saxitoxin wrote:The Gospel of Thomas, as I already demonstrated, predated the Epistles of Paul and is as old - or older - than the synoptic gospels.
If you bundle Thomas up and say "overall, all the gnostic gospels are more recent," that's correct. It's as correct as getting 20 kindergartners together with a nursing home resident and saying "overall, this group is fairly young." That doesn't defeat the age of the nursing home resident as a single individual.
Thomas stands on its own and doesn't describe major themes associated with Gnosticism, such as a belief in The Demiurge or the four luminaries.
I will remind saxi that he said I would not include the Gospel of John or Thomas.
f I were to start my own church, it would rely only on the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke and would ignore the other 24 books of the NT. It might even ignore the OT.
I disagree with much of what saxi said. First saxi's date of writing is likely OFF.
The Gospel of Thomas (also known as the Coptic Gospel of Thomas) is an extra-canonical[1] sayings gospel. It was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945 among a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library. Scholars speculate that the works were buried in response to a letter from Bishop Athanasius declaring a strict canon of Christian scripture. Scholars have proposed dates of composition as early as 60 AD and as late as 250 AD.[2][3]
(...)
Because of its discovery with the Nag Hammadi library, and the cryptic emphasis on "gnosis" in some of the sayings, it was widely thought that the document originated within a school of early Christians, proto-Gnostics.[13][14] However, critics have questioned whether the description of Thomas as an entirely gnostic gospel is based solely upon the fact that it was found along with gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi.[15][14]
The Gospel of Thomas is very different in tone and structure from other New Testament apocrypha and the four canonical Gospels. Unlike the canonical Gospels, it is not a narrative account of the life of Jesus; instead, it consists of logia (sayings) attributed to Jesus, sometimes stand-alone, sometimes embedded in short dialogues or parables; 13 of its 16 parables are also found in the Synoptic Gospels. The text contains a possible allusion to the death of Jesus in logion 65[16] (Parable of the Wicked Tenants, paralleled in the Synoptic Gospels), but does not mention his crucifixion, his resurrection, or the final judgement; nor does it mention a messianic understanding of Jesus.[17][18]
also:
Finds and publication
Nag Hammadi Codex II, folio 32, the beginning of the Gospel of Thomas
The manuscript of the Coptic text (CG II), found in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, is dated at around 340 AD.
So the existing copy is NOT just 80 years old (or we have only known about it that long). And length does not mean it will eventually or could eventually become "Canon" because it took hundreds of years for Gospel to become canon. You clearly do not understand what criteria is needed for a book to become canon. I think most Christians would not add other books to the Canon (unless you are a Mormon). In fact, Martin Luther did not like it that the Letter of James is canon. So most efforts over time have been to remove books from the canon, and not to add to it.
Here are MANY versions that says this "gospel" is likely written much later than saxi alleges:
Dependence on the New Testament
Several scholars have argued that the sayings in Thomas reflect conflations and harmonisations dependent on the canonical gospels. For example, saying 10 and 16 appear to contain a redacted harmonisation of Luke 12:49,[60] 12:51–52[61] and Matthew 10:34–35.[62] In this case it has been suggested that the dependence is best explained by the author of Thomas making use of an earlier harmonised oral tradition based on Matthew and Luke.[63][64] Biblical scholar Craig A. Evans also subscribes to this view and notes that "Over half of the New Testament writings are quoted, paralleled, or alluded to in Thomas... I'm not aware of a Christian writing prior to AD 150 that references this much of the New Testament."[65]
Another argument made for the late dating of Thomas is based upon the fact that saying 5 in the original Greek (Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 654) seems to follow the vocabulary used in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 8:17),[66] and not the vocabulary used in the Gospel of Mark (Mark 4:22).[67] According to this argument – which presupposes firstly the rectitude of the two-source hypothesis (widely held among current New Testament scholars),[citation needed] in which the author of Luke is seen as having used the pre-existing gospel according to Mark plus a lost Q source to compose their gospel – if the author of Thomas did, as saying 5 suggests, refer to a pre-existing Gospel of Luke, rather than Mark's vocabulary, then the Gospel of Thomas must have been composed after both Mark and Luke, the latter of which is dated to between 60 and 90 AD.
