Chaucer

But there is an issue. AA first said --

"There are no "sayings" of Jesus document that have been actually found . The "sayings" of Jesus are all hypothetical."

Well, those are the strict four corners of what AA first said. He didn't talk of authenticity. He didn't talk of dating. He didn't talk of provenance. He spoke of documents, and he spoke of the hypothetical. That's all.

"Hypothetical" --

Main Entry: hy·po·thet·i·cal
Pronunciation: \ˌhī-pə-ˈthe-ti-kəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1588

: being or involving a hypothesis : conjectural <hypothetical arguments> <a hypothetical situation>

— hypothetical noun

— hy·po·thet·i·cal·ly \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothetical

From this it's quite clear that AA is referencing that which involves conjecture only, not that which involves physical data. But the found Gospel of Thomas involves physical data. You yourself said it: "there are documents that claim to be the "sayings" of Jesus". Now, documents constitute a form of data. AA was clearly overlooking a physical document that is part of the ancient data that is now extant, having been duly found at Nag Hammadi. That physical document is the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas. That document is not a hypothesis. It is a concrete object, and constitutes physical data. So it is clear that AA was carelessly overlooking it entirely.

Any reference to hypothesis stands outside the realm of physical data. It thus stands outside a physical ms. But a physical object is what the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas plainly is. Consequently, AA's blanket statement --

"no "sayings" of Jesus document that have been actually found"

is plainly misleading.

Thomas is physical data, a physical document that has been actually found. A concrete document is not hypothetical. Nag Hammadi is not hypothetical. Both the ms. and Nag Hammadi are things that are objectively perceivable by all. One need not hypothesize to evaluate their reality. Instead, one need only view photographs or go and view the actual ms. or the excavation ground at Nag Hammadi, in order to confirm their reality. Easy.

So when AA says --

"no "sayings" of Jesus document that have been actually found"

and couples that with invoking the hypothetical, he is overlooking entirely the physical fact that such a document has in fact been duly found; it is extant. It objectively exists.

In his assertion that no such document has been actually found, he did not qualify what sort of document he was referencing beyond saying a "sayings of Jesus document". He offered no qualifiers as to dating, provenance, or authenticity. His only qualifier was "found". That was it. Well, Thomas is a physical document that has been found.

Subsequent to that OP from AA, he then introduced, and only then -- only after I had pointed out to him that a physical document of such a sort does exist -- questions relating to authenticity, etc. But that did not relate to his careless mistake in the OP, and that did not address his careless mistake in the OP. He now evades that mistake instead. It is useless to claim he doesn't. Words like "found" are very, very clear. Thomas has been found and is not "hypothetical". So AA's first statement in the OP is flat-out wrong. Its only possible purport is that no physical document remotely consisting of a presentation of purported Jesus sayings has ever been found. But such a document has been found. AA is therefore wrong. It's useless to pretend otherwise. And AA continues to avoid the simple plain fact that his OP claiming no such document exists is simply wrong.

Furthermore, AA only brought up matters relating to authenticity, etc., in subsequent responses, without even bothering to address his manifest error in his initial claim that no such document remotely close to a Jesus-sayings document has ever been found. Now, Thomas has been found. It presents itself as a Jesus-sayings document. In the OP, AA did not address the further internals of such a document in any way, shape, or form. He only did that in later postings, once he started evading the inaccuracy of his initial much balder claim in the OP. The internals of such a document constitute a distraction in this context, pure and simple. I'd be readier to address those blatant distractions in later postings if AA would be man enough to concede that his initial claim in the OP was thoroughly misleading. But he has done no such thing.

In his OP, he did not reference authenticated and/or dated Jesus-sayings documents. He only referenced purportedly Jesus-sayings documents of any stamp, period. Well, a document like that does exist. It's Thomas, and it was found at Nag Hammadi. Questions of authenticity are irrelevant to AA's initial and erroneous statement. It's time he concede that initial error.

There's nothing wrong with him clarifying what type of document he may have really meant to reference initially in his OP by openly admitting that his OP came out wrong and was therefore misleading. But he hasn't even done that. Instead, he's ignored his clear error in the OP entirely and simply changed the subject to authenticity, etc., without looking back. Now that's evasion.

So there's the issue of this thread: the OP says there are no such documents -- of any kind -- when there clearly are -- or AA wouldn't even be able to speak to questions relating to their authenticity at all! How come he's able to do that if such a document doesn't even exist? There's an answer to that: It's because such documents do indeed exist after all! That's why. But wait: That contradicts AA's OP, doesn't it? And his OP also contradicts your statement, "there are documents that claim to be the "sayings" of Jesus".

