wondering, he will reign; and reigning, he will rest.”, which is evidently the pericope Th 2. There are three possible explanations:

• Clement wrongly attributed the saying to the Hebrew Gospel he knew, rather than to the Gospel of Thomas, which he also knew.
• Clement had a copy of a Hebrew Gospel which contains the same saying but is different from the Gospel of Thomas. This Hebrew Gospel is the source of some of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, or they both come from the same oral tradition.
• Clement had a copy of the Gospel of Thomas without the attribution to Thomas, which was said to be a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic (Clement was a pagan convert to Christianity living in Alexandria, so that he was probably unable to read Hebrew or Aramaic).

The collection contains correspondences to Jesus' words known in the four Gospels of the Christian Canon, but also several otherwise unknown Jesus words.

It certainly comes from a purely oral tradition. Some authors suggest that it dates from as early as 50 CE, before the larger compilations were written, some suggest that the parallels with other Gospels come from an oral tradition derived from other written Gospels, and suggest a date of composition as late as 120 CE. It is unlikely that the author had any of the four canonical Gospel accounts in his hands. The deviations are too many, the choice is to small, and the sayings that have a parallel to one or more of the canonical Gospels are arbitrarily spread over the entire collection.

The attribution of Th 2 to “the” Hebrew Gospel by Clement of Alexandria, the attribution of the Gospel to Thomas, who is said to have been a missionary in the East, the reverence to James in Th 12, who was an Elder of Jerusalem for about 25 years and some observations in the Coptic text which point to a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic independent of the parallel passages in the canonical Gospel accounts, argue in favour of a Hebrew or Aramaic original that has been composed in a place near or in Judea.

As mentioned above, it seems that the author of this Gospel account collected the content from oral traditions. We will call him “Coll” for “collector”. There is no other information about him except what can be inferred from the writing itself:

• Coll was a purist. He never added any explanations from his teachers or his own thoughts to the traditions. His intention was certainly to avoid introducing any bias that would alter the words and deeds of Jesus, instead encouraging his readers to think about them for themselves. He even transmits some sayings in an isolated way that cannot be understood without further information.
• He sometimes transmits two hadiths with the same root but different wording. He is a serious hadith collector who does not want to withhold any information. Furthermore, he collected information from more than one reference person.
• He didn’t intend to publish under Thomas's name because he refers to him in the third person. Forgers usually use the first person to support their false claim to authorship.
• His collection is rather small and the narratives are short. Sometimes, we find two or three traditions combined that Luke and/or Ed report separately. Had he had access to direct witnesses, he would have had much more information.
• Although the author seems eager to avoid introducing bias to his collection, it does have a scholarly tendency. He is certainly at least third in the chain of transmission (with one intermediary between the eyewitness and himself), but he is probably fourth, as traces of a school of thought can be found.

The value of this collection lies in the fact that it is probably independent from the writings of Mark, Luke and Ed, and the signs on the honesty of the author, but not in a short chain of transmission, through which the reliability and accuracy of the text are degraded.

The text's accuracy also suffers from multiple translations: What we read has been translated from Hebrew or Aramaic to Greek, from Greek to Coptic and from Coptic to English (the translators sometimes differ in their interpretation of the Coptic text).

So it is valid because it is NOT Thomas who wrote it? It's valid because it's NOT from the original sources, rather a combination of oral stories? It's a valid 5th gospel because it changed so much over a short period of time? It's valid because it most likely was from a third (likely 4th) chain of authors?

I feel like you're making an argument for it being a gnostic text. It definitely doesn't appear tied to the Q source.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

You are missing my point. My argument is that I take it as a valid 5th source.

So it is valid because it is NOT Thomas who wrote it?

If Thomas had written it, it would rather be the 1st source. But that's evidently not the case. The plus I reckon for the author is because he didn't intend to attribute a false authority.

It's valid because it's NOT from the original sources, rather a combination of oral stories?

If is was completely dependent on the other sources, it would not have any additional value; e.g. Tatian (the Diatessaron) only used the four canonical Gospels. It doesn't contain any additional knowledge beyond them.
them.

It's a valid 5th gospel because it changed so much over a short period of time? It's valid because it most likely was from a third (likely 4th) chain of authors?

