Scholarly discussion about changes in biblical texts

[wil]

The earliest dates of the earliest writings we have about the life of Jesus come over a decade after he was crucified, we don't have eyewitness accounts or any timely ledgers, letters or news clippings, yet the stories go back to his birth and not written by family or acquaintances.

Here's the list of biblical, apocryphal, and secular writings that speak of Jesus, ordered from earliest to latest approximate date of composition. Dates are scholarly estimates and can vary.
Mid-1st Century CE (c. 45-65 CE)
* James: c. 45-48 CE (potentially the earliest NT writing)
* Paul's Undisputed Letters: c. 50s-early 60s CE (e.g., Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon)
* 1 Peter: c. 62-64 CE
* Hebrews: c. 64-69 CE
Late 1st Century CE (c. 65-100 CE)
* Gospel of Mark: c. 65-75 CE
* Jude: c. 40-80 CE (though often placed later, some scholars suggest an early date)
* Didache: Late 1st century CE
* Gospel of Luke: c. 60-80 CE
* Acts of the Apostles: c. 80-90 CE
* Gospel of Matthew: c. 70-100 CE (often placed c. 80-90 CE)
* Josephus (Jewish Historian): Antiquities of the Jews (completed c. 93 CE)
* 1 Clement: c. 96 CE
* Gospel of John: c. 90-110 CE (with some origins possibly dating back to 70 CE or earlier)
* Revelation: c. 95-96 CE
Early to Mid-2nd Century CE (c. 100-150 CE)
* Epistle of Barnabas: c. 70-135 CE
* Gospel of Thomas: c. 60-140 CE (depending on the version and interpretation)
* Pliny the Younger (Roman Governor): Letters (Letter to Trajan, Book 10, Letter 96, c. 112 CE)
* Tacitus (Roman Historian): Annals (c. 115-120 CE)
* Suetonius (Roman Biographer): Lives of the Caesars (c. 121 CE)
* 2 Peter & Johannine Letters (1, 2, 3 John): Late 1st to early 2nd century CE
* Gospel of Mary: Early 2nd century CE
* Shepherd of Hermas: Late 1st to mid-2nd century CE
* Justin Martyr (Christian Apologist): First Apology (c. 155-157 CE - though slightly later than mid-2nd century, it often refers to earlier traditions and sources.)
Mid- to Late 2nd Century CE and Beyond
* Gospel of Judas: c. 100-180 CE
* Infancy Gospel of Thomas & Protevangelium of James: Mid- to late 2nd century CE
* Gospel of Philip: c. 150-300 CE

 

[moralorel]

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

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

No trace of that.

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.

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

But with a distorted quote.

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

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

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)

Read Mt 5-7 carefully.

Read Mt 7:24

1. Not what I said. Read what I wrote again.
2. Not my opinion. Let us use a similar analogy. You claim Pluto is the 9th planet. I point out that Pluto is classified as a dwarf planet and not considered to be the 9th planet. You dismiss it as my opinion. I'm just stating what the accepted criteria is. Pluto is a dwarf planet. It's not my "attitude". It is not my opinion. Likewise the "Gospel of Thomas" does not fit the criteria of a gospel simply because it is, at best, a 3rd-hand account.
3. Not sure what your point is about the Diatessaron. We find Syriac catchphrases in the Gospel of Thomas that elude to it coming from the author's reading of the Diatessaron. While this may not be a smoking gun, it sure does point away from this being written before the 2nd century.
4. Like what? The little we know about the Gospel of the Hebrews isn't similar to the Gospel of Thomas at all. The Gospel of the Hebrews quoted the OT. The Gospel of Thomas did not. The Gospel of Thomas is just a list of "magic" sayings from Jesus which will get you into the Kingdom of God once you figure them out. The Gospel of Hebrews is nothing like that.
5. The awful movie is what ignited the debate of this "gospel". That is my point. Never referred to the movie as a source.
6. "Distorted quote"? You fail to mention why the text was never mentioned by the early church.
7. It's a "collection exclusively on sayings...." so it isn't a gospel. Just a list of "magic" sayings. Agreed.
8. Yes yes yes... it's just misunderstood. Uh huh.
9. Explain why the "kingdom" on earth is nothing like the kingdom mentioned in Revelations and Isaiah. Read it very carefully.
Likewise please read Luke 21:27-31. The Kingdom of God arrives with the arrival of Jesus in quite the entrance of a cloud of fire. Have you seen this event happen yet? No? Odd. Jesus also tells his disciples to pray for the arrival of the Kingdom of God. Why? Wasn't it already there? Matt 6:9-10. Why did Paul keep preaching about having to survive tribulations before entering the Kingdom of God? (Acts 14:22). Why didn't he just tell everyone that you just needed to interpret some magic sayings from Jesus? You would think Paul would have mentioned such a shortcut to the Kingdom of God. Maybe Paul should have read more carefully.