The issue here is that the OP baldly opines that no physical documents remotely like Thomas exist at all, while the experience of researchers at Nag Hammadi and your own statement, "there are documents that claim to be the "sayings" of Jesus", plainly contradict that. Unless AA acknowledges that he plainly misspoke in the OP, a badly misleading impression will remain, and any discussion of a lack of authenticity in such a document consequently makes no sense and is illogical here so long as the OP's statement that no such document exists at all(!) isn't decisively withdrawn.

This issue involves, among other things, whether or not one is supposed to address logically a blatant contradiction: to wit, issues of authenticity in a document that the OP states doesn't even exist! Now that's illogical. Does the Gospel of Thomas exist or not? If it does, the OP is in error. If it does, your own statement is correct. If it does, it's time for AA to withdraw the blanket statement to the contrary in his OP in order to resolve the internal contradictions that obtain in talking at length here on the degree of authenticity in a document that, according to the OP (still unwithdrawn), doesn't even exist! Absent any concession from AA that the OP was in error, we are left in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land if we continue talking of the degree of authenticity in a document that AA's OP still implies doesn't even exist!

Does a found document exist that purports to present sayings of Jesus, or doesn't it? There's a ludicrous contradiction in discussing issues of authenticity at all if it apparently doesn't(?!). Only if AA concedes that the OP is in total error is there any internal sense or logic in proceeding with a discussion on Thomas's degree of authenticity at all. Concede AA's OP as being totally misleading, and we can then have a logical discussion on the degree of authenticity, etc., in the "_found_" Gospel of Thomas.

As for AA's latest, I've already taken the step of addressing similarities between the Synoptics and Thomas by providing a list in a previous posting in this thread giving all the sayings that all the Synoptics and Thomas have in common. Since he ignored that totally when I already provided that in the previous posting, no. 12, marked 03:41 AM, why should I expect that his repeated request in his latest for precisely the same thing all over again will result in his giving that same list of similarities any more attention in a newer posting from me than he gave it the previous time? -- to wit, no attention whatsoever.

Chaucer

Civil1z@tion

I'm a little behind here but let's tackle these points.

1. True but irrelevant as to whether Jesus was a historical figure. The claims that Alexander the Great was the son of Zeus and was born on the very night that the Temple of Artemis was burned down are also implausible, but is the existence of Alexander implausible? We don't have any biographies written in his life time, but the evidence is that he probably existed.

2. That depends. IF Paul and the gospel writers were either liars (or their sources were liars) and if the entire Testimonium Flavinium is a forgery, then you might have a point. But the simplier explanation is there was actually a cult leader named Jesus.

3. Jesus' deification by a majority of the Jews is implausible. His deification by a relatively small sub-set of Judaism is entirely plausible, and that's what truly emerges from the gospels (they probably exagerrate the extent of his support but they don't say all the Jews supported him). Cult leaders today still get small groups of Christians to believe they are the Second Coming so why couldn't a man get a small group of Jews to believe he was the Messiah?

4. This may be your strongest point, but even here the most plausible explanation is this confusion over Jesus is the result of a power struggle between disciples. Why would all these groups have such a tight focus on a Jesus figure if one never existed? If Jesus was made up by someone charismatic enough to found Christianity, why not simply claim you yourself are the messiah? If you're going to found a cult, you're probably something of an ego-maniac and thus claiming that someone else is the messiah makes no sense. Someone else can "anticipate" your coming but you, the cult leader, are the messiah.

DCHindley

Toto,

Well ... Conservatives generally think GoT is almost wholly derivitive of the canonical gospels, which they believe reflect the actual words of Jesus. On the other hand, Liberals who have an intense interest in GoT (Stephen Patterson, etc) do tend to think GoT was composed very early (before the canonical gospels) and that they are even better reflections of Jesus' actual words than the versions contained in the canonical gospels.

So, yeah, the academic consensus is that the sayings of GoT do represent the actual words of Jeus. That is, unless you want to quibble about the semantic range of the word "represent." I doubt that anyone except a Christian fundamentalist believes that these sayings are the exact words of Jesus. That is why I use the word "reflect" above.

Is this issue really worth so many lengthy posts by aa and Chaucer?

DCH (on my 15 min union authorized break, boss)

Chaucer

Many thanks for the necessary clarification --

And yes, this issue is worthwhile.

aa still maintains that a physical document that everyone knows was found in the 20th century has really not been found at all! -- and yet he wants to discuss its authenticity, as if the document is real?! HUH?! One can't have it both ways. Either a physical document exists or it doesn't. Either it's real or it isn't:banghead:

Chaucer

ApostateAbe

The academics who focus on a particular topic with intensity will also tend to think it is seriously important--no big surprise. The consensus seems to be that gThomas was first composed well after the canonical gospels, in the second century.

