Dating the Gospel of Thomas - Very Clear Clues to a Late Date

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Its only a minor thing but surely Jesus spoke Aramaic so obviously that was the language he taught in. The people around him, the public and disciples, some of whom were not educated men, must all have spoken that language also. Surely the records of what he taught would have initially been written in Aramaic. As the disciples and people spreading his teachings went abroad then the translations into the different languages would have happened. I appreciate that Jesus was an educated man and had studied abroad but the bulk of the people he set out to save were ordinary, probably poor and spoke Aramaic.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

That's still assuming an Aramaic version actually existed, which there is no evidence of apart from a very ambiguous quote from Papias which points more toward a list of sayings than an actual gospel with a story structure.

We know that Matthew's gospel doesn't have any of the tell-tale signs of being a translation from Aramaic, so it couldn't have been that, and there is no evidence for an Aramaic version at all, much less one translated from the Greek version. So your point is moot on all counts.

Why is every discussion with you like arguing with a three year old?

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III)

he there found his own arrival anticipated by some who there were acquainted with the gospel of Matthew, to whom Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached, and had left them the gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew, which was also preserved until this time. (Eusebius, on the travels of Pantaenus)

As I have understood from tradition, respecting the four gospels, which are the only undisputed ones in the whole church of God throughout the world. The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in the Hebrew. (Origen)

Matthew, also having first proclaimed the gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them, by his writings. (Eusebius)

Matthew -- who was also (called) Levi -- was an apostle and former tax-collector. He first composed the gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words in Judea for those from the circumcision who had believed. (St. Jerome)

Ideas like "there was once a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" don't just fall out of the sky -- they are usually rooted in some form of evidence, such as five church fathers I've cited that who said that there was one.

Try looking beyond wikipedia for information in the future.

reply to post by adjensen


And all of those quotes are based directly from what Papias said of Jesus' sayings.

I think I've found the link you got those quotes from, and if you had read a bit further down, you would have also seen this:

Like all such documents from antiquity (Plutarch provides a rough parallel), these "library histories" are only as good as their sources. It is quite possible that Papias (to whom most if not all of the quotes here should be attributed as the original source) was not a half bad collector of stories he had heard - but he was not writing inspired history.

LINK

So we're still stuck with the dilemma of the only evidence of Matthew --possibly-- writing a gospel in Hebrew coming from Papias, whose words do not directly point toward it being a gospel, but more along the lines of something like Thomas.

The quotes from those later church fathers that you listed are based on what Papias said, and Papias never mentions the sayings being a gospel with a story structure in any way.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yeah, whatever, as usual, I give up on you.

Everyone lied, including Eusebius, because they all thought Papias was so super awesome that they were willing to fabricate claims to the existence of a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, just... because.

(And no, my source was not the page that you've quoted there and in looking over his argument, it's pretty weak, because the statements that he cites which came after Papias are not derivative of what Papias said.)

reply to post by adjensen


I'm not saying anyone lied about anything, all I'm saying is that the source of those quotes you listed are based on what Papias said, and Papias never used the term "gospel" to describe the writings, he used "sayings" to describe them, which trumps the later quotes (which were more than likely based on Papias) calling it a gospel.

Maybe the later church fathers called the list of sayings (not story) a gospel just like Thomas is called a gospel, even though it has no story structure.

I never said anyone was lying, you just automatically assume I did. I don't know why you always have to get so defensive, geez.

Text Ideas like "there was once a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" don't just fall out of the sky -- they are usually rooted in some form of evidence, such as five church fathers I've cited that who said that there was one.

reply to post by adjensen


@ adjensen

Very good. I enjoyed that blog and yes you are one hundred percent correct. So many people have never read much concerning the Jerusalem Church which was the the first Christian Church to have ever existed and its liturgy was entirely Hebrew.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

I'm not saying anyone lied about anything, all I'm saying is that the source of those quotes you listed are based on what Papias said, and Papias never used the term "gospel" to describe the writings, he used "sayings" to describe them, which trumps the later quotes (which were more than likely based on Papias) calling it a gospel.

Now you're trying to say that the source of the quotes is Papias, in spite of the fact that they don't say what Papias says. That's what I mean about your insistence on starting arguments, even if you have to make up the facts to disagree with someone, just because you like to argue.

Papias never said anything about a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew being used in India, so either there was such a text, reported by a missionary to be in use in India, or Eusebius and/or the missionary lied about it, and what possible reason would they have to lie? Pantaenus gave an eyewitness account as to having seen this book, as detailed by both Eusebius and Jerome in historical reviews of the spread of Christianity to India.