4th in chain is not excellent. The authors of the canonical Gospels are 1st (if John is really the author), 2nd (Mark who knew more than one apostle) or the other two who probably have a majority of traditions in 3rd and some in 4th. Luke might have heard something from the disciples.
We don't know how much changed in a chain of transmission.

I feel like you're making an argument for it being a gnostic text. It definitely doesn't appear tied to the Q source.

Comparing Ok and Mt, I don't think that Q ever existed. Both of them used multiple sources, probably also oral tradition.

 

[moralorel]

You are missing my point. My argument is that I take it as a valid 5th source.

If Thomas had written it, it would rather be the 1st source. But that's evidently not the case. The plus I reckon for the author is because he didn't intend to attribute a false authority.

If is was completely dependent on the other sources, it would not have any additional value; e.g. Tatian (the Diatessaron) only used the four canonical Gospels. It doesn't contain any additional knowledge beyond them.
them.

4th in chain is not excellent. The authors of the canonical Gospels are 1st (if John is really the author), 2nd (Mark who knew more than one apostle) or the other two who probably have a majority of traditions in 3rd and some in 4th. Luke might have heard something from the disciples.
We don't know how much changed in a chain of transmission.

Comparing Ok and Mt, I don't think that Q ever existed. Both of them used multiple sources, probably also oral tradition.

You and I differ on the definition of a "valid 5th source". I view a valid 5th source as something that came from the same Q source, which we appear to agree that this "gospel" is definitely not from the original Q source. As you stated before, it is at LEAST a third hand account. The others are not.

It DID add something. It added gnostic beliefs. Women couldn't get to heaven. God's Kingdom is already here. These beliefs directly contradict the other 4 gospels.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

You and I differ on the definition of a "valid 5th source".

Maybe we also differ in our attitude towards the canonical Gospel accounts. I see in tehm an originally oral tradition as well, assuming that they are reliable enough to draw fromtheme what Jesus tought, but not reliable in every detail. Maybe, you follw the attitude that because it is in the Bible, it is the inspired Word of God.

I view a valid 5th source as something that came from the same Q source, which we appear to agree that this "gospel" is definitely not from the original Q source.

as I said before, I don't think that Luke and the author of Mt had one big second common source Q because the common accounts in them that are not contained in Mk differ in the degree of their similarity: some are identical, others similar with different wording, some contain passages that are lacking in the other, some show different interpretations and some are only similar in some points.

As you stated before, it is at LEAST a third hand account. The others are not.

It DID add something.

I grade the accounts "weak" (low reliablility) without at least a support from a second source, "intact weak" (medium reliability) if ther is no direct second source, but it aligns with similar teachings from other sources, and I accept it as an independent second source if it parallels an account only found in Lk or Mt, grading both sources "good" (fair to good reliability)

It added gnostic beliefs.

It didn't add any teachings of Basilides, Valentian, or or other syncretistic mush.

Women couldn't get to heaven.

Where did you read that? Th and Lk are the only Gospels that mention that Jesus explicitly stated that women are equal to men in spirituality; Th states in an unmodern way that givin up hirarchy and power, and equality between men and women is a condition to enter the Kingdom:
Th22
"When you make ... the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female, ... you will enter the Kingdom" (the word Kingdom is unreadable in the fragment).

God's Kingdom is already here. These beliefs directly contradict the other 4 gospels.

I'm surprised that there are Christians who deny this teaching. It aligns well with the other Gospel accounts: Compare Lk 17:20-21 (parallel Th 113), also Lk 7:28 par Mt 11:11 par Th 46.
In my understanding, this is even the central message of Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is at hand", grasp for it, try to give the absolute priority to God and God's advice, live in God's spirit, enter the Kingdom "through the narrow gate", refuse the many distractions and the power and glory given by people around you, don' strive for it, but submit to God, so that you are part of God's Kingdom already in this world, in this life.

 

[wil]

Who was the scribe? Is there Aramaic shorthand? How would anyone keep up with the sermon on the mount and write down every word accurately?

That entire concept baffles me. Now yes I believe there were storytellers and there was an oral tradition, but the telephone game also happened...and between the time it was said...till the time He was crucified and stories of his rising spread....that is when (to unscholarly me) is when the rumors and embellishments and I was there and I heard
...and the stories, the embellishments the phone game continued...until it got written down half century later?

None of it would hold up in court, it would be called biased and hearsay. imo

I know, I know, many take it as gospel and take me as a heretic.