DCHindley

Isn't aa's point that all references to a historical Jesus in the NT or early Christian literature are fabrications? I do not think that he denies that the GoT existed, only that it represents the words of a real Jesus.

Personally I think that GoT is indeed derivative of the canonical gospels (plus maybe a stray oral tradition or two). That being said, in the past I have openly wondered whether the Q source (which I do think is likely to be real) was derived from a collection of ANE wisdom sayings attributed to someone other than Jesus, which were incorporated into Matt/Luke to take the rough edge off of the real life messianist Jesus, so as to "explain" how Jesus and Christians have been misunderstood.

By the time the gospels were written, Christians were no longer messianists (looking towards the establishment of a world wide kingdom of God to replace the Roman empire) but more of a mystery religion. It would be natural to "reform" their founder Jesus from a political figure to a wisdom figure.

DCH (on my lunch break, boss)

Chaucer

That's emphatically not what aa says in the OP of this thread, though. In the OP, he states that no sayings document of any kind whatsoever has ever been found at all, period. Now that is patently incorrect. If that were correct, then how could aa possibly go on to reference the degree of authenticity in the GoT in subsequent postings? That argues for the objective existence of such a document after all.

Now either the GoT exists or it doesn't. If it does, then we do have a sayings document of some kind after all -- it doesn't matter of what kind -- and the OP is thus manifestly in error. If it doesn't, then how can aa possibly gauge such a document's authenticity at all if he never concedes that the OP's claim of such a document's non-existence is manifestly in error?! There is clearly an inherent contradiction here. That contradiction has to be resolved first. aa has to concede first that _some_ kind of sayings document has indeed been found and that his OP is thus in total error, before we can possibly engage him on any degrees of authenticity in such a document at all.

So, until aa concedes that his OP is entirely incorrect, any subsequent exchange here on authenticity is inherently illogical. aa remains caught in a contradiction here. He has to concede that the OP is entirely erroneous first before it makes any sense for anyone here, let alone aa, to discuss such a document's degree of authenticity at all.

If anyone wants to discuss the authenticity of GoT now, that is matter for another thread, not this one. This thread is defined by its OP (as every thread is). The OP has opined that a GoT-type document has never been found. Very well: That then is the effective topic for this thread (and thank you, Toto, for isolating it): So, has a Thomas-like document ever been found? True or false? That's the topic _here_.

I would say the answer to the OP is that a Thomas-type document has indeed been found, and found at Nag Hammadi, and found at Nag Hammadi during the past century, and that that document found at Nag Hammadi during the past century is the GoT. So, in answer to the question, true or false, the answer is it's true, and we have objective data to back that up: to wit, the ms. itself and the excavation digs at Nag Hammadi and the accounts of researchers at Nag Hammadi. In fact, Toto agrees with me on all this. So why can't aa?

Either such a document has been found or it hasn't been found. The answer is objectively verifiable, and that answer is the sole topic of this thread as duly defined by a remark in its OP, unless and until the erroneous statement in its OP is explicitly withdrawn by its writer.

Chaucer

aa5874

You are really a little behind. It is NOT the mythological information about Alexander the Great that caused him to be deemed a figure of history.

You must understand that.

It was the historical information, artifacts, and archaeological findings.

And that is exactly what is missing from Jesus.

Jesus is all mythology, no history, artifacts or archaeological findings.

And even worse, his supposed followers, his very disciples, cannot be accounted by any historical sources of antiquity.

You mean that by simply guessing that there was a cult leader named Jesus that there was a cult leader?

You don't understand that Jesus cannot be guessed into existence.

You must provide some credible source of antiquity that can show Jesus did exist and was just a mere man.

And, the explanation that Jesus was just a cult leader is NOT a simple solution, it is FAR MORE COMPLEX than you probably have envisage.

If Jesus was just a cult leader and was known to be only a cult leader in Galilee for almost 30 years and then executed for blasphemy then how did Jesus managed to be deified by Jews who have no history of deification of mere men?

If Jesus was just a cult leader who told the Galilleans that Jesus was raised from the dead, could save mankind from sin and to abolish the Laws of God including circumcision?


But, you have not even demonstrated that there actually was a small sub-set of Judaism who actually deified Jesus.

You must show that there was likely to be Jews who would have deified humans using some credible source of antiquity.