From that, one can logically determine that it is likely (though not assured) that there was, indeed, such a text -- there is no hard evidence for it, but there is legitimate historical evidence for it.

reply to post by adjensen

Originally posted by adjensen
Okay, what about Peter? The first and second lines of saying #13 are reminiscent of this passage in Mark:
"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Messiah." (Mark 8:29 NIV)

Note that Peter's response to the question is different -- in one case, he is the Messiah, in another he is "a righteous angel". This is exactly in keeping with Gnosticism, which had no interest in Messiahs, but believed that Jesus was the neoplatonic equivalent of an angel, an aeon.

I think this is pretty flimsy evidence. Regarding Mark 8:29, Jesus states in Matthew 16, that this was revealed to him (Peter) by His Father in Heaven. Going with the hypothesis, that the “Gospel of Thomas” was written earlier than the 4 Canonical Gospels (which I believe at least parts of it, were), then it’s entirely possibly that Peter, at that time, was not yet aware that Jesus was the Messiah.

Which could actually give more credence to the “Gospel of Thomas” being an older work. Also, Jesus is pretty similar to an Angel, if you take into account various chapters in Daniel and a few others…

Originally posted by adjensen
One important thing to note here is that, in the time period we are considering, the First and Second Centuries, it was generally held that the Gospel of Mark was named after the scribe who wrote down the words of Peter, so that first gospel is really the Gospel of Peter.

The reason that is important is because of our odd man out, Matthew. The core of Apostles that surrounded Christ were Peter, Andrew, James and John. Matthew was a "second tier" Apostle, who only appears in the Bible in lists of Apostles, and one mention in each of the three gospels of how he was recruited by Jesus, so his inclusion here is odd, to say the least.

I’m not sure why you think his inclusion is odd…???

His appearance seems completely natural, regardless of whether you go with an older, or younger hypothesis…

***


The Gospel of Thomas is dated between AD 40 – 140; the disparity in dates is because of the competing theories, bewteen the younger and older scholary camps.

But the strange thing about all this, is that the 4 Canonical Gospels themselves, also have potentially younger dates…

Based on their first appearances in the historical record…the dates for the 4 Canonical Gospels would read as follows…

Luke 170 AD
Mark 175 AD
John 178 AD
Matthew 180 AD

So just going by a purely academic and historically approach, the “Gospel of Thomas” is older…

One of the key reasons why Scholars are in favor of a older hypothesis of “Thomas”, is because they think, that earlier Gospels would have most likely been a collection of sayings and quotes etc…rather than being in a story style format, like we have with the 4 Canonical Gospels. This pretty much touches upon your discussion (the later part of) with Enlighted1 and how Papias describes those other writings as "sayings"…and not Gospels.

I’m pretty sure this was generally how the 4 Canonical Gospels were put together, i.e. from a collection of sayings and texts…etc


- JC

reply to post by adjensen


I didn't start an argument, I started a debate. There is a difference between the two. I think the reason you decided it was an argument is because I started challenging your assumptions with sound logic and evidence.

There is no proof of an Aramaic Gospel of Matthew ever existing, and what Papias said has nothing to do with a gospel, only a list of sayings much like Thomas. The quotes you listed from other church fathers were most likely based on what Papias said, except they used the term gospel instead of sayings, much like the "Gospel" of Thomas is only a group of sayings.

Like I said, you take things far too personally. Just because I'm challenging your flimsy theory doesn't mean I'm trying to start and argument.

ETA: Could you put a link or quote that says Matthew took his gospel to India? Because the quotes you gave say nothing about India. Maybe I overlooked something?

Originally posted by Joecroft
reply to post by adjensen

 

Originally posted by adjensen
Okay, what about Peter? The first and second lines of saying #13 are reminiscent of this passage in Mark:
"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Messiah." (Mark 8:29 NIV)

Note that Peter's response to the question is different -- in one case, he is the Messiah, in another he is "a righteous angel". This is exactly in keeping with Gnosticism, which had no interest in Messiahs, but believed that Jesus was the neoplatonic equivalent of an angel, an aeon.

I think this is pretty flimsy evidence. Regarding Mark 8:29, Jesus states in Matthew 16, that this was revealed to him (Peter) by His Father in Heaven. Going with the hypothesis, that the “Gospel of Thomas” was written earlier than the 4 Canonical Gospels (which I believe at least parts of it, were), then it’s entirely possibly that Peter, at that time, was not yet aware that Jesus was the Messiah.