And even with all that I believe the words we have purported to be uttered by a man named Jesus (who I don't know was one man or an amalgamation of misattributations) I find valuable in my life and worthy of contemplation.

Don't get too excited I think Winnie the Poo has some good stuff too.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Who was the scribe? Is there Aramaic shorthand? How would anyone keep up with the sermon on the mount and write down every word accurately?

I can only give an example to show that it is possible that someone can be gifted such abilities. The accuracy is a legitimate consequence of such speed of recording.

"Revelation" writing - The Life of Bahá'u'lláh

Bahá’u’lláh would sometimes recite with such rapidity that His secretary could barely keep up with the flow of His words. Afterwards, the secretary would occasionally be unable to read his own handwriting and would ask Bahá’u’lláh to help decipher the words.

www.bahaullah.org

I doubt there was someone recording the Sermon on the Mount in such a fashion.

Regards Tony

 

[wil]

I doubt there was someone recording the Sermon on the Mount in such a fashion.

And if.they were.the writing utensils.and papyrus?

 

[moralorel]

Maybe we also differ in our attitude towards the canonical Gospel accounts. I see in tehm an originally oral tradition as well, assuming that they are reliable enough to draw fromtheme what Jesus tought, but not reliable in every detail. Maybe, you follw the attitude that because it is in the Bible, it is the inspired Word of God.

as I said before, I don't think that Luke and the author of Mt had one big second common source Q because the common accounts in them that are not contained in Mk differ in the degree of their similarity: some are identical, others similar with different wording, some contain passages that are lacking in the other, some show different interpretations and some are only similar in some points.

I grade the accounts "weak" (low reliablility) without at least a support from a second source, "intact weak" (medium reliability) if ther is no direct second source, but it aligns with similar teachings from other sources, and I accept it as an independent second source if it parallels an account only found in Lk or Mt, grading both sources "good" (fair to good reliability)

It didn't add any teachings of Basilides, Valentian, or or other syncretistic mush.

Where did you read that? Th and Lk are the only Gospels that mention that Jesus explicitly stated that women are equal to men in spirituality; Th states in an unmodern way that givin up hirarchy and power, and equality between men and women is a condition to enter the Kingdom:
Th22
"When you make ... the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female, ... you will enter the Kingdom" (the word Kingdom is unreadable in the fragment).

I'm surprised that there are Christians who deny this teaching. It aligns well with the other Gospel accounts: Compare Lk 17:20-21 (parallel Th 113), also Lk 7:28 par Mt 11:11 par Th 46.
In my understanding, this is even the central message of Jesus: "The Kingdom of God is at hand", grasp for it, try to give the absolute priority to God and God's advice, live in God's spirit, enter the Kingdom "through the narrow gate", refuse the many distractions and the power and glory given by people around you, don' strive for it, but submit to God, so that you are part of God's Kingdom already in this world, in this life.

1. You might "think" that the 4 authors didn't have a common Q source, but most scholars (even non-believers) believe that these gospels came from a Q source. The believers see that Q source as being Jesus himself. The non-believers are still searching for a Q source that was written down. Over 200 sayings from the 4 gospels originated from a source that isn't mentioned anywhere else. Hence, the Q source. And you admitted yourself that the Gospel of Thomas was at best a third-hand account. According to apostolic authority, a book can't be considered a gospel if it isn't written by an apostle and first-hand witness to Jesus. So it automatically fails as a gospel. That alone makes this debate moot.
It isn't my "attitude".
2. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Thomas also had read most of the letters from the apostles, including Revelations. So that would mean this author came long after the apostles had lived and died. This means he or she was not a witness. The author relied heavily on the Diatessaron That again is an exclusion for a valid 5th source.
3. One of the reasons it was immediately considered "heretic" is because it was known for being recently written in the mid 2nd century. Aside from Gnostics, nobody even considered the idea of it being authentic because it hadn't been around during the same time as the other gospels. It was never mentioned by any Christian authors in the 1st century or the early 2nd century. Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, and Justin Martyr never mentioned this writing.
4. There is zero evidence that this "gospel" has ever been admitted in any church. When it is first mentioned, it is mentioned as heretical. It isn't even pondered for its authenticity. Not even debated. It was even called "impious and absurd."
5. After being declared heresy, it isn't heard from again until it is found in the trash in 1945. It has so little value to Christians that they completely forgot about it for over a thousand years! It wasn't until Hollywood stirred everyone up with that movie "Stigmata" that people started taking this "gospel" seriously.
6. This "gospel" doesn't reference the writings of the OT. The other 4 do. The authors of the 4 often use the OT as proof of Jesus being the Messiah. But the Gospel of Thomas doesn't appear to care at all that He's the Messiah.
7. Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven’” (Thomas 114).
8. The reason why many Christians deny this teaching is because it contradicts the Bible, including the gospels. Revelations, Isaiah, and the 4 gospels (and many many other texts) would be redundant. They describe the coming kingdom of God. Do YOU see the Kingdom of God in Jerusalem right now? No? Then there you go. Do you see old men peacefully watching their kids play in the streets of Jerusalem without any worry of death? No? Then you should see how absurd this belief from "Thomas" truly is. No other text claims that deciphering Jesus's words will bring you to the Kingdom. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does Thomas even mention needing Jesus Himself in order to enter the Kingdom? Because it's a central part of Christianity. No magic words get you into the Kingdom.

