Stephen. Little kids play that game ofStephenGoranson wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 3:33 am mlinssen. I am not sure how it would help if I wrote at length or repeat many times the message that I am not persuaded Coptic Thomas preceded Greek Thomas and Mark, Matthew and Luke. Suggestions of literary dependence, as I have written, are often less than probative. The many views of "the synoptic problem” bear that out. And, if, as you contest, Thomas is anti-Christian, why the synoptic authors would have hypothetically been drawn to it seems to me puzzling. [Added: Did any synoptic author read Coptic or was it translated very early, in your view?]
"It is!"
"'T is not!"
"Is!"
"Isn't"
and so on, you get the idea there, I think.
Arguments help to convince someone of what the other is thinking, feeling, contemplating - that's how life works really, where we get to understand each other based on exchanging that what lies behind our reasoning
Your message of not being persuaded is nothing like that, it lacks any and all literally critical arguments and rests solely on the general view that Coptic didn't come into existence until 3rd, at best 2nd - and I agreed from the start with such being the view
Thomas likely grew into a big movement, highly lonely that was via Marcion who turned it into a narrative, and then it was just a matter of ripping his words out of context and place those in the Judaic prophecy-fulfilling context of the canonicals. All that happened in Greek, and the copying errors were made by anyone, certainly not by Thomas himself if he indeed managed to distribute his Greek copy.
The Oxy papyrus already attest to many copying errors, most of which I discussed in viewtopic.php?p=123922#p123922
Propaganda, Stephen - Churchianity is nothing but religio-political rhetoric Propaganda. You take the words of your adversary and twist and turn them into your context - it's what the fiendly ogre still does, for example