 

[moralorel]

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.

If you'd like to debate about the authors of the 4 gospels, feel free to either bump a thread on the matter (there has to be at least one on here) or start a new thread. That is if you want to debate about it.

Either way, my point is quite valid. The 4 gospels are at worst second-hand authors. The "Gospel" of Thomas is AT BEST a third-hand account, but quite likely a fourth or fifth.
I know this.
YOU know this.
Talib-al-kalim knows this.

Yet we keep debating. I guess Pluto is the 9th planet and I had better accept it.

 

[Longfellow]

In my story, the changes have mostly not changed the meaning of the life lessons, and where they have, that will be self correcting when people are learning together side by side to put the lessons into practice.

 

[Longfellow]

If you'd like to debate about the authors of the 4 gospels, feel free to either bump a thread on the matter (there has to be at least one on here) or start a new thread. That is if you want to debate about it.

Either way, my point is quite valid. The 4 gospels are at worst second-hand authors. The "Gospel" of Thomas is AT BEST a third-hand account, but quite likely a fourth or fifth.
I know this.
YOU know this.
Talib-al-kalim knows this.

Yet we keep debating. I guess Pluto is the 9th planet and I had better accept it.

In my story, who the authors were, and to some degree even the delay before being written down, is irrelevant. What matters is how well the life lessons were preserved, and it was nothing at all whatsoever like the telephone game. Probably not like what people mostly think of as oral tradition either.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

1. Not what I said. Read what I wrote again.

Suppose you answer is about me saying you refuse Mark and Luke. I know that you didnt't want ot say that. But they don't fulfil your criteria.

2. Not my opinion. Let us use a similar analogy. You claim Pluto is the 9th planet. I point out that Pluto is classified as a dwarf planet and not considered to be the 9th planet. You dismiss it as my opinion. I'm just stating what the accepted criteria is. Pluto is a dwarf planet. It's not my "attitude". It is not my opinion. Likewise the "Gospel of Thomas" does not fit the criteria of a gospel simply because it is, at best, a 3rd-hand account.

You take the definition of your church. I don't.

3. Not sure what your point is about the Diatessaron. We find Syriac catchphrases in the Gospel of Thomas that elude to it coming from the author's reading of the Diatessaron. While this may not be a smoking gun, it sure does point away from this being written before the 2nd century.

More interesting: Could you gie an example?

4. Like what? The little we know about the Gospel of the Hebrews isn't similar to the Gospel of Thomas at all. The Gospel of the Hebrews quoted the OT. The Gospel of Thomas did not. The Gospel of Thomas is just a list of "magic" sayings from Jesus which will get you into the Kingdom of God once you figure them out. The Gospel of Hebrews is nothing like that.

There were more than one "Gospel of the Hebrews".
One was a Hebrew edition of Mt with some differences mentioned by Jerome.
It is mentioned by Papias as a fifth source he didn't know but heard of.
Clement of Alexandria quotes Th 1 as from the Gospel of the Hebrews, "if we accept it". This is the link to the unproven thesis, that Th may have been known under this name before it was attributed to Thomas.