Another saying that employs similar vocabulary to that used in Luke rather than Mark is saying 31 in the original Greek (Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1), where Luke 4:24's term dektos ('acceptable')[68] is employed rather than Mark 6:4's atimos ('without honor').[69] The word dektos (in all its cases and genders) is clearly typical of Luke, since it is only employed by the author in the canonical gospels Luke 4:19,[70] 4:24, and Acts 10:35.[71] Thus, the argument runs, the Greek Thomas has clearly been at least influenced by Luke's characteristic vocabulary.[note 3]
J. R. Porter states that, because around half of the sayings in Thomas have parallels in the synoptic gospels, it is "possible that the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas were selected directly from the canonical gospels and were either reproduced more or less exactly or amended to fit the author's distinctive theological outlook."[72] According to John P. Meier, scholars predominantly conclude that Thomas depends on or harmonizes the Synoptics.[73]
(...)
Bart D. Ehrman argues that the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, and that his apocalyptic beliefs are recorded in the earliest Christian documents: Mark and the authentic Pauline epistles. The earliest Christians believed Jesus would soon return, and their beliefs are echoed in the earliest Christian writings. The Gospel of Thomas proclaims that the Kingdom of God is already present for those who understand the secret message of Jesus (saying 113), and lacks apocalyptic themes. Because of this, Ehrman argues, the Gospel of Thomas was probably composed by a Gnostic some time in the early 2nd century.[79] Ehrman also argued against the authenticity of the sayings the Gospel of Thomas attributes to Jesus.[80]
Elaine Pagels points out the Gospel of Thomas promulgates the Kingdom of God not as a final destination but a state of self-discovery. Additionally, the Gospel of Thomas conveys that Jesus ridiculed those who thought of the Kingdom of God in literal terms, as if it were a specific place. Pagels goes on to argue that, through saying 22, readers are to believe the "Kingdom" symbolizes a state of transformed consciousness.[81]
John P. Meier has repeatedly argued against the historicity of the Gospel of Thomas, stating that it cannot be a reliable source for the quest of the historical Jesus and also considers it a Gnostic text.[82] He has also argued against the authenticity of the parables found exclusively in the Gospel of Thomas.[83] Bentley Layton included the Gospel of Thomas into his list of Gnostic scriptures.[84]
Craig A. Evans has argued that the Gospel of Thomas represents the theological motives of 2nd century Egyptian Christianity and is dependent on the Synoptic Gospels and the Diatesseron.[85]
The truth is the we will never really know the exact date or author the books that make up the New Testament, including the gospel of Thomas, at least one that will stand up COMPLETELY to scientific or legal inquiry. I believe the preponderance of the evidence suggests a date for its composition much later than that of the 4 Canon Gospels.
(...)
N.T. Wright, Anglican bishop and professor of New Testament history, also sees the dating of Thomas in the 2nd or 3rd century. Wright's reasoning for this dating is that the "narrative framework" of 1st-century Judaism and the New Testament is radically different from the worldview expressed in the sayings collected in the Gospel of Thomas. Thomas makes an anachronistic mistake by turning Jesus the Jewish prophet into a Hellenistic/Cynic philosopher. Wright concludes his section on the Gospel of Thomas in his book The New Testament and the People of God in this way:
[Thomas'] implicit story has to do with a figure who imparts a secret, hidden wisdom to those close to him, so that they can perceive a new truth and be saved by it. 'The Thomas Christians are told the truth about their divine origins, and given the secret passwords that will prove effective in the return journey to their heavenly home.' This is, obviously, the non-historical story of Gnosticism [...] It is simply the case that, on good historical grounds, it is far more likely that the book represents a radical translation, and indeed subversion, of first-century Christianity into a quite different sort of religion, than that it represents the original of which the longer gospels are distortions [...] Thomas reflects a symbolic universe, and a worldview, which are radically different from those of the early Judaism and Christianity.[86]
(...)
