James the Just in the gospel of Thomas.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: James the Just in the gospel of Thomas.

Post by mlinssen »

Back to topic: it helps if you read what it says, before going off

Jacob the Righteous is the literal translation:

ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲛ̄ⲓ̄ⲥ̄ϫⲉ ⲧⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ϫⲉ ⲕ ⲛⲁ ⲃⲱⲕ` ⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲟⲧ ⲛ̄ⲛⲓⲙ` ⲡⲉ ⲉⲧ ⲛⲁ ⲣ̄ⲛⲟϭ ⲉ ϩⲣⲁÏ ⲉϫⲱ ⲛ ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲓ̄ⲥ̄ⲛⲁ ⲩ ϫⲉ ⲡ ⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲉⲓ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲩ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁ ⲃⲱⲕ` ϣⲁ Ïⲁⲕⲱⲃⲟⲥ ⲡ ⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲉⲓ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁ ⲧ ⲡⲉ ⲙⲛ̄ⲡ ⲕⲁϩ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲃⲏⲧ ϥ̄

Ïⲁⲕⲱⲃⲟⲥ ⲡ ⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ, https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C8783
Genesis 28:11 And he came to a certain place and stayed there that night, because the sun had set.
Taking one of the stones of the place, he put it under his head and lay down in that place to sleep.12 And he dreamed, and behold, there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven. And behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it! 13 And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, "I am the LORD, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring. 14 Your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south, and in you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed. 15 Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land. For I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you."
16 Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, "Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it." 17 And he was afraid and said, "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven." 18 So early in the morning Jacob took the stone that he had put under his head and set it up for a pillar and poured oil on the top of it. 19 He called the name of that place Bethel, but the name of the city was Luz at the first.
20 Then Jacob made a vow, saying, "If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, 21 so that I come again to my father's house in peace, then the LORD shall be my God, 22 and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God's house. And of all that you give me I will give a full tenth to you."
Genesis 32:24 And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. 25 When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. 26 Then he said, "Let me go, for the day has broken." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me."
27 And he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob." 28 Then he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." 29 Then Jacob asked him, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And there he blessed him.
30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered." 31 The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob's hip on the sinew of the thigh.
Thomas tells the ignorant disciples to bugger off to Israel, the proud Judeans, the epitome of which also is Jacob the "Righteous", their poster child who cheated his brother and father and built his kingdom on top of deceit and manipulation

All the loathing, hate, anti Judean sentiments and all: it runs deep, very deep, in Thomas. If this is the source to all of Christianity, it is no wonder that the anti Judean resentments are so very present in all its echoes...

James David Audlin interprets the "hip socket scene" as Esau (the "angel") anally penetrating Jacob. That's another story, perhaps
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6845
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: James the Just in the gospel of Thomas.

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:53 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:08 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:15 pmIf the main character in Thomas is not the Christian Jesus, then how would you know he was based on Yeshua/Joshua/Ἰησοῦς? What are the clues?

The lack of core tropes of / narratives about the Christian Jesus: the lack of baptism; no reference to Galilee, Judea, or Jerusalem; no Passover/Last Supper meal (and no account of his crucifixion or death, other than essentially the Parable of the [Wicked] Tenants in (65); and, no resurrection (Thomas 12.1-2 essentially denies it)).
I truly do not understand. How do we know a character is based on Yeshua/Joshua just by a list of tropes that character does not display?
My answer was absentmindedly limited; to aspects that suggested the author did not reflect the Christian Jesus, and thus may not have known that Ἰησοῦς/Jesus.

My point about the Thomasine IC character perhaps being based on the Hebrew Yeshua/Joshua was also b/c of the use of the nomem sacrum to identify him and the fact you have pointed out that nomina sacra have been used for Yeshua/Joshua in renditions of the Hebrew scriptures, such as in the book of Joshua http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 77#p111877, and in Numbers and Deuteronomy http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 99#p111899 (though most of those are the suspended forms, not contracted, whatever that may mean).

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:53 pm (Also, Judea is referred to in the gospel of Thomas.)
60? A Samaritan carrying a lamb on his way to Judea?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: James the Just in the gospel of Thomas.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:04 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:53 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:08 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:15 pmIf the main character in Thomas is not the Christian Jesus, then how would you know he was based on Yeshua/Joshua/Ἰησοῦς? What are the clues?

The lack of core tropes of / narratives about the Christian Jesus: the lack of baptism; no reference to Galilee, Judea, or Jerusalem; no Passover/Last Supper meal (and no account of his crucifixion or death, other than essentially the Parable of the [Wicked] Tenants in (65); and, no resurrection (Thomas 12.1-2 essentially denies it)).
I truly do not understand. How do we know a character is based on Yeshua/Joshua just by a list of tropes that character does not display?
My answer was absentmindedly limited; to aspects that suggested the author did not reflect the Christian Jesus, and thus may not have known him.