You must understand that it is also plausible that there was no small subset of Judaism that would have deified a man.

Let us set the record straight. I can present historical sources that will show that it was UNLIKELY that Jews would have deified a man. I can present the writings of Josephus and Philo.

Now, you must be able to present some historical source to show that Jews would be likely to deify Jesus. Plausibility is really a neutral factor.

Based on Josephus, a mere loner, Jesus son of Ananus, was beaten to a pulp and then declared a mad-man, just for saying "Woe unto Jerusalem".

I shudder to think what would have happened to a cult leader in Judea if he himself or his followers claimed he was the son of the God of the Jews with the power to forgive sin and that the Laws of God were to be abolished including circumcision.

And further, based on Josephus, Pilate had caused Jews to be massacred
because they protested against him for trying to install effigies of the Emperor.

Perhaps Jesus was a cult leader is a simply explanation OUTSIDE of Judea, but certainly not in Judea.

If Josephus is true with respect to Jesus son of Ananus, and Jesus was just a cult leader then the NT is a pack of lies.

After examining the NT, Church and Apocryphal writings, with Philo and Josephus, a far better solution is that the Jesus story was fabricated and that Jesus, his disciples and Paul are all invented 1st century characters.

But, when I examine the Synoptics, it would appear to me that the initial Jesus story was NOT really about the salvation of mankind.

In the Synoptics, Jesus did NOT teach his disciples that he was to die for the sins of mankind and that his death and resurrection would signify the end of the Laws of God including circumcision.

The message in the Synoptics is that because the Jews caused Jesus, the Son of God, to be killed innocently, the Jewish Temple would be destroyed and that there would be a conflagration within a short time or within a generation. People alive in the generation of Jesus would see him coming in the clouds on the right hand of Power.

So, the world as it was known then would have been no more.

Now, if Jesus was just a story, then I expect no actual historical evidence of him, his parents, siblings, and his disciples outside of the NT and Church writings.

And that is exactly what has happened.

But even better and most surprising is that even internally, there are many discrepancies about Jesus with regards to his age and activities on earth.

Now, there is a supposed christian writer Justin Martyr, although believing in Jesus, could not account for the activities of the disciples after he assumed Jesus ascended to heaven.

And that is exactly what I expect once Jesus was just a story.

Justin Martyr even though writing about events during the time of Claudius, between 41-54 CE, did NOT mention one single event as found in Acts of the Apostles and not one single Epistles by anyone to any Church or any person.

Justin Martyr has no post-ascension history for the Apostles anywhere.

He wrote nothing about the day of Pentecost, one of the most important post ascension event, when the disciples were all filled with the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues

He did not even write that Cephas/Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that he was martyred with Paul around the same time. Justin did not write about any Church structure of bishops, deacons and presbyters and in his writings did NOT mention a single bishop or the name of his bishop.

Now, this is exactly what I expect once Jesus was just a story. As soon as Jesus disappears in the story every one disappears with him.

After Jesus ascended to heaven, Justin only wrote about Simon Magus and Menader. He wrote nothing about the activities of Peter, Saul/Paul, James, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Mary, Jude, or Barnabas.

And what will Justin use to prove Jesus was on earth? Justin will use predictions in Hebrew Scripture because he could not find any history of Jesus himself.

Based on Justin Martyr, Jesus was just a story. And it would appear that at least Acts of the Apostles was a pack of lies. The events in Acts of the Apostles appear to have been invented and were known to be false.

Chaucer

Oops. Thread creep. We're discussing here the existence/non-existence of the GoT. Please take this elsewhere.

You're welcome.

To aa: You claim in your OP for this thread that no physical Jesus-sayings document of any stamp or of any kind has ever been found. Are you ready yet to concede that that statement in the OP for this thread is totally in error? And how can you possibly go on to subsequently query the authenticity of a physical document of precisely the type that you claim in your OP has never been found at all? That's illogical and a contradiction. Are you somehow clairvoyant, or is the remark in your OP incorrect, and has such a document indeed been found after all?

Which is it?

Chaucer

Toto

Chaucer: stop belaboring the obvious.

If aa5874 thinks that all the gThomas material is forgery or otherwise inauthentic, then it is not a sayings document to him, whatever it claims to be.

You want him to say "uncle." He's not going to.

I also included in this thread another digression of aa5874's that too many people have gone around with - whether ancient documents containing supernatural elements can be used for historical purposes. That's what aa is discussing with Civil1z@tion. aa5874 will not give an inch on that issue either.

This is starting to violate the basic rule of internet discussions - it is getting boring. If no one has anything new to say, the thread will be closed.