Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:29 am
Then he was probably not Jesus, but John the Baptist.
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Then he was probably not Jesus, but John the Baptist.
Cordially, BernardThe above postscript is not meant to "prove" GThomas is a 2nd century composition, but certainly, it strongly points to that time period, and from many paths ('Judas', 'Matthew', 'Mary', 'Salome', 'James', 'the just' , "secret" and Papias' writings).
Hi David,davidmartin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:30 am The trouble with calling Jesus or Thomas Samaritan is the difficulty of reconstructing how that term would have applied in the 1st century
You could see Samaria as a microcosm of the rest of Israel with it's own chief priests and similar sects and branches
you could be on to something but the challenge would be what it would mean to say that
i find it easier to think of Thomas as a kind of spirit-led subset of broader Judaism and it would be interesting to speculate whether such a form might once has been much more commonplace, eg it's a remnant of something older when prophets and prophecy and oracles were more active
I checked Bernard's reasons for 2nd century dating of Thomas. I'm unconvinced!
"Mary Magdalene is depicted in the Synoptics as only a distant follower, among other women (Mk15:40-41, Mt27:55-57, Lk8:1-3). But in GJohn, Mary Magdalene is singled out, and honored as the first one to see the resurrected Jesus, and promoted as 'the daughter of God' (Jn20:14-17). More, she calls Jesus "rabboni" (Jn20:16), an expression for "my teacher", implying she is a close disciple. That would certainly open the way for the treatment of Mary in Logion 21 (as a close confidante of Jesus) and in the 'Gospel of Mary' (where she is the disciple that Jesus loves best)!"
Who is to say the synoptics didn't downplay or fully recognise Mary's role? That would make this argument disappear in a puff of smoke
It's also quite easy to see Mary's role in the synoptics thus making the gospel of John not a later development but a more accurate representation of her role. He's really clutching at straws here lol
This is only one argument for a late dating. I have many others:I checked Bernard's reasons for 2nd century dating of Thomas. I'm unconvinced!
"Mary Magdalene is depicted in the Synoptics as only a distant follower, among other women (Mk15:40-41, Mt27:55-57, Lk8:1-3). But in GJohn, Mary Magdalene is singled out, and honored as the first one to see the resurrected Jesus, and promoted as 'the daughter of God' (Jn20:14-17). More, she calls Jesus "rabboni" (Jn20:16), an expression for "my teacher", implying she is a close disciple. That would certainly open the way for the treatment of Mary in Logion 21 (as a close confidante of Jesus) and in the 'Gospel of Mary' (where she is the disciple that Jesus loves best)!"
http://historical-jesus.info/thomas.htmlThe above postscript is not meant to "prove" GThomas is a 2nd century composition, but certainly, it strongly points to that time period, and from many paths ('Thomas'. 'Judas Thomas', 'Matthew', 'Mary', 'Salome', 'James', 'the just' , "secret" and Papias' writings).
Mary's role, about the first to see the resurrected Jesus, is just fiction. Jesus' resurrection is also fiction. Each gospel authors handled the bodily appearances of a resurrected Jesus differently, proving they did not work from a common tradition but rather their own thinking.Who is to say the synoptics didn't downplay or fully recognise Mary's role? That would make this argument disappear in a puff of smoke
It's also quite easy to see Mary's role in the synoptics thus making the gospel of John not a later development but a more accurate representation of her role. He's really clutching at straws here lol
Logion 27: ... if you keep not the Sabbath as Sabbath, you will not see the FatherThomas is vehemently anti-Judaic, it is a polemic against Judea, Pharisees, their religion, their stupid customs - verything. It most certainly is not part of Judaism
So what is you point of view? And what evidence do you have to support it (except by some perceived generalities)?I'm unconvinced by most if not all on Bernard's site, he merely quotes his cherished Church fathers and doesn't seem to have an issue with that lopsided point of view.
Good excuse for not answering my questions, including the most difficult ones for you to address.But I'll leave it alone, dialogue is not possible there, alas
I think you can see a template for it in the woman at the well which does have interesting parallels with the resurrection accounts and is another telling of the same thing i reconMary's role, about the first to see the resurrected Jesus, is just fiction. Jesus' resurrection is also fiction. Each gospel authors handled the bodily appearances of a resurrected Jesus differently, proving they did not work from a common tradition but rather their own thinking.
Cordially, Bernard
I can't blaim you for reading the wrong translations, there hardly are any othersBernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:20 pm to mlinssen,Logion 27: ... if you keep not the Sabbath as Sabbath, you will not see the FatherThomas is vehemently anti-Judaic, it is a polemic against Judea, Pharisees, their religion, their stupid customs - verything. It most certainly is not part of Judaism
Logion 46: Jesus said, "Among those born of women, from Adam until John the Baptist, there is no one so superior to John the Baptist that his eyes should not be lowered (before him). ...
Remark: Was gThomas compiled after John the Baptist's times?
So what is you point of view? And what evidence do you have to support it (except by some perceived generalities)?I'm unconvinced by most if not all on Bernard's site, he merely quotes his cherished Church fathers and doesn't seem to have an issue with that lopsided point of view.
Good excuse for not answering my questions, including the most difficult ones for you to address.But I'll leave it alone, dialogue is not possible there, alas
Cordially, Bernard
Strange translation. I would like to know about Ben's take about it (or/and from other Greek experts on this forum).I can't blaim you for reading the wrong translations, there hardly are any others
Thomas is joking about the dumb sabbath which he naturally detests:
ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ ⲧⲙ̄ ⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲙ̄ ⲡ ⲥⲁⲙⲃⲁⲧⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ ⲥⲁⲃ`ⲃⲁⲧⲟⲛ
you(PL) …not… make-be of the Sabbath the(PL) sABBAth
Do you see the difference between the two occurrences of the same word?
Do you also see the apostrophe? In the second word?
AB'BA
Make of the Sabbath Father's Days. Or else... You won't see the Father
Bernard, you can actually use my translation to verify whatever you find strange.Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:10 pm to mlinssen and Ben and Greek experts,Strange translation. I would like to know about Ben's take about it (or/and from other Greek experts on this forum).I can't blaim you for reading the wrong translations, there hardly are any others
Thomas is joking about the dumb sabbath which he naturally detests:
ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ ⲧⲙ̄ ⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲙ̄ ⲡ ⲥⲁⲙⲃⲁⲧⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ ⲥⲁⲃ`ⲃⲁⲧⲟⲛ
you(PL) …not… make-be of the Sabbath the(PL) sABBAth
Do you see the difference between the two occurrences of the same word?
Do you also see the apostrophe? In the second word?
AB'BA
Make of the Sabbath Father's Days. Or else... You won't see the Father
Cordially, Bernard