Gospel of Thomas? Pre or Post Synoptics?

[Hawthorne]

The precence of James the Just here seems odd here if Thomas post-dates the Synoptics. No parallel is found in the Synoptic sayings. Plus it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that the clearly Gnostic author/redactor of the Thomas would make up given that James is typically associated with the Ebionites - i.e. Christians who still maintained that the Laws of Moses should be followed (diet, circumcision and Sabbath observence etc.). I suspect this saying is a hang-over from some sort of pre-Synoptic source.

Thoughts?

I know of no early reference to "james the Just" so I don't know why that would be a problem for lateness. To me, it speaks to lateness. When is the earliest dateable reference to "James the Just?"

[nijjhar]

Hi Brethren,

These Gnostic Gospels are the True Representation of Christianity. The Messianic Jews on bringing into the Church of God, One Fold, headed by One Shepherd, Christ Jesus, the rotten old testament killed the spirit of Gospel and they created spiritually blind men of Letters.

Here is one example:-

John, the Baptist said that I am baptising you in water and the one coming after me much Mightier than me will Baptise you in Holy Spirit. That is John, the Baptist never baptised anyone in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Then, in whose name John, the Baptist baptised the Jewish men only and not any woman or a Gentile?

Let us see if you have the answer. In whose name John, the Baptist Baptised Jesus in water is a more difficult to answer question.

[DCHindley]

I know of no early reference to "James the Just" so I don't know why that would be a problem for lateness. To me, it speaks to lateness. When is the earliest dateable reference to "James the Just?"

Century II. Hegesippus, Five Books [on the History of the Church] (lost), fragment preserverd in Eusebius of Caesarea, History of the Church 2.23.3-25; History of the Church 4.22.3-6.

Late century II. Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposeis (again lost, of course), fragment preserved, again, miraculously, in Eusebius, History of the Church 2.1.3-6.

Early century III, Origen, Against Celsus 1.47b-d; 2.13; On Matthew 10.17.

Early century V, Jerome, On Famous Dudes 2

DCH

[Bernard Muller]

Also, the 2nd apocalypse of James (120-180) has "James the Just":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... james.html

Cordially, Bernard

[pakeha]

I think Goodacre is correct. It's early, though derivative of the synoptics. It's not as overtly Gnostic as some of the later tractates.

I agree. I put gThomas at around 120 CE.
My extensive webpage about gThomas:
http://historical-jesus.info/thomas.html
Cordially, Bernard

Thanks for the link, Bernard.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

This is a problem and it is a big one. The gap is 20 to 50 years. Paul's "Church" is *supposedly* making great strides in growth and acceptance. Paul, however, received his vision from "No Man". There is literally no need for ANY "HIstory" for a "Jesus". "If you do not need works to get into Heaven then why are you telling me about Jesus' WORKS?" The "Churches" carry no command to collate sayings, keep new Holy-Days or describe miracles. The Gospels are a record, supposedly, of a savior/god who has writings describing him, praising him, telling us what he said...and there is no reason for any of it. "In Paul we have little information about the "earthly" Jesus..." Yes. Exactly.

Thus, either "Paul's success with the Churches" is a lie or the assumption that Paul wrote first may be challenged.

CW

Hi Charles,

unfortunately we can only speculate here. But I do not think that this circumstance is a bigger problem. If there were different Christian groups who competed for the right understanding of Jesus Christ (Paul's letters indicate that), then it was a very good idea to write a great story about the ministry of the earthly Jesus Christ to indicate and commit the “right” interpretation. To me it seems much more problematic to assume that Paul knew this story, but has only very few details in his letters mentioned.

But I can understand that the assumption “Paul wrote first” is a major problem for a “Roman” interpretation (and not only for these).

[toejam]

The precence of James the Just here seems odd here if Thomas post-dates the Synoptics. No parallel is found in the Synoptic sayings. Plus it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that the clearly Gnostic author/redactor of the Thomas would make up given that James is typically associated with the Ebionites - i.e. Christians who still maintained that the Laws of Moses should be followed (diet, circumcision and Sabbath observence etc.). I suspect this saying is a hang-over from some sort of pre-Synoptic source.

Thoughts?

I know of no early reference to "james the Just" so I don't know why that would be a problem for lateness. To me, it speaks to lateness. When is the earliest dateable reference to "James the Just?"

Yeah. I see your point. Had gThomas' Jesus said "You should go to James, my brother", the case would be stronger. I guess Hegesippus would be the earliest reference to "the just" (early/mid 2nd century). Prior to that he is simply known as "the Lor'd brother" and "a pillar [of the church]" by Paul, and simply "James" by the author of Acts. So yeah, you make an excellent point.

[PhilosopherJay]

Where or where is the Crucifixion in The Gospel of Thomas? The four NT gospels are all built around the crucifixion. Without the crucifixion the four gospels are a plotless mess. It is the centerpiece. It is what everything leads to or comes from. How could Thomas just ignore it?

It is like talking about ancient Egyptian architecture and never mentioning the pyramids. It is like talking about Neil Armstrong and never mentioning that he was the first Man to land on the Moon. It is like talking about Simone de Beauvoir and never mentioning that she wrote "the Second Sex." It is like talking about Romeo and Juliet and never mentioning that they were in love. It is like talking about Bruce Wayne and never mentioning that he is Batman.

And the only response to this argument is "Yes, aren't those gnostics diabolical?"

At the risk of being called out for using a word that does not mean what I think it means, my only response is, "Inconceivable!"

Warmly,
Jay Raskin

[Charles Wilson]

This is a problem and it is a big one. The gap is 20 to 50 years. Paul's "Church" is *supposedly* making great strides in growth and acceptance. Paul, however, received his vision from "No Man". There is literally no need for ANY "HIstory" for a "Jesus". "If you do not need works to get into Heaven then why are you telling me about Jesus' WORKS?" The "Churches" carry no command to collate sayings, keep new Holy-Days or describe miracles. The Gospels are a record, supposedly, of a savior/god who has writings describing him, praising him, telling us what he said...and there is no reason for any of it. "In Paul we have little information about the "earthly" Jesus..." Yes. Exactly.

Thus, either "Paul's success with the Churches" is a lie or the assumption that Paul wrote first may be challenged.

CW

Hi Charles,

unfortunately we can only speculate here. But I do not think that this circumstance is a bigger problem. If there were different Christian groups who competed for the right understanding of Jesus Christ (Paul's letters indicate that), then it was a very good idea to write a great story about the ministry of the earthly Jesus Christ to indicate and commit the “right” interpretation. To me it seems much more problematic to assume that Paul knew this story, but has only very few details in his letters mentioned.

But I can understand that the assumption “Paul wrote first” is a major problem for a “Roman” interpretation (and not only for these).

Thank you, KK. My point was a logical one (not necessarily historical) that once Paul makes the logical break with the past then there is no need to have what we have. If Paul existed, there could have been many alternatives created. Try to get from the Big Bang to me at the computer screen on a beautiful spring day and the Statistics are 1/Googolplex impossible - yet here I am.

There is also deceit. Someone takes out a crayon and writes "L - U - K - E" and then screams, "Thus I refute Marcion!! Does his copy have a name on it?!??"

To posit that, "...there were different Christian groups who competed for the right understanding of Jesus Christ..." is speculation as well but I point this out not as a criticism. How do we make sense of the separate facts that do not appear upon examination to be related? I look at the "Q" material and find references to Jannaeus and Domitian and many in between but others are quite content to posit a "Q Community" that studied the collected sayings of SOMEONE. This thread got started on the "Gospel of Thomas". Is this a laundry list of sayings that needed to get rewritten for an upcoming Religion that moves to Rome? Or was it a legitimate collection of sayings?

To me it seems much more problematic to assume that Paul knew this story, but has only very few details in his letters mentioned.

I agree. At this point, I take this evidence as indicating that "Paul existed as given" is a false choice. My internal analysis tells me that "Paul" was created or, if historical, was someone from an entirely different Scene (Probably Roman). We are being led down a pretty path to a Potemkin Village.

You are correct in identifying the tension here.

CW

[andrewcriddle]

Where or where is the Crucifixion in The Gospel of Thomas? The four NT gospels are all built around the crucifixion. Without the crucifixion the four gospels are a plotless mess. It is the centerpiece. It is what everything leads to or comes from. How could Thomas just ignore it?

Saying 55 in the Gospel of Thomas may be relevant

Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me."

It suggests that the author(s) of Thomas were aware of sayings by Jesus alluding to crucifixion, although he/they made little use of them.

Andrew Criddle