Malachi151

Not at all.

My view of it is this:

James, John (brother of James), Peter, and Paul were all real people.

James was the head of some Messiah worshiping movement in Jerusalem that worshiped a theological "Jesus the Messiah (Christ)".

Peter was an aid to James.

John was the brother of James and second in command.

These three constituted the leadership of this "Jamesean" sect of Christ worshipers, and this was a very Jewish oriented sect.

Paul became involved in the movement but his views were "Gentile" oriented. Paul took a view that the Messiah was for everyone, not just the Jews. This upset James and his sect and there were conflicts between Paul and James' group.

Paul went on his own and did his own thing preaching his own brand of Christ worship in the area that is not Greece and Turkey. Paul's brand became more popular.

Up to this point almost nothing had been written about "Jesus Christ" other than what Paul had written, and perhaps Didache and other such short prayers.

Then the Jewish War came along and the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and exerted additional power in Judea.

This is what prompted the author of the writing called the Gospel of Mark to write his story. This author was a Pauline Christian, probably living in Rome.

"Mark's" story took the Pauline view and held a pro-Gentile message.

This update the remnants of the Jamesean sect. By this point James, Peter, and John were all long dead, but the remnants of their movement lived on.

The Gospel of Matthew was then written

The Gospel of Thomas is a Jamesean collection of teachings produced by the remnants of the Jamesean sect using a combination of the other Gospels plus a recollection of teachings from James.

GThomas was certainly written after GMark and probably all of the other canonical Gospels. I'd wager on it being a mid to late 2nd century writing.

I'd wager of Dadiche being an early 1st century writing.

Solo

It is interesting that Ehrman makes his call that Thomas is a later gospel than the synoptics (in Lost Christianities), based solely on the similarity between its content and later Gnostic teachings. At the same time, he denies that GoT has a characteristic Gnostic world-view. It is not clear what Ehrman bases his view that GoT was a forgery.

I am tending to the view that GoT is early (even though was probably redacted later using some Synoptic materials) based on the mention of James the Just (Saying 12) which would have not made sense if it was made post-humously and two other sayings which are used in the NT in seting behavioural patterns and in GoT as revelatory "clues" to Jesus mystery. In a normal sequencing of similar forms the pointing to a paradoxical nature of reality and paranormal perception, which the GoT bespeaks, would precede the use of a "sacred saying" to admonish followers or regulate their behaviour (as in the NT parallels).

I am not sure though that the early GoT dating helps the historicist cause. As I have explained, I believe that Jesus the gospel is self consciously allegorized guidance through ecstatic experience and its larger meaning.

Jiri

Solitary Man

Is there any parallel in Judaism for this sort of worship? Has it ever happened before? If not, then you'll have to explain the anomaly.

Solitary Man

I haven't read Erhman on the subject, but are any of those logia featured also in the Greek explicitly, or only in the Coptic?

vid

Doesn't Teacher of Righteousness count?

Solitary Man

Please explain.