Considered by some as one of the earliest accounts of the teachings of Jesus, the Gospel of Thomas is regarded by some scholars as one of the most important texts in understanding early Christianity outside the New Testament.[90] In terms of faith, however, no major Christian group accepts this gospel as canonical or authoritative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_ThomasSo
I am NOT alone in my assessment of the lack of importance of this Gospel, and
saxi did not include it in his list of IMPORTANT 3 Gospels.I will again quote this, that saxi seems to ignore or dismiss:
The Gospels of the Bible were written in the first century (around AD 70-90). On the other hand, the Gnostic Gospels were written in the second century AD: “The canonical gospels were being read and quoted as carrying authority in the early and middle second century, whereas we do not even hear of the non-canonical ones until the middle or end of that century” (Wright, 2006, p.77).
Are the Gnostic Gospels Reliable?
These four essential differences between the canonical or biblical Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels are a clear indication that the Gnostic Gospels are not authentically apostolic in their authorship, message and frame of time. The Gnostic Gospels are not reliable sources for the life and teachings of Jesus.
References
*Wright, N. T. (2006) Judas and the Gospel of Jesus: Have we missed the truth about Christianity? Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books
https://www.gcu.edu/blog/theology-ministry/are-gnostic-gospels-reliable-sourcesanother opinion:
The scholars Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole contend that the Synoptics are earlier than Thomas, which they date to the mid-second century. This argument is based on the similar phrases between the texts and Thomas’s negative attitudes toward Judaism. For example, Goodacre argues that wording of particular sayings of Jesus such as Thomas’s use of Matthew’s unique phrase, “the kingdom of the heavens” (GosThom 20, 54, 114) betrays Thomas’s knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels. Thomas’s rejection of “the Jews” (GosThom 43) and the Hebrew Bible (GosThom 52), and the text’s disparaging views of Old Testament figures (GosThom 85), reveal a cool, distanced attitude toward what the author considers an irrelevant institution. In Saying 71, Jesus says: “I will destroy this house, and no one will be able to build it.” This house appears to be the Jewish temple, which will be irrevocably destroyed (compare Mark 14:58, where Jesus promises to rebuild the temple of his body). Thomas’s use of harsh rhetoric about the non-rebuilding of the temple probably dates the text to the period after the destruction of the second Jewish temple (ca. 132–136 C.E.). If this is true concerning Saying 71, then the Gospel of Thomas as a whole could fit within the period of 132 to 200 C.E., a time when certain Christian authors considered the rejection of the Jewish temple to be final.
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/ask-a-scholar/when-was-the-gospel-of-thomas-written/and, for the fun of it, one more source:
Gospel of Thomas, apocryphal (noncanonical) gospel containing 114 sayings attributed to the resurrected Jesus, written in the mid-2nd century. Traditionally ascribed to St. Thomas the Apostle, the Gospel of Thomas does not include any extended mythic narrative and consists entirely of a series of secret sayings ascribed to Jesus, several of which have close parallels in the New Testament Gospels. Although scholars are divided on the issue, some contend that certain elements of the Gospel of Thomas are among the oldest witnesses to Jesus’ words.
The Gospel of Thomas is grounded in gnosticism, the philosophical and religious movement of the 2nd century CE that stressed the redemptive power of esoteric knowledge acquired by divine revelation. Indeed, warnings against it as heretical were made by the Church Fathers in the 2nd–4th century
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gospel-of-ThomasTo Summarize:
Most of the evidence points to the Gospel of Thomas as being older than the canon Gospels. The only real support for an early age of this Gospel is that it quotes many saying of Jesus, and this is NOT NECESSARILY sufficient proof and is certainly NOT COGENT evidence.
No major religion considers the Gospel of Thomas as canon, not even that "Bible Scholar wannabee" saxi really gives it the status of canon, even if he purports to know what that means.