5. The awful movie is what ignited the debate of this "gospel". That is my point. Never referred to the movie as a source.

At least, we don't have a difference here.

6. "Distorted quote"? You fail to mention why the text was never mentioned by the early church.

There are some quotes from Th or parallel traditions (as sayings form Jesus, not as false teachings) in writings from "orthodox", non-Gnostic scholars. The earliest is 2Clement (2nd century CE). The latest is in Origenes, Homily Jeremiah 20:3 (3rd century CE).
The distorted quote is from Hippolytus, Against all Heresies, 5:7
They teach about this literally in the Gospel according to Thomas: “Whoever seeks me will find me in children from the seventh year onwards, for there I reveal myself hidden in the fourteenth aeon.”
The Coptic manuscript Th 4:1 has
Jesus said, “The man old in days will not hesitate to ask a small child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live.
which is not parallel to but in line with Mk 10:13-16, Lk 18:15-17, Mt 18:3-4

7. It's a "collection exclusively on sayings...." so it isn't a gospel. Just a list of "magic" sayings. Agreed.

Not magic. Many have a high probability to go back to Jesus.

8. Yes yes yes... it's just misunderstood. Uh huh.

Yes, and you like to misunderstand. Why?

9. Explain why the "kingdom" on earth is nothing like the kingdom mentioned in Revelations and Isaiah. Read it very carefully.
Likewise please read Luke 21:27-31. The Kingdom of God arrives with the arrival of Jesus in quite the entrance of a cloud of fire. Have you seen this event happen yet? No? Odd. Jesus also tells his disciples to pray for the arrival of the Kingdom of God. Why? Wasn't it already there?

Compare Lk 21:29-33 with Mk 13:28-32 and Mt 24:32-36. Luke adds this to Mark. This addition is weak. The arrival o fthe Kingdom is not the same as it's fulfilment. In between, there is the growth of the Kingdom:
Discovery:
Mt 13:44 with Th 109
Mt 13:45-46 with Th 76:1-2
Growth:
Lk 13:20-21 with Mt 13:33 with Th 96
Mk 4:26-29 with Th 21:8-10
Mk 4:30-32 with Lk 13:18-19 with Mt 13:31-32 with Th 20
Lk 17:5-6 with Mt 17:20 with Th 106
Setbacks:
Mt 13:24-30,36-43 with Th 57
Lk 12:51-53 with Mt 10:34-36 with Th 16
...
and finally, Fulfillment.

Matt 6:9-10. Why did Paul keep preaching about having to survive tribulations before entering the Kingdom of God? (Acts 14:22). Why didn't he just tell everyone that you just needed to interpret some magic sayings from Jesus? You would think Paul would have mentioned such a shortcut to the Kingdom of God. Maybe Paul should have read more carefully.

The thing is that it's not a shortcut. It's a long way. The final Kingdom of God, we call it Jannah, is not here. The visions of Isaiah and Jeremiah have not yet come true. But we should accept it here and now. That's the message of Jesus. And if you understand this, and what this means, your life is with God, the Eternal.

 

[moralorel]

Suppose you answer is about me saying you refuse Mark and Luke. I know that you didnt't want ot say that. But they don't fulfil your criteria.

You take the definition of your church. I don't.

More interesting: Could you gie an example?

There were more than one "Gospel of the Hebrews".
One was a Hebrew edition of Mt with some differences mentioned by Jerome.
It is mentioned by Papias as a fifth source he didn't know but heard of.
Clement of Alexandria quotes Th 1 as from the Gospel of the Hebrews, "if we accept it". This is the link to the unproven thesis, that Th may have been known under this name before it was attributed to Thomas.

At least, we don't have a difference here.