My point about the Thomasine IC character perhaps being based on the Hebrew Yeshua/Joshua was also b/c of the use of the nomem sacrum to identify him and the fact you have pointed out that nomina sacra have been used for Yeshua/Joshua in renditions of the Hebrew scriptures, such as in the book of Joshua http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 77#p111877, and in Numbers and Deuteronomy http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 99#p111899 ....
Okay, but then, if the nomina sacra apply to the gospel of Thomas in the usual way, then the Thomasine ΙΣ is actually Ἰησοῦς. ΙΣ = Ἰησοῦς, by the rules of the nomina sacra. There is no ambiguity.

If ΙΣ is not a nomen sacrum, then I can see no real connection to Joshua/Yeshua, except insofar as the character known as ΙΣ might remind us of Ἰησοῦς in whatever manner.

But also, remember, Ἰησοῦς was simply the ordinary way of expressing Yeshua in Greek. It was the sixth most popular name for Jewish men at the time, according to the tally undertaken by Tal Ilan. Josephus writes of numerous men named Ἰησοῦς, some of them predating "our" Ἰησοῦς by a century or more. Philo speaks of the Hebrew hero Yeshua as Ἰησοῦς, simply because Philo is writing in Greek. There is nothing inherently magical about the name, and nothing which automatically points to Yeshua the successor of Moses, any more than naming a boy Tom in our culture automatically points to Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States.

All of the arguments you have seen on this forum and in books which connect Yeshua/Jesus the Son of God to the hero Yeshua/Jesus from the Hexateuch are based on textual data, not just on the name itself. The name is just one element of many.
(though most of those are the suspended forms, not contracted, whatever that may mean)
ΙΗΣΟΥΣ is the word which we transliterate as Jesus. If you suspend the word, you take only the first two or three letters: ΙΗ or ΙΗΣ. If you contract the word, you take only the first and last letter: ΙΣ. Suspension versus contraction.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:53 pm (Also, Judea is referred to in the gospel of Thomas.)
60? A Samaritan carrying a lamb on his way to Judea?
Yes.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6845
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: James the Just in the gospel of Thomas.

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:31 pm
Okay, but then, if the nomina sacra apply to the gospel of Thomas in the usual way, then the Thomasine ΙΣ is actually Ἰησοῦς. ΙΣ = Ἰησοῦς, by the rules of the nomina sacra. There is no ambiguity.

... Ἰησοῦς was simply the ordinary way of expressing Yeshua in Greek ... Philo speaks of the Hebrew hero Yeshua as Ἰησοῦς, simply because Philo is writing in Greek.
Yes. Yeshua is a Hebrew hero: Ἰησοῦς in Greek.

Are you saying the nomen sacrum / nomina sacra ascribed to Yeshua/Ἰησοῦς are always different to the nonem sacrum / nomina sacra ascribed to the Christian Ἰησοῦς/Jesus?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: James the Just in the gospel of Thomas.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:42 pmAre you saying the nomen sacrum / nomina sacra ascribed to Yeshua/Ἰησοῦς are always different to the nonem sacrum / nomina sacra ascribed to the Christian Ἰησοῦς/Jesus?
No, not at all. Precisely the opposite. When the name of Yeshua/Joshua the Hebrew hero is abbreviated, it is abbreviated in the same way as Yeshua/Jesus the Son of God.

(Some manuscripts will abbreviate the name of the Son of God and leave the name of the Hebrew hero written out in full; other manuscripts abbreviate both; still other manuscripts abbreviate most instances of the name but not all, regardless of to whom it applies. The nomina sacra are pervasive, but not universal.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: James the Just in the gospel of Thomas.

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:04 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:53 pm (Also, Judea is referred to in the gospel of Thomas.)
60? A Samaritan carrying a lamb on his way to Judea?
Unpublished as of yet, but here is my translation. Initially it says

ⲁ- ⲟⲩ- ⲥⲁⲙⲁⲣⲉⲓⲧⲏⲥ ⲉ- ⲛⲧⲟϥ ϥⲓ ⲛ ⲛ ⲟⲩ- ϩⲓⲉⲓⲃ ⲉ- ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲃⲱⲕ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉ- ⲧ- ⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓⲁ
did a(n) Samaritan he carry a(n) lamb he go inward to the(F) Judeah