 

[moralorel]

Who was the scribe? Is there Aramaic shorthand? How would anyone keep up with the sermon on the mount and write down every word accurately?

That entire concept baffles me. Now yes I believe there were storytellers and there was an oral tradition, but the telephone game also happened...and between the time it was said...till the time He was crucified and stories of his rising spread....that is when (to unscholarly me) is when the rumors and embellishments and I was there and I heard
...and the stories, the embellishments the phone game continued...until it got written down half century later?

None of it would hold up in court, it would be called biased and hearsay. imo

I know, I know, many take it as gospel and take me as a heretic.

And even with all that I believe the words we have purported to be uttered by a man named Jesus (who I don't know was one man or an amalgamation of misattributations) I find valuable in my life and worthy of contemplation.

Don't get too excited I think Winnie the Poo has some good stuff too.

I'm not disagreeing with you overall statement. Just adding something. You mentioned this holding up in court. In the courts in Judea one would require at least 2 witnesses, preferably 3 witnesses to prove that an event had occurred. 4 would be even better. If all of the accounts matched up perfectly, they were dismissed. Now if you had 4 accounts that were similar yet they differed, even had small contradictions (1 witness says Jesus was wearing a red robe, another witness says He was wearing a purple robe) these accounts would be admissible in court. We actually see this when the priests are gathering witnesses against Jesus. They have to dismiss they witnesses to Jesus's crimes because all of the testimonies are exactly the same.

So the gospels would hold up in court, at least in Judea. But maybe not today in the west.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

1. You might "think" that the 4 authors didn't have a common Q source, but most scholars (even non-believers) believe that these gospels came from a Q source. The believers see that Q source as being Jesus himself. The non-believers are still searching for a Q source that was written down. Over 200 sayings from the 4 gospels originated from a source that isn't mentioned anywhere else. Hence, the Q source. And you admitted yourself that the Gospel of Thomas was at best a third-hand account. According to apostolic authority, a book can't be considered a gospel if it isn't written by an apostle and first-hand witness to Jesus. So it automatically fails as a gospel.

So, you discard Mk and Lk and assume that It was written by Matthew? All scholars agree in that Jesus didn't write anything.

That alone makes this debate moot.
It isn't my "attitude".

I see, you have made your opinion and don't come back to it.

2. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Thomas also had read most of the letters from the apostles, including Revelations.

No trace of that.

So that would mean this author came long after the apostles had lived and died. This means he or she was not a witness. The author relied heavily on the Diatessaron

There are no parallels to Th in the Diatessaron (I only know the Latin version so far) that are not contained in the canonical Gospel accounts.

That again is an exclusion for a valid 5th source.
3. One of the reasons it was immediately considered "heretic" is because it was known for being recently written in the mid 2nd century. Aside from Gnostics, nobody even considered the idea of it being authentic because it hadn't been around during the same time as the other gospels.

There are indications that Th can be the "Gospel of the Hebrews" mentioned by Papias and Clement of Alexandria.

It was never mentioned by any Christian authors in the 1st century or the early 2nd century. Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, and Justin Martyr never mentioned this writing.
4. There is zero evidence that this "gospel" has ever been admitted in any church. When it is first mentioned, it is mentioned as heretical. It isn't even pondered for its authenticity. Not even debated. It was even called "impious and absurd."