Huh? You think that Peter found out that Jesus was the Messiah after Peter died, and then went back in time to answer the question that way?

We know that the second half of #13 is dated mid-Second Century, because it is clearly Gnosticism from the Valentinus school, so it makes sense that the author would have changed the statement by Peter to remove the Jewish aspect (Messiah) and replace it with a Gnostic aspect (Bringer of Gnosis.)

I’m not sure why you think his inclusion is odd…???

His appearance seems completely natural, regardless of whether you go with an older, or younger hypothesis…

I get the feeling you didn't fully read my post -- there are only three named apostles in Thomas, Peter, Thomas and Matthew. Peter is a no-brainer, being the voice and face of the early church, Thomas is similarly obvious, as it is "his" gospel, but if you believe that Gospel of Matthew didn't exist at the time #13 was written, what possible reason is there for him to be chosen for such a unique role? Andrew, James or John would be far more likely choices.

Luke 170 AD
Mark 175 AD
John 178 AD
Matthew 180 AD

Where on earth did you come up with that? I've never seen anyone put them in that order and your dates are off by over a hundred years.

The generally held belief is that they were written Mark -> Matthew -> Luke -> John, with John being composed around 90AD. I am personally of the belief that Mark, Matthew and Luke were all written prior to about 64AD, because Luke is dependent on the other two, it pre-dates Acts and Acts ends very strangely -- the early church was batty about martyrdom, but the book ends, not with Peter and Paul's martyrdoms, but with Paul under house arrest in Rome. As a companion of Paul, Luke surely would have known that he was dead, so the simplest explanation is that the second book of his was written prior to that event, and the first book obviously written prior to that.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

I didn't start an argument, I started a debate. There is a difference between the two. I think the reason you decided it was an argument is because I started challenging your assumptions with sound logic and evidence.

Where have you EVER used sound logic and evidence? You're basing your argument on a wikipedia article that you apparently don't understand, and claiming that on the one hand, everyone is just copying Papias' statements, so no gospel existed, and on the other hand, since they call it a gospel and he doesn't, no gospel existed.

There is no proof of an Aramaic Gospel of Matthew ever existing

Yes, there is. There is historical evidence that such a text existed.

ETA: Could you put a link or quote that says Matthew took his gospel to India? Because the quotes you gave say nothing about India. Maybe I overlooked something?

I never said that Matthew took his gospel to India, I said that the Hebrew version of his gospel was seen to be in use there. Tradition is that Thomas, ironically, was the one who went to India to preach Christianity.

At any rate, the quote is from a book, The Syrian Church in India by George Milne Rae. You can read the passage here:

page 65-66

reply to post by adjensen


What exactly are you basing your argument on? Definitely not sound logic, otherwise you wouldn't assume Thomas was written after the gospels based on one ambiguous line among hundreds of others. Evidence points toward Thomas being written before the gospels, so you must be ignoring that evidence in favor of your emotional attachments to the gospels.

Why wouldn't Matthew have been mentioned? Wasn't he an apostle of Jesus just like Mary and Salome? So why is their apostleship relevant but not Matthew's? Your argument is based on bias, nothing more.

The only thing "clear" about your theory is what you have already convinced yourself of in your own head.

I find it funny that you believe Thomas' gospel could have been edited to hide the truth yet think it would be impossible to do the same when it comes to the synoptics and John. Double standard?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

What exactly are you basing your argument on? Definitely not sound logic, otherwise you wouldn't assume Thomas was written after the gospels based on one ambiguous line among hundreds of others.

No, it is not an "ambiguous line". You explain why a nondescript Apostle was named in #13 if you don't think that my explanation is reasonable.

Evidence points toward Thomas being written before the gospels

What evidence? If you have uncovered evidence that backs that up, you need to share it with the world.

Why wouldn't Matthew have been mentioned?

Why would he? He isn't important in the Bible, on a par with Peter, Andrew, James and John. There is absolutely no reason for him to be named in #13, apart from him having written a gospel.

Wasn't he an apostle of Jesus just like Mary and Salome? So why is their apostleship relevant but not Matthew's?

Mary and Salome weren't Apostles.

For the second or third time, I explained in the OP why they are likely referenced.

I find it funny that you believe Thomas' gospel could have been edited to hide the truth

I didn't say that it was edited.

reply to post by adjensen


Because he was an apostle who traveled with Jesus! Do you think Matthew never got to speak with Jesus? Was he silent the whole time he was traveling with Jesus?

Here's a crazy idea, what if Matthew actually did say that? Why would you think any differently? Maybe because you are emotionally attached to his gospel, which remained anonymous until over 100 years later?

