Malachi151

GT 12 is one of the things that leads me to a later date:

None of the other writings of the New Testament use the term "James the Just", it shows up for the first time outside of GT in the 2nd century. I have a hard time believing that if GT were pre-Gospel that none of the other 1st century writings, the Gospels, Acts, or the Epistle of James, would have used this.

It's hard to talk about "primitive" vs. more advanced writings, because just because a writing is poorly written doesn't mean it came sooner.

Niall Armstrong

I wasn't aware of this. Interesting. But hardly conclusive evidence. Don't forget that our version of GT is a Coptic translation, that must have been exposed to the danger of "harmonization", both in Greek and in Coptic. A single cognomen would be particularly exposed to alteration, by someone wishing to ensure that an otherwise obscure name should be recognizable. As you well know, James the Just would be particularly exposed to this kind of alteration.

It is indeed hard. Which is why I used the prophet's hometown example, as it is virtually universally recognized. Do you then deny that this (and others...) shows an earlier form to that seen in GMark?

Solo

OTOH, the absence of, or rather "Christainization" of, James in the early canon can be viewed as supporting the early dating of GT. If you consider the context of the passage, it makes little sense to place its origin after ~62 AD, the death of James the Just. What purpose would this direction have (,if this was an apostolic direction originating postmortem to James) ? The point to consider carefully here is that GT did not recognize judgment, the kingdom (echatologically) nor Jesus' parousia.

Jiri