There are some quotes from Th or parallel traditions (as sayings form Jesus, not as false teachings) in writings from "orthodox", non-Gnostic scholars. The earliest is 2Clement (2nd century CE). The latest is in Origenes, Homily Jeremiah 20:3 (3rd century CE).
The distorted quote is from Hippolytus, Against all Heresies, 5:7
They teach about this literally in the Gospel according to Thomas: “Whoever seeks me will find me in children from the seventh year onwards, for there I reveal myself hidden in the fourteenth aeon.”
The Coptic manuscript Th 4:1 has
Jesus said, “The man old in days will not hesitate to ask a small child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live.
which is not parallel to but in line with Mk 10:13-16, Lk 18:15-17, Mt 18:3-4

Not magic. Many have a high probability to go back to Jesus.

Yes, and you like to misunderstand. Why?

Compare Lk 21:29-33 with Mk 13:28-32 and Mt 24:32-36. Luke adds this to Mark. This addition is weak. The arrival o fthe Kingdom is not the same as it's fulfilment. In between, there is the growth of the Kingdom:
Discovery:
Mt 13:44 with Th 109
Mt 13:45-46 with Th 76:1-2
Growth:
Lk 13:20-21 with Mt 13:33 with Th 96
Mk 4:26-29 with Th 21:8-10
Mk 4:30-32 with Lk 13:18-19 with Mt 13:31-32 with Th 20
Lk 17:5-6 with Mt 17:20 with Th 106
Setbacks:
Mt 13:24-30,36-43 with Th 57
Lk 12:51-53 with Mt 10:34-36 with Th 16
...
and finally, Fulfillment.

The thing is that it's not a shortcut. It's a long way. The final Kingdom of God, we call it Jannah, is not here. The visions of Isaiah and Jeremiah have not yet come true. But we should accept it here and now. That's the message of Jesus. And if you understand this, and what this means, your life is with God, the Eternal.

1. I "refuse" Mark and Luke? Mark wasn't one of the 12 but he was Simon Peter's close colleague who followed him around during the events of the gospels. Therefore a witness. Luke admits that he didn't witness all of the events of the gospels. But he makes no such disclaimer about the book of Acts, which he also wrote. There he is a witness to many of the miracles of Jesus and His disciples. So he is a witness. All 4 authors got their information from source "Q". The author of the "gospel" of Thomas, as you admitted, wasn't a witness at all. He copied later writings and never would have met any of the witnesses, much less been a witness.
2. It's not a definition of "my church". Try again. It's common sense. It's also scholarly agreement, not a church.
3. Matthew 8:20 "Jesus replied, “Foxes have holes and the birds of the air nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay the head.”
Diatessaron "Jesus replied, "Foxes have their holes and birds have their nest, but the Son of Man has no place to lay His head and rest"
Gospel of Thomas "Jesus replied, "Foxes have their holes and birds have their nest, but the Son of Man has no place to lay His head and rest."
The two use the same wording. This writing of the verse didn't show up until the Diatessaron was written. Therefore the author of Thomas copied the Diatessaron.
4. Still doesn't change the fact that the "Gospel of the Hebrews", no matter which one, mentions the OT and Thomas does not. Please explain how these two are the same based on that fact alone.
5. Yet Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, and Justin Martyr never mention it. They mention the other gospels extensively. They mention the other books of the Bible as well yet never mention the "Gospel of Thomas". Surely they would have known about it, no?
And when this "gospel" was finally mentioned, it was considered to be heretical from people you mentioned. Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Hippolytus all referred to it as heretical. 2 Clement is not believed to have been written by Clement in the first place, so that point is moot. The quote from Clement is said to be from a "gospel from Egypt", so that doesn't help either.
So the book is mentioned by people who agreed with me, that it wasn't a gospel. Thanks for pointing that out.
6. The book literally refers to them as "secret sayings" and tells us that if we can decipher these "secret sayings" we will discover the Kingdom. I call that magic. The argument isn't that some of these sayings weren't said by Jesus. The issue is that this author definitely didn't witness Jesus or even meet the witnesses. He was, by your admittance, at best a 3rd hand account. At best.
7. I'm not misunderstanding anything. I am just confused why you equate the "Gospel" of Thomas with the other 4 gospels, yet you keep admitting that it is very different. It is like you are arguing that Pluto is not a planet, that it is a dwarf planet. But then getting frustrated with me for criticizing you when you put your foot down and say it is the same kind of planet as Earth. There is so much evidence showing that this "gospel" is not the same as the 4, and barely anything that eludes to it being even remotely close to the other 4. Yet you keep claiming that it is the 5th gospel. That isn't a misunderstanding. I just don't understand your logic at all.
8. You're dodging the question. Explain why so many verses describe God's Kingdom AND yet it is nothing like what we see today. Explain why we aren't seeing peace on Earth right now if the Kingdom is here already.