But with a distorted quote.

5. After being declared heresy, it isn't heard from again until it is found in the trash in 1945. It has so little value to Christians that they completely forgot about it for over a thousand years! It wasn't until Hollywood stirred everyone up with that movie "Stigmata" that people started taking this "gospel" seriously.

Never seen the Hollywood movie. It's not a valid source.

6. This "gospel" doesn't reference the writings of the OT. The other 4 do. The authors of the 4 often use the OT as proof of Jesus being the Messiah. But the Gospel of Thomas doesn't appear to care at all that He's the Messiah.

It's a collection exclusively on sayings and deeds attributed to Jesus. No quote of other prophets, no comment.

7. Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven’” (Thomas 114).

Yes, that's a peculiar formulation. But it doesn't say that woman don't enter the Kingdom; the scholar who purported this probably had not understood what making equal means. It may even be a mistranslation. It may be based on an authentic saying where Jesus defended that he is teaching women like men (which was not common practice for a rabbi in his time)

8. The reason why many Christians deny this teaching is because it contradicts the Bible, including the gospels. Revelations, Isaiah, and the 4 gospels (and many many other texts) would be redundant. They describe the coming kingdom of God. Do YOU see the Kingdom of God in Jerusalem right now? No? Then there you go. Do you see old men peacefully watching their kids play in the streets of Jerusalem without any worry of death? No? Then you should see how absurd this belief from "Thomas" truly is.

Read Mt 5-7 carefully.

No other text claims that deciphering Jesus's words will bring you to the Kingdom. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does Thomas even mention needing Jesus Himself in order to enter the Kingdom? Because it's a central part of Christianity. No magic words get you into the Kingdom.

Read Mt 7:24

 

[wil]

So the gospels would hold up in court, at least in Judea.

Except not one author was an eye witness...unless we call Q.

 

[TheLightWithin]

If all of the accounts matched up perfectly, they were dismissed.

What was the rationale? Was it because they felt perfect matchups meant they had conspired and memorized something?

 

[moralorel]

What was the rationale? Was it because they felt perfect matchups meant they had conspired and memorized something?

Exactly!

 

[moralorel]

Except not one author was an eye witness...unless we call Q.

So Matthew and John never met Jesus?

Weird since they were part of the original 12.

 

[wil]

So Matthew and John never met Jesus?

Weird since they were part of the original 12.

While traditional attribution holds strong in many Christian communities, modern biblical scholarship presents a more nuanced view on the authorship of the Gospels of Matthew and John.
For both Gospels, the prevailing scholarly consensus is that they were written anonymously. The names "Matthew" and "John" were likely attached to them later in the second century to lend apostolic authority, rather than being the actual names of the authors.
Here's a breakdown of the modern scholarly perspective:
Gospel of Matthew:
* Anonymity: The Gospel itself doesn't state its author.
* Use of Mark: Most scholars believe the author of Matthew used the Gospel of Mark as a primary source, often reproducing whole chunks of text verbatim. This is a significant point against the idea that Matthew the apostle, an eyewitness, would have relied so heavily on another's account, especially one believed to be by Mark (who was not an apostle).
* Sophisticated Greek: The Greek in Matthew is quite sophisticated, which some scholars find unlikely for a Galilean tax collector.
* Jewish-Christian Community: It's often thought that the Gospel was penned by an unknown author within a Jewish-Christian community, given its emphasis on Jewish law and prophecy.
Gospel of John:
* Anonymity: Similar to Matthew, the Gospel of John does not explicitly name its author. While it refers to "the beloved disciple," it doesn't state that this disciple is John the son of Zebedee.
* Debate on Eyewitness: While many scholars still believe the Gospel of John is based on eyewitness testimony, they often suggest it was edited or compiled by a "Johannine community" or school of thought, rather than being solely written by John the apostle himself. This would explain some of the unique theological perspectives and stylistic differences compared to the other Gospels.
* Later Date: The later date of composition for John (late 1st century) also leads scholars to question direct apostolic authorship, as it would mean a very elderly John writing or dictating.
In summary, while traditional attributions are still widely held, modern critical scholarship generally views the Gospels of Matthew and John as anonymous works, likely written by skilled Christian authors who drew upon various traditions and, in Matthew's case, earlier written sources like Mark.