Google the dating of Thomas and you will find enough reasons why there is an early camp in scholastics. If there was no reason to believe it was written before the gospels, there wouldn't be any such thing as an "early camp" pertaining to Thomas.

Your reasoning was that Mary and Salome were "confidants" of Jesus, meaning he trusted them. Was Matthew not also a confidant of Jesus? If not, why was he considered an apostle? You have clearly set a double standard with Mary/Salome and Matthew. All three were Jesus' confidants, so your reasoning is obviously skewed one way or another.

That's like me saying your quote from Eusibeus is fraudulent all because Bartholomew is mentioned. Bartholomew is one of the most non-descript apostles in the gospels, so why would he have been mentioned? "Obviously because the quote is a fraud!"

You said that the author changed Peter's answer, so yes you did say it was edited (the answer).

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

Because he was an apostle who traveled with Jesus! Do you think Matthew never got to speak with Jesus? Was he silent the whole time he was traveling with Jesus?

Okay. So, we have him appearing in three lists of Apostles in the New Testament, as well as three stories of him being recruited by Jesus, and then we have him saying this here. That's it. If he was as important as you seem to think he was, why doesn't anyone else talk about him?

Here's a crazy idea, what if Matthew actually did say that?

Because there is no reason, whatsoever, to believe that he said that.

his gospel, which remained anonymous until over 100 years later?

I have asked you for evidence of this, and you have yet to produce it.

Google the dating of Thomas and you will find enough reasons why there is an early camp in scholastics.

I asked you for evidence, not for advice on using Google. You claim that it is early, you claim that there is evidence that convinces you of that, so what is it?

Your reasoning was that Mary and Salome were "confidants" of Jesus, meaning he trusted them.

No, that's what the Gnostics thought, not me. There is nothing in non-Gnostic texts to indicate that they were anything more than followers of Jesus, who were present at the Crucifixion and went to the empty tomb.

That's like me saying your quote from Eusibeus is fraudulent all because Bartholomew is mentioned.

You already did say that Eusebius was lying, so I guess you did.

Bartholomew is one of the most non-descript apostles in the gospels, so why would he have been mentioned?

Because the passage in question is an historical accounting of a missionary's trip, so it is a relevant piece of information. You might have a point if Eusebius only mentioned three people in his book, or if it was some important piece of information, or if Bartholomew was being portrayed in a manner that would be against his beliefs and intended to make a non-Christian point, but none of that is the case.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You said that the author changed Peter's answer, so yes you did say it was edited (the answer).

Um, no. That would require an authentic Gospel of Thomas with "You are the Messiah" as Peter's response, which is then swapped out. Those words were never a part of the Gospel of Thomas because the Gnostics were anti-Judaic, so it wasn't edited, it was never in there in the first place.

reply to post by adjensen

Okay. So, we have him appearing in three lists of Apostles in the New Testament, as well as three stories of him being recruited by Jesus, and then we have him saying this here. That's it. If he was as important as you seem to think he was, why doesn't anyone else talk about him?

Maybe because not every detail of Jesus' ministry is in the bible?

But that is a good question, why ISN'T Matthew mentioned speaking anywhere along with Simon, Bartholomew, James, and Jude? You'd think apostles of Jesus would have a bigger role than just their names being mentioned, don't you think?

Because there is no reason, whatsoever, to believe that he said that.

The reason is right there in Thomas.

If that's the case, there is no reason to believe Andrew ever spoke in John 6:9, because that's the only time he is ever mentioned speaking.

See how ridiculous that line of thinking is?

I have asked you for evidence of this, and you have yet to produce it.

The evidence is that Irenaeus is the first person to assign names to the gospels. Papias' quote doesn't count because it doesn't exactly reference the gospel, only sayings of Jesus.

I asked you for evidence, not for advice on using Google. You claim that it is early, you claim that there is evidence that convinces you of that, so what is it?

Because most of the sayings don't have any signs of being dependent on the gospels.

I am not convinced it was written before either, but I do find it possible, something you seem to be reluctant to do. I wonder why?

No, that's what the Gnostics thought, not me. There is nothing in non-Gnostic texts to indicate that they were anything more than followers of Jesus, who were present at the Crucifixion and went to the empty tomb.

Guess what else the Gnostics say? That Matthew said Jesus was a wise philosopher. You are still holding a double standard. Why agree with the Gnostics about Mary and Salome but not Matthew?

You already did say that Eusebius was lying, so I guess you did.

No I didn't. I thought I already corrected you on that?