When you split the text that way. Yet the text is

ⲁ ⲩ ⲥⲁⲙⲁⲣⲉⲓⲧⲏⲥ ⲉ ϥ ϥⲓ ⲛ̄ ⲛ ⲟⲩ ϩⲓⲉⲓⲃ` ⲉ ϥ ⲃⲏⲕ` ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉ ϯ ⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓⲁ

Mind you, Coptic and similar ancient texts are one single consecutive letter blob; no spaces, periods, commas: no interpunction at all save for reading marks that are barely standardised, and limited to single points that easily fade over time. So that is where a lot of interpretation can come from as well, not merely cutting a sentence up in phrases, but cutting words up in letters

If you contract ⲁ ⲩ you get ⲁⲩ.
If you contract ⲛ ⲟⲩ you get ⲛⲟⲩ.

Come Samaritan(s), [he] carry their lambs! [He] Fuck Judeah

Hardly any distinction in Coptic between singular and plural nouns!

Yes... "Go in inside" has a sexual connotation, http://coptot.manuscriptroom.com/crum-c ... &pageID=30: ⲃⲱⲕ (ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ), https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C388

It has always been an awkward logion, without the usual introduction of "IS says" not anything else. The preceding logion ends with "behold" and perhaps that belongs here as well, is what some like to propose.
The imperative in Coptic, according to Plumley https://www.freelyreceive.net/metalogos ... lumley.pdf ($ 242) is just the verb, and the "he" would stand in the way twice there - I do like to tackle myself, yes!

But it is such an usual logion where Thomas doesn't make use of the Samaritan at all, that there must be something behind it. And then there's John with his awkward Q&A in 8:48, yet that same John ruthlessly undermines the entire John B scheme as well..

And yes, I suspect Thomas to be Samarian. That's still fresh, a few weeks old, so tender LOL
davidmartin
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: James the Just in the gospel of Thomas.

Post by davidmartin »

Ben, here's a question for you!
Which gives more information about the historical Jesus - Paul or Gospel of Thomas?

Let's see:
Paul
Jesus was born of a woman, he was poor, he had 12 disciples, he was captured and crucified, he taught the eucharist
Did i miss any?

Thomas
Jesus was born of a woman (he refs his earthly mother), he had disciples, he was a healer, he preached in parables, this took place somewhere in the holy land, he knows of John the baptist, he pays his taxes, he challenges certain religious customs, he will be called 'a son of a whore'.
Then there's all the parallels in the sayings to Jesus of the canonicals, like 'son of the living one' talk of 'The Father', theological similarities

Paul says almost nothing about Jesus, Thomas has way more
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: James the Just in the gospel of Thomas.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:59 pm Ben, here's a question for you!
Which gives more information about the historical Jesus - Paul or Gospel of Thomas?

Let's see:
Paul
Jesus was born of a woman, he was poor, he had 12 disciples, he was captured and crucified, he taught the eucharist
Did i miss any?
I am not sure I think there even was an historical Jesus, so your question is hard for me to answer. But I can say that Paul may give even less information than what you list here. I doubt that "born of a woman" was in the Marcionite version of Galatians, and Paul may not have written it; I suspect that much of 1 Corinthians 15.3-11, too, is an interpolation; and I have argued much the same concerning 1 Corinthians 11.23-28.

I am by no means certain of these conclusions, but there they are, for due consideration.

On the other hand, Paul refers to "words" or "commands of the Lord" at various points, and many of them map out onto sayings from the gospels:

1 Corinthians 7.10-13: 10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord [οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀλλ᾽ ὁ κύριος], that the wife should not leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife (= Matthew 5.27-28, 31-32; 19.3-11; Mark 10.2-12; Luke 16.18). 12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord [λέγω ἐγὼ οὐχ ὁ κύριος], that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. .... 25 Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord [ἐπιταγὴν κυρίου οὐκ ἔχω], but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.

1 Corinthians 9.14: 14 So also the Lord ordered [ὁ κύριος διέταξεν] those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel (= Matthew 10.10b; Luke 10.7; Didache 11.1-12; 13.1-7; Thomas 14.4; 1 Timothy 5.17-18).

1 Corinthians 14.26-40: 26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. 36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment [ἃ γράφω ὑμῖν ὅτι κυρίου ἐστὶν ἐντολή]. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. 39 Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. 40 But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.

2 Corinthians 11.17: 17 What I am saying, I am not saying according to the Lord [οὐ κατὰ κύριον λαλῶ], but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. 18 Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also.

1 Thessalonians 4.1-2: 1 Finally then, brethren, we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God (just as you actually do walk), that you excel still more. 2 For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus [τίνας παραγγελίας ἐδώκαμεν ὑμῖν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησου].

