Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

[mlinssen]

The interesting suggestion of Thomas priority is that the IS figure in Thomas is the true figure of the Jesus of the gospels
In order words the gospels portray in their own way the person found in Thomas - that is, a mystical teacher

If you look at the gospels the Jesus in them is pretty much a mystical teacher, so Thomas is in harmony with that undercurrent
The Jesus of the gospels speaks in parables, isn't well understood, has to explain his teachings
The appeal of Thomas is that it perfectly fits, the argument against it amounts to 'it is too perfect so it must be false'

What it looks like is that orthodox Christianity appropriated this teacher at some early date and gave a partially true representation of him, which when you know where to look is preserved quite clearly in the gospels. But this view I'm expressing is deeply unpopular. Most of the non-apologists are trying to make this person a fiction so balk at the idea Thomas is authentic back to an actual person who lived - and on the other hand apologists are opposed to any hand that helps them unless it perfectly supports their rigid, dogmatic interpretations. The truth, then, has a fair old chance of being ignored and sidelined...

You hit the nail right on his head, david.
No one's theory is helped by Thomasine Priority, and the whole issue with Q is that it is essentially distilled from the agreements between Luke and Matthew that disagree with Mark - whereas indeed this true Quelle called Thomas is so very early that he perfectly complies with the original definition of Quelle, namely a pure sayings gospel without further ado

For which nobody has any use

[davidmartin]

I stopped believing in Q once someone suggested Mark was culled from an earlier version of Luke, all that's left is a sayings gospel just like Thomas
In the Trimorphic Protennoia a 'revealer' type of saviour is preserved that is more like that of Thomas "he revealed the everlasting things, and all the unknowns were known. And those things difficult to interpet and secret, he revealed. And as for those who dwell in Silence with the First Thought, he preached to them. And he revealed himself to those who dwell in darkness"
I just happen to think this is more like the original thing, but there's some massive holes and lots of time missing for how things evolved the way they did.

[mlinssen]

I stopped believing in Q once someone suggested Mark was culled from an earlier version of Luke, all that's left is a sayings gospel just like Thomas
In the Trimorphic Protennoia a 'revealer' type of saviour is preserved that is more like that of Thomas "he revealed the everlasting things, and all the unknowns were known. And those things difficult to interpet and secret, he revealed. And as for those who dwell in Silence with the First Thought, he preached to them. And he revealed himself to those who dwell in darkness"
I just happen to think this is more like the original thing, but there's some massive holes and lots of time missing for how things evolved the way they did.

Agreed, I did discover the similarities between Thomas and the Synoptics over 3 years ago but there was a gaping void.
Marcion fills that void and the difference between him and the NT is manifold, but in essence one retrieves core Marcion when Mark is stripped from all of his Judaism.
Still, we then have a narrative that is fairly developed already, almost half of Thomas with a narrative, story development - and I find that John fits perfectly in between

Thomas, John, *Ev / Chrestianity - which then gets countered by Mark, who in turn gets fixed by Matthew who redacts *Ev into Luke while writing his own on the side.
I really find that a very straightforward and plausible theory, although the textual evidence for throwing John in there has yet to be presented by me

But we can stick to these, we don't need any proto gospels.
I'm currently thoroughly enjoying Bilby and his level of detail is astonishing so I may change my point of view - who knows

[Leucius Charinus]

I'm currently thoroughly enjoying Bilby and his level of detail is astonishing so I may change my point of view - who knows

I understand he is gearing up to include Thomas in his data set collection whether in Greek or Coptic or both I have no idea atm. So you should make contact with him (if you haven't already) and make him aware of what you have done.

[MrMacSon]

I'm currently thoroughly enjoying Bilby and his level of detail is astonishing so I may change my point of view - who knows

I understand he is gearing up to include Thomas in his data set collection whether in Greek or Coptic or both I have no idea atm. So you should make contact with him (if you haven't already) and make him aware of what you have done.

I've captured in two consecutive posts in another thread most of what Bibly has said in his major work about the use of G.Thomas in Qn +/- G.Mcn :

1. viewtopic.php?p=149019#p149019
2. viewtopic.php?p=149020#p149020

[mlinssen]

I'm currently thoroughly enjoying Bilby and his level of detail is astonishing so I may change my point of view - who knows

I understand he is gearing up to include Thomas in his data set collection whether in Greek or Coptic or both I have no idea atm. So you should make contact with him (if you haven't already) and make him aware of what you have done.

I've captured in two consecutive posts in another thread most of what Bibly has said in his major work about the use of G.Thomas in Qn +/- G.Mcn :

1. viewtopic.php?p=149019#p149019
2. viewtopic.php?p=149020#p149020

Bilby identifies 8 logia from Thomas - so there remains more than considerable work to be done