Because the passage in question is an historical accounting of a missionary's trip, so it is a relevant piece of information. You might have a point if Eusebius only mentioned three people in his book, or if it was some important piece of information, or if Bartholomew was being portrayed in a manner that would be against his beliefs and intended to make a non-Christian point, but none of that is the case.

How are you so sure that Matthew is the one who wrote "his" gospel? All four gospels were anonymous until Irenaeus assigned names to them. I know you don't like that answer, but it is historical fact.

It is only church tradition that Matthew wrote the gospel, so it is a possibility that he didn't, which means the Gospel of Matthew doesn't have any bearing on what is said in Thomas.

reply to post by adjensen

(13) Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like."
Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel."
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like."

I don't understand why you think that Peter should have said that Jesus was the messiah, when the question was "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like."

"You are like a righteous angel." Why would he say "You are like the messiah"?

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

You said that the author changed Peter's answer, so yes you did say it was edited (the answer).

Um, no. That would require an authentic Gospel of Thomas with "You are the Messiah" as Peter's response, which is then swapped out. Those words were never a part of the Gospel of Thomas because the Gnostics were anti-Judaic, so it wasn't edited, it was never in there in the first place.

So what exactly is your point? If "the Messiah" was never in Thomas, what exactly did the author change? How do you know that Thomas wasn't written before the gospels and the gospels are the ones who changed the answer?

reply to post by adjensen

Originally posted by adjensen

Huh? You think that Peter found out that Jesus was the Messiah after Peter died, and then went back in time to answer the question that way?

No…absolutely not…Most of what we read in the Gospels is based on faith. A faith that the original accounts, were handed down, either through word of mouth, or in writing/texts etc…

Imagine someone recording a saying of Jesus speaking to Peter, in that verse in “Thomas”, and then at a slightly later date, another account gets recorded of Peter stating that Jesus is the Messiah. This doesn’t mean that either statement was not authentic.

And like I said, it could show that The “Gospel of Thomas” came from an earlier tradition. With the logic being, that Peter was not aware until a later date that Jesus was the Messiah…hence the apparent discrepancy between the 2 accounts… which was my entire point.

Originally posted by adjensen
We know that the second half of #13 is dated mid-Second Century, because it is clearly Gnosticism from the Valentinus school, so it makes sense that the author would have changed the statement by Peter to remove the Jewish aspect (Messiah) and replace it with a Gnostic aspect (Bringer of Gnosis.)

Well firstly, Jesus is referred to as the “Son of Man” in Many of the Gnostic Texts, which as you probably know, is a phrase form the book of Daniel denoting the coming Messiah…

Here are just a few examples taken from the Gnostic Texts


First up, the “Gospel of Thomas” lol

Gospel of Thomas
(86) Jesus said, "The foxes have their holes and the birds have their nests, but the son of man has no place to lay his head and rest."

The apocalypse of Peter
But they did not find him, nor was he mentioned among any generation of the prophets. He has now appeared among these, in him who appeared, who is the Son of Man, who is exalted above the heavens in a fear of men of like essence.

The Dialogue of the Savior
And the Son of Man greeted them and said to them, "A seed from a power was deficient, and it went down to the abyss of the earth. And the Greatness remembered it, and he sent the Word to it. It brought it up into his presence, so that the First Word might not fail."

“The Odes of Solomon”
Ode 36
3. The Spirit brought me forth before the Lord's face, and because I was the Son of Man, I was named the Light, the Son of God;

The Second Treatise of the Great Seth

Now these things I have presented to you - I am Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, who is exalted above the heavens - O perfect and incorruptible ones, because of the incorruptible and perfect mystery and the ineffable one.

Secondly, Jesus is referred to in MANY of the Gnostic texts, as the “Christ”…The relevance of which, will become clearer in my next post...

There are many I could quote, but here are just a few examples…

The Treatise on the Resurrection

They seek rather their own rest, which we have received through our Savior, our Lord Christ.

The Teachings of Silvanus

. Keep the holy commandments of Jesus Christ, and you will reign over every place on earth, and will be honored by the angels and archangels.

The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
I invoke you, the one who is and who pre-existed in the name which is exalted above every name, through Jesus Christ, the Lord of Lords, the King of the ages;

And Thirdly, one Gnostic texts states that Jesus is the “Messiah”!!!…


From the Nag Hammadi Library

“The Odes of Solomon”

Ode 41
15. The Messiah in truth is one. And He was known before the foundations of the world, that He might give life to persons for ever by the truth of His name.
16. A new chant is for the Lord from them that love Him.
Hallelujah.

Continued...