1 Thessalonians 4.15-17: 15 For this we say to you, by a word of the Lord [ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου], that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God (= Matthew 24.29-31; Mark 13.24-27; Luke 21.25-27; Didache 16.6-8); and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord.

2 Thessalonians 3.6: 6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ [παραγγέλλομεν δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ], that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.

So does Paul know these words or commands as a body of sayings attributed to Jesus ("the Lord")? Or are they attributed to Jesus only after Paul is off the scene? Right now I lean toward the second option, but I have leaned toward the first before, and there is no guarantee I will never lean in that direction again.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
davidmartin
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: James the Just in the gospel of Thomas.

Post by davidmartin »

Ben, interesting points i'm learning where you're coming from in this
I am not sure I think there even was an historical Jesus, so your question is hard for me to answer. But I can say that Paul may give even less information than what you list here. I doubt that "born of a woman" was in the Marcionite version of Galatians, and Paul may not have written it; I suspect that much of 1 Corinthians 15.3-11, too, is an interpolation; and I have argued much the same concerning 1 Corinthians 11.23-28.
I agree with this
It's possible that some of the limited references Paul makes to earthly Jesus are interpolations to oppose Marcion
Also the 'eucharist' command may have been Paul's own composition or re-working of something
That leaves only the crucifixion of someone (who?) and little else, and that is Paul's gospel

I do advocate for a historical Jesus so the problem is now why Paul doesn't
Well, the answer for me Paul himself declares when he says to 'no longer think of Christ in an earthly way' 2 Cor 5:16
In other words, 'don't think of the earthly Jesus or his words this has all passed and now Christ is spiritual, think of him in that way and i'm his representative now'. That's Paul's gospel
He specifically does not want to quote Jesus or refer to his earthly life. He teaches against this categorically
Why does he do this? Because he's Paul
So does Paul know these words or commands as a body of sayings attributed to Jesus ("the Lord")? Or are they attributed to Jesus only after Paul is off the scene? Right now I lean toward the second option, but I have leaned toward the first before, and there is no guarantee I will never lean in that direction again.
Does Paul ever refer to commands handed down by Jesus? I haven't checked but I don't think he does
This is Christ giving the commands through him by revelation not by some previous written list of commands that he received physically that might go back to a historical Jesus
I think they existed but they are obsolete and he'd say were propagated by corrupt disciples
His new commands supercede any others doing the rounds that might have been from a historical Jesus
Does that work?

I think originally Paul's own churches shunned the gospels when they came out (the 'Jewish myths' of the pastorals?), but that situation didn't last too many decades but later his churches did adopt them
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: James the Just in the gospel of Thomas.

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:59 pm Ben, here's a question for you!

(mlinssen) I'll interfere if you don't mind, and even if you do ;)

Which gives more information about the historical Jesus - Paul or Gospel of Thomas?

Let's see:
Paul
Jesus was born of a woman, he was poor, he had 12 disciples, he was captured and crucified, he taught the eucharist
Did i miss any?

Italics are mine: I added white space to the original text, then added my comment in italics

Thomas
Jesus was born of a woman (he refs his earthly mother), he had disciples,

he was a healer - no, he doesn't heal anyone by himself, he only instructs to heal the sick. And with that he means people living dualised lives, "in separation", but that's not relevant right now. The Jesus of Thomas doesn't heal anyone.
Accordingly, Jesus doesn't actually baptise anyone by himself in the canonicals...


, he preached in parables - spoke in parables... never combine two facts that each don't occur 100% of the time, with one another, because you'll end up suggesting that all parables were preaching, or vice versa, or that he preached only in parables, etc

this took place somewhere in the holy land - how so? No geographical indication whatsoever. "Near the holy land" is equally suggestive, the only indicator is that they see "a Samarian going into Judeah" - which could be from anywhere, really: Perea, Galilee, Phoenicia, Egypt - even the Mediterranean Sea is candidate, however unlikely. Possible? Yes. But it's not meant literally, I would think. Are they really standing on the border and watching that Samarian, really?

, he knows of John the baptist,

he pays his taxes - sorry, no, he doesn't. Come to think of it, it is much more likely that he is too bloody poor to pay taxes, because no tax payer in his sane mind would ever even condone paying taxes, let alone exhort - most certainly not when those are expressed in gold

, he challenges certain religious customs, he will be called 'a son of a whore'.
Then there's all the parallels in the sayings to Jesus of the canonicals, like 'son of the living one' talk of 'The Father',

theological similarities - most certainly none of those whatsoever, but please do give an example

Paul says almost nothing about Jesus, Thomas has way more
Post Reply