Cool pictures of the Gospel of Thomas Codex (crucify, gnostic)

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Its rarity only increases its significance.

Can you elaborate? Thomas probably significantly pre-dates the Coptic community that buried the translation that we have.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Can you elaborate? Thomas probably significantly pre-dates the Coptic community that buried the translation that we have.

Yes. For questions like this, we need to separate out different issues.

1) The earliest edition of Thomas is like a Q. A collection of sayings which may or may not have intepretative lines that may or may not include philosophical or theological additions.

2) Thomas as it is does have philosophical, theological, and even eccesiastical additions (eg., certain people doing certain things which represent church leadership), which may or may not be original to its sources. My opinion is that they are added.

3) The symbol is added later by a copyist and has other significance.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Yes. For questions like this, we need to separate out different issues.

1) The earliest edition of Thomas is like a Q. A collection of sayings which may or may not have intepretative lines that may or may not include philosophical or theological additions.

2) Thomas as it is does have philosophical, theological, and even eccesiastical additions (eg., certain people doing certain things which represent church leadership), which may or may not be original to its sources. My opinion is that they are added.

3) The symbol is added later by a copyist and has other significance.

Okay. I agree that those are all reasonable opinions.

[angellous_evangellous]

I like Thomas because it is almost a raw Q. Its aditions are minimal, but very significant.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I like Thomas because it is almost a raw Q. Its aditions