 

[TheLightWithin]

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

Were Matthew and John known to be the actual authors of the books or were their names just put to them?
Long before I knew anything about bible scholarship per se, I picked up the idea from somewhere that the authors of the gospels were the students of the disciples and not the disciples themselves. Maybe somebody said so.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Yet we keep debating. I guess Pluto is the 9th planet and I had better accept it.

Well it was considered the 9th planet for decades until it was fired or demoted in 2006.
I even remember a sly entry in one of the news magazines at the time, which had a little section on which famous people got fired that year. Mostly sports coaches or movie directors, a few high profile CEOs, and Pluto.

Interestingly, Pluto is the name of the Roman god of the underworld - equivalent of Hades

 

[talib-al-kalim]

So Matthew and John never met Jesus?

Weird since they were part of the original 12.

It is quite evident from the structure of Mt that the author used multiple sources, similar to Luke, who also used Mark's account and other sources. A direct disciple would not have done that.
That's not the case with the Gospel according to John. It doesn't recur to commonly known sayings and it contains passages that differ from the other accounts not for an evident theological reason, but rather because the author knew how it was. It's also similar in thought and style with the Epistles of John, and the theological relevance of the 2nd and 3rd Epistle is very moderate, so they were likely kept because they are from John. Hence, I opt for John to be at least the reference. But he certainly had an active scribe who was an educated Greek, as the Greek is quite eloquent and some expressions rather fit the circumstances of the Greek church in the end of the 1st century (e.g. "Jews" exclusively for those Jews who were against Jesus). Numerous Christian scholars weigh this higher than my findings and suppose that John was not the author or co-author.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

The earliest dates of the earliest writings we have about the life of Jesus come over a decade after he was crucified, we don't have eyewitness accounts or any timely ledgers, letters or news clippings, yet the stories go back to his birth and not written by family or acquaintances.

Here's the list of biblical, apocryphal, and secular writings that speak of Jesus, ordered from earliest to latest approximate date of composition. Dates are scholarly estimates and can vary.
Mid-1st Century CE (c. 45-65 CE)
* James: c. 45-48 CE (potentially the earliest NT writing)
* Paul's Undisputed Letters: c. 50s-early 60s CE (e.g., Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon)
* 1 Peter: c. 62-64 CE
* Hebrews: c. 64-69 CE
Late 1st Century CE (c. 65-100 CE)
* Gospel of Mark: c. 65-75 CE
* Jude: c. 40-80 CE (though often placed later, some scholars suggest an early date)
* Didache: Late 1st century CE
* Gospel of Luke: c. 60-80 CE
* Acts of the Apostles: c. 80-90 CE
* Gospel of Matthew: c. 70-100 CE (often placed c. 80-90 CE)
* Josephus (Jewish Historian): Antiquities of the Jews (completed c. 93 CE)
* 1 Clement: c. 96 CE
* Gospel of John: c. 90-110 CE (with some origins possibly dating back to 70 CE or earlier)
* Revelation: c. 95-96 CE
Early to Mid-2nd Century CE (c. 100-150 CE)
* Epistle of Barnabas: c. 70-135 CE
* Gospel of Thomas: c. 60-140 CE (depending on the version and interpretation)
* Pliny the Younger (Roman Governor): Letters (Letter to Trajan, Book 10, Letter 96, c. 112 CE)
* Tacitus (Roman Historian): Annals (c. 115-120 CE)
* Suetonius (Roman Biographer): Lives of the Caesars (c. 121 CE)
* 2 Peter & Johannine Letters (1, 2, 3 John): Late 1st to early 2nd century CE
* Gospel of Mary: Early 2nd century CE
* Shepherd of Hermas: Late 1st to mid-2nd century CE
* Justin Martyr (Christian Apologist): First Apology (c. 155-157 CE - though slightly later than mid-2nd century, it often refers to earlier traditions and sources.)
Mid- to Late 2nd Century CE and Beyond
* Gospel of Judas: c. 100-180 CE
* Infancy Gospel of Thomas & Protevangelium of James: Mid- to late 2nd century CE
* Gospel of Philip: c. 150-300 CE

That's what has been published by scholars around 1980. Many newer scholars have completely different opinions. I personally doubt this estimation.

 

[wil]

That's what has been published by scholars around 1980. Many newer scholars have completely different opinions. I personally doubt this estimation.

Links to many new scholars.with new eatimations?

 

[moralorel]

It is quite evident from the structure of Mt that the author used multiple sources, similar to Luke, who also used Mark's account and other sources. A direct disciple would not have done that.
That's not the case with the Gospel according to John. It doesn't recur to commonly known sayings and it contains passages that differ from the other accounts not for an evident theological reason, but rather because the author knew how it was. It's also similar in thought and style with the Epistles of John, and the theological relevance of the 2nd and 3rd Epistle is very moderate, so they were likely kept because they are from John. Hence, I opt for John to be at least the reference. But he certainly had an active scribe who was an educated Greek, as the Greek is quite eloquent and some expressions rather fit the circumstances of the Greek church in the end of the 1st century (e.g. "Jews" exclusively for those Jews who were against Jesus). Numerous Christian scholars weigh this higher than my findings and suppose that John was not the author or co-author.

I find it funny that you do whatever you can to try to push the date of authorship of the 4 gospels to a later date... while trying to shove the Gospel of Thomas to an earlier date. Even the biggest skeptics of the 4 gospels admit they had some sort of Q source. At the same time the biggest fans of the Gospel of Thomas have to admit that the author definitely wasn't influenced by this Q source. Eventually you'll have to admit that the Gospel of Thomas isn't close to being the same as the 4 Gospels.

 

[moralorel]

Well it was considered the 9th planet for decades until it was fired or demoted in 2006.
I even remember a sly entry in one of the news magazines at the time, which had a little section on which famous people got fired that year. Mostly sports coaches or movie directors, a few high profile CEOs, and Pluto.

Interestingly, Pluto is the name of the Roman god of the underworld - equivalent of Hades

And bats were probably considered birds by scientists at one time... so are we defending old classifications now? Not trying to stoke an old debate, just seeing some irony here.

My comparison was simple. Trying to make the claim that the "Gospel of Thomas" is the exact same type of source as the 4 gospels is just like putting your foot down now and claiming Pluto is the 9th planet. It is a dwarf planet and is not a planet. The Gospel of Thomas is a faux writing.

Aside from Earth, I do believe all of the planets and the dwarf planet Pluto are named after Roman deities. Even some moons have Roman deity names. Yet the odd thing is, we don't know who named Earth. That would be an interesting subject to figure out. Truly we don't have any real idea who came up with the name.

 

[moralorel]

Were Matthew and John known to be the actual authors of the books or were their names just put to them?
Long before I knew anything about bible scholarship per se, I picked up the idea from somewhere that the authors of the gospels were the students of the disciples and not the disciples themselves. Maybe somebody said so.

As I told Wil, this would be a nice subject to either bump or start over on a thread. I'm super busy with my kids right now, so I'm sure Thomas would have a wealth of information on this subject. As would others. I don't want to get off the subject of Thomas right now.

 

[wil]

Eventually you'll have to admit that the Gospel of Thomas isn't close to being the same as the 4 Gospels.

3 gospels have q source eh? Thomas is mostly like a Bartlett for Jesus quotes...not a life narrative

 

[talib-al-kalim]

I find it funny that you do whatever you can to try to push the date of authorship of the 4 gospels to a later date... while trying to shove the Gospel of Thomas to an earlier date. Even the biggest skeptics of the 4 gospels admit they had some sort of Q source. At the same time the biggest fans of the Gospel of Thomas have to admit that the author definitely wasn't influenced by this Q source. Eventually you'll have to admit that the Gospel of Thomas isn't close to being the same as the 4 Gospels.

Have you read my posts?
I have not pushed the authorship to a late date, rather I disputed the late dating in post #91.
The biggest sceptics accept a Q source and even a fictional source for John and say that all accounts must have been written late with the argument that they mention the doom of Jerusalem and have thus to be written after this date, which excludes that any author is the one assigned to. I don't agree with that.
I'm not pushing Th before the canonical Gospel accounts, either, saying it has probably been written in the late 1st century.
Dating John also in the late 1st century goes along with all old authors and many present authors; I don't know anyone who claims that it has been written before 80 CE.
From the cross reference to and the writings of Luke, his Gospel account can quite precisely be dated between 60 and 63 CE, Mark is earlier, Mt probably a bit later with a larger uncertainty, but most probably before 80 CE, when the division between Judaism and Christianity was not yet definite.

Your understanding of Q is unclear to me. What does this letter stands for in your argumentation?

 

[moralorel]

3 gospels have q source eh? Thomas is mostly like a Bartlett for Jesus quotes...not a life narrative

Your comparison is better than my Pluto comparison.

 

[moralorel]

Have you read my posts?
I have not pushed the authorship to a late date, rather I disputed the late dating in post #91.
The biggest sceptics accept a Q source and even a fictional source for John and say that all accounts must have been written late with the argument that they mention the doom of Jerusalem and have thus to be written after this date, which excludes that any author is the one assigned to. I don't agree with that.
I'm not pushing Th before the canonical Gospel accounts, either, saying it has probably been written in the late 1st century.
Dating John also in the late 1st century goes along with all old authors and many present authors; I don't know anyone who claims that it has been written before 80 CE.
From the cross reference to and the writings of Luke, his Gospel account can quite precisely be dated between 60 and 63 CE, Mark is earlier, Mt probably a bit later with a larger uncertainty, but most probably before 80 CE, when the division between Judaism and Christianity was not yet definite.

Your understanding of Q is unclear to me. What does this letter stands for in your argumentation?

My apologies. It seemed to me like you were trying to push the Gospel of John to a later date while trying to push the "Gospel of Thomas" to an earlier date. If that was not your intention than I apologize.

"Q source" is the source that scholars believe the 4 gospels came from. Believers see this Q source as being Jesus Himself. Non-believers see these 4 gospels as being 4 authors who read this Q source and wrote their own versions of it. This is a watered down explanation of the concept, but it arises from the fact that these 4 gospels are original. Unlike the "Gospel of Thomas", we don't see this material showing up before the gospels were written. Since these 4 gospels were written in different manners, styles, and with different details it is assumed that all 4 authors read this Q writing. The author of the "Gospel of Thomas" obviously didn't read this Q source. He or she read 1 or 2 of the gospels and many other books that were written later. He or she took bits and pieces from these texts and added some more details. That is why many, including me, don't see this text as a "gospel".

 

[wil]

Believers see this Q source as being Jesus Himself.

Which believers are these? I don't know of any mainstream Christian denomination that believes Q was written by Jesus.

That is as strange to me as believing Moses wrote the Pentateuch