The Gospel of Thomas (Jesus, reject, Kingdom, tradition, churches)

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Buttons*

why's that?

Because that theory creates more questions than it answers, and I cannot imagine what kind of evidence was used to come to that conclusion.

It seems safer to assume that the writer had an original style than to assume that the writer took something independent of it and completely changed a style.

If the writer did change the style, why? We cannot conclude that he changed a style unless we can answer that question first.

Does a change in style increase or decrease credibility?

Is there precendece for this in the ancient world? It seems that people would usually adapt a style for credibility...

Is there evidence in the Gospel itself that suggests that a redactor (or several) removed portions that could have been in the original style?

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Jay mentioned that Bart Ehrman argues convincingly that Thomas is Gnostic in a recent book that I have not yet read:

Ehrman, Bart (2003). The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0195141830.

Sounds interesting, might have to acquire a copy.

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Anyway, the characteristics for locating and defining Gnosticism before the forth century is a shady business anyway, so I know exactly where you're coming from. I suspect that Thomas is just as Gnostic as the canonical Paul, John, and Marcion. I'm sticking with the conventional view that Thomas is a Gnostic or at least proto-Gnostic (and a lot of other stuff in the NT fits here as well, but I'm back into the gray area ) document until some other classification is useful to me in an argument that I care about.

Hmmm, well i'm just going from personal experience here. I've, obviously, read the text several times, and each time i find myself thinking "why was this offensive to the orthodox?" I see no problem with it being a Gnostic text, the more the better, i just don't see a great deal of gnosticism in the text itself.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

i find myself thinking "why was this offensive to the orthodox?"

My rather uninformed theory is that most churches simply didn't have access to it. For whatever reason Thomas was not circulated with Paul or the Gospels, not associated with a region or church that had apostolic authority, and therefore not used in worship in the proto-orthodox churches. To meet these critera it did not need to cause offense with heavily developed Gnostic themes and therefore obviously demonstrate to us why early leaders would be offended by it.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

My rather uninformed theory is that most churches simply didn't have access to it. For whatever reason Thomas was not circulated with Paul or the Gospels, not associated with a region or church that had apostolic authority, and therefore not used in worship in the proto-orthodox churches. To meet these critera it did not need to cause offense with heavily developed Gnostic themes and therefore obviously demonstrate to us why early leaders would be offended by it.

Could be.

Irenaeus mentions a Thomas doesn't he, but i don't think we know if he meant this gospel or one of the many other gospels with Thomas in the title. Tis a mystery.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Could be.

Irenaeus mentions a Thomas doesn't he, but i don't think we know if he meant this gospel or one of the many other gospels with Thomas in the title. Tis a mystery.

You're right, and no one else knows either.