Rick Van Vliet

Could be, but I don't think so. Damned suspicious how there's a Thomas around with the same exact doubts as the one in John.

I said "at least" so the correct equation is,
2000-1800>=42

Glad to help.

But not in the Gospel of Thomas. We are all children of the Father who Lives. "Life Force" "Spirit" and "Breath" are the same word, in Greek and Hebrew. "Ghost" is a poor choice.

Rick Van Vliet

Ok, where did I lose you?

John, written in the first century, was written/edited to refute already existing, established, Gospel of Thomas, according to Pagel. That's our given.

Still with me?

So, the Gospel of Thomas, according to our given, was called "Thomas" when those that knew Thomas were still around. Such as James, killed in 62CE according to Josephus.

Something elusive there?

Now, if Thomas is claiming to be written by Thomas, and is well known, you don't think James the brother of Thomas and Jesus, and head of the Jerusalem Church, and the other surviving disciples, might mention that Thomas didn't really write it?

So much misinformation, so little time.

Rick Van Vliet

You were totally ignorant of the entire Thomas/India story, still are, and you are demanding I go fetch things for you? Some "significant number" that you will sit in judgment of. You have me confused with someone that gives a damn if you insist on wallowing in ignorance.

James M. Robinson
Professor of Religion Emeritus,
Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California



James M. Robinson is the Director Emeritus of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity and Professor of Religion Emeritus at Claremont Graduate University. He was honored as a Fulbright Scholar, American Council of Learned Societies Fellow and American Association of Theological Schools Fellow at the University of Heidelberg. The editor of The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English (2002), The Critical Edition of Q (2000), and author of Trajectories Through Early Christianity (1971, with Helmut Koester) and A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (1959), he is best known for his work on the Nag Hammadi Codices and as the General Editor of The Nag Hammadi Library in English (1977).

Academic Credentials

B.A., Davidson College
B.D., Columbia Theological Seminary
D.Theol., University of Basel
Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary

http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/robinson.html

He, along with Patterson, chaired the Jesus Seminar's Thomas discussion, that, in the Five Gospels, along with another 200 top Scholars, dated it at 50CE. Let me guess, you know nothing of what either are, right?

DCHindley

I believe you are thinking of Robert Eisler. Just where does Eisenman say anything about Jesus being a revolutionary? Eisler thinks that may be so, based on passages in the Slavonic Josephus. He seems much more interested in Jesus' brother James, who he thinks is an extremely religious fellow and associated or heavily influenced by the Qumran sect.

Now as unsoffitikated as ah is, I only gots the 1977 edition of Nag Hammadi Libary, an' I cain'ts read too well, only havin' one of them thar college degrees, but I'll try an' quotes frum it an' all:

The Coptic Gospel of Thomas was translated from the Greek; in fact, several fragments of this Greek version have been preserved, and can be dated to about 200 C.E. Thus the Greek (or even Syriac or Aramaic) collection was composed in the period before about 200 C.E., possibly as early as the second half of the first century, in Syria, Palestine, or Mesopotamia.

Now I's don't know what all that fancy talk means, but it shore duz sound impressive, don' it? In my igorant way, it duz seem to me that he's sayin' dat it wuz written some date between 50 and 200 CE. So you is 20% right. Here's yor sign.

No, no, it took me a good cupla hours, cuz I needed a dictionary fo' almost ever' word. I gots this obsession wit' understandin' what I'm talkin' about. Crazy idea, eh?

You do realize that most of the reg'lars here can, and in time will, dance all over yo' in ways you prolly can't yet fathom. You really do need to shed the smug act, as yo' ain'ts as smart as you think yo' is.

DCH

Toto

When does Pagel date John's writing or editing? What is the basis of the date? How long would the Gospel of Thomas need to be around for the author of John to want to refute it?

You are making some massive assumptions. Some of them may be justified, some not, but you need to recognize where you are filling in the blanks in the gaps in history, and how this makes your conclusions less than certain.

For instance, we don't know that the author of the Gospel of Thomas was actually written by someone name Thomas. It might have been named after a fictional character, or the name might be symbolic (the Twin.)

Scholars seem to think that the present Gospel of John contains an earlier part (the "signs gospel") and was edited later. We don't know exactly when.

Similarly, there has been some recent discussion here on whether the James mentioned by Josephus can actually be identified with the James who was the head of the Jerusalem Church, mentioned by Paul. I don't see any good reason to assume that they are the same person, although later Christians did make that assumption - but this seems highly unlikely.

But The Gospel of Thomas may not have been written by Thomas, and may not have been in circulation in the first century. We have no verifiable surviving writings from James or any other disciple. We don't know if James would have considered it worth mentioning the Gospel of Thomas.

So in the end, you cannot draw any real conclusions from the silence of the disciples about Thomas.

Quite.

You could save us all some time by being a bit clearer about your claims.

Toto

On the contrary, I am quite familiar with the entire Thomas in India fable and more, and have seen it debunked along with all the other travelogues from early Christianity. Check out this archived thread.

I am challenging the idea that there are scholars who think Thomas was in India in 42 CE - but because I don't think there are any modern, credible scholars who support that idea. I would like to know why you think there are.

This is a forum for debate and discussion, not pronouncements or preaching. If you are not prepared to back up your assertions, it's not clear why you are here.

I know quite a bit about the Jesus Seminar. It contained many top scholars, but not all, and its conclusions are interesting, but often appear to be based on their own assumptions.

I also know something about the difficulty of pinning a date on the gospels in general, as most of them seem to have been works in progress for some period of time. You can read about the difficulty of dating the Gospel of Thomas here.

DCHindley

Hmmm. You might have to get more specific there. Robinson chaired the discussion on GoT? Prove it.

Stephen J. Patterson and James M. Robinson, both JS fellows, modified an original translation of the GoT created by the Berlin Working Group for Coptic Gnostic Writings, as published in the 2nd corrected printing of Synopsis Quattuor Evangelorium, 1997, in Patterson, Robinson, and Bethge, The Fifth Gospel, Trinity Press International, 1998.

This is as close as you'll come to him "chairing" Thomas discussion at Westar Institute's JS. You wont find any such thing mentioned in his Curriculum Vitae either, or anywhere on the Internet, unless you are referring to some Christian apologetics site that is trying to smear him.

Let me ask you, do you actually own a copy of The Five Gospels? What did you do, check it out of the library, then return it, and now you can't remember where you saw it in the book? Rather than admit you shot from the hip (and made an error) you bluster.

I'll let you in on a secret. You saw it on page 474, in the essay "The Discovery of the Gospel of Thomas," where it does say "The Coptic manuscript of Thomas was written about 350 C.E.; the Greek fragments of Thomas have been dated to around 200 C.E., based on an analysis of the writing style. Thomas probably assumed its present form by 100 C.E., although an earlier edition may have originated as early as 50-60 C.E." FWIW, the commentary in that book is by Robert W Funk and Roy W Hoover. Those comments are by either Funk or Hoover, not Robinson, who is nowhere cited as a translator or a contributor.

DCH

arnoldo

Either that or Hippolytus and Origen did not actually write about the Gospel of Thomas sometime in the early third century.

Toto

That is a total non sequitur. Whether Thomas went to India in the first half of the first century has nothing to do with whether there was a Gospel of Thomas referred to in the early third century. :huh:

arnoldo

Point taken. It was the Acts of Thomas written in the early third century which alleged that Thomas went to India sometime in the first century.