Page 8 of 10

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:29 am
by Giuseppe
mlinssen wrote:
Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:02 am
as such Jesus was perceived as someone from Samaria
Then he was probably not Jesus, but John the Baptist.

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:07 pm
by Bernard Muller
I got many clues that gThomas is a 2nd century CE work.
The arguments supporting a late writing for gThomas are in http://historical-jesus.info/thomas.html, starting at: 2. Prologue and five logions
At the end of the passage about dating, I wrote:
The 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).
Cordially, Bernard

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:30 am
by davidmartin
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

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:21 am
by mlinssen
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
Hi David,

John Hyrcanus destroyed Mount Gerizim and its temple, and most of Samaria, around 110 BCE. Then in 6-9 CE the Samarians weren't allowed any longer to worship at the Jerusalem temple. And that after centuries of struggle and feud about who was the better Israeli, and who had the better Temple in the eyes of their god. Blazing hate, David, nothing less

Thomas 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

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. But I'll leave it alone, dialogue is not possible there, alas

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:39 am
by Bernard Muller
to davidmartin,
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)!"
This is only one argument for a late dating. I have many others:
The 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).
http://historical-jesus.info/thomas.html
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
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.

Cordially, Bernard

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:20 pm
by Bernard Muller
to mlinssen,
Thomas 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 27: ... if you keep not the Sabbath as Sabbath, you will not see the Father
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?
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.
So what is you point of view? And what evidence do you have to support it (except by some perceived generalities)?
But I'll leave it alone, dialogue is not possible there, alas
Good excuse for not answering my questions, including the most difficult ones for you to address.

Cordially, Bernard

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:25 pm
by davidmartin
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.

Cordially, Bernard
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 recon
I'm not sure if you believe in a historical Jesus as i do but doing so permits there to have been a historical Mary also, so it's quite easy to envisage how a close female follower be the one consistent detail in all the accounts. I think it there was no tradition at all Mary would never had the role we see it would be a male role and the interplay with Peter and male disciples point to some difficulty the gospel writers had in this area
I suspect some earlier resurrection account may not have had a full bodily resurrection but rather a visionary type of appearance as well, which later had to made more explicitly physical.. from a distance not so different though!
Ode 19 another one
Anyway yes I like your site and Paul dating materials, just see a few certain things differently

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:08 am
by mlinssen
Bernard Muller wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:20 pm
to mlinssen,
Thomas 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 27: ... if you keep not the Sabbath as Sabbath, you will not see the Father
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?
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.
So what is you point of view? And what evidence do you have to support it (except by some perceived generalities)?
But I'll leave it alone, dialogue is not possible there, alas
Good excuse for not answering my questions, including the most difficult ones for you to address.

Cordially, Bernard
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

Thomas invented the whole character of John the Baptist, I've said and demonstrated that a few times out here but it's also in my Absolute Thomasine priority.

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:10 pm
by Bernard Muller
to mlinssen and Ben and Greek experts,
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
Strange translation. I would like to know about Ben's take about it (or/and from other Greek experts on this forum).

Cordially, Bernard

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:32 pm
by mlinssen
Bernard Muller wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:10 pm
to mlinssen and Ben and Greek experts,
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
Strange translation. I would like to know about Ben's take about it (or/and from other Greek experts on this forum).

Cordially, Bernard
Bernard, you can actually use my translation to verify whatever you find strange.
But, for starters, you could, for a change, actually say what you find strange and why you find it strange

Because what really is strange is that you just find it strange, while at the same time calling for help from others

I'm right here Bernard, it's my translation. You could ask me?