roncuomo

What seems to be the general concensus regarding the writing of Thomas?

roncuomo

What I meant to ask was what is the concensus regarding the date of the writing of this work?

Vinnie

There is no real consensus. Some late and dependent, some early and independent. I go for early and independent. See Patterson, the Gospel of Thomas and Jesus. He basically goes through each posed example of dependence there is between Thomas and Q. Koester, Robinson and Davies have also written things on Thomas and Q which lead me to share the view held by them, Dom Crossan and others.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Anywhere from 50-140 are usually the bookmarks. Those who place Thomas late in the 2d century are really grasping at straws.

I think tis clear, given the overlapp and lack of dependence between Thomas and Q they both shared some earlier source material. I date both works (what we now know as Thomas and Q) as being substantially written by the second stratum (60-80). Its possible Thomas had a later redaction ca 110 but it was substantially written before this.

It appeals to the authoity of James (Jesus brother most likely) around saying 12 and then dennigrates Pater, Matthew and others by trumpeting Thomas over them in 13.

Amaleq13

He is identified as "James the Just" only.

Vinnie

I said most likely. Authority of James, Jesus brother is attested by Paul, Josephus, GHebrews and so on. GMark throws in confirming evidence and so on.

Best candidate we know of is this same pillar James attested elsewhere. Ergo, the MOST LIKELY in my post.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

The OP is about the Gospel of Thomas. In that text, James the Just is identified by Jesus as the post-crucifixion leader of the group. There is no indication from this text that James the Just is the brother of Jesus.

Appealing to interpolations (possibly a misinterpretation of Paul) and gospels that don't portray a sibling of Jesus as a leader of the disciples doesn't change that fact.

Vinnie

I appealed to nothing you nnor anyone else can convincingly demonstrate to be an interpolation. I also interpreted Paul correctly via Mark, Josephus, John, GHebrews, et al. You are the one engagin in apologist type special pleading techniques. You have to erase data whereas they have to invent it. I simply glean it from the text through critical lenses

spin

You can fall back to Daniel having really been written in the sixth century BCE when it suits you as well. The shifting scale of convincing is well-known. It ranges from "all the guys who I want to quote say otherwise" to "the texts says so, so it is".

Here you are wrong. There is no special pleading. We are dealing with pagan texts in the control xian scribes. The golden rule we have to fight against is he who controls the present controls the past. As interpolation and invention is the rule -- just look at the gospels and the "apocryphal" gospels, but you could venture into fake letters regarding historical people for theological purposes --, all xianizing references in ancient literature must be read with suspicion, not that it is invention necessarily, but that it has the tendency to be. The work of the historical Jesus movement is proof of this, for if there weren't need to strip away that which isn't attributable in the gospel to Jesus, you wouldn't need a historical Jesus movement.

Through the lens of convenience, forgetting that you too are sifting for what you can justify to yourself.


spin

rlogan

hey roncuomo - welcome to IIDB. As the former Dr. X would have said - mind the hounds.

Try this here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

Thomas had a lot of redactions.

The concensus among those who place it in mid 1st century is that those placing it in the mid 2nd century are morons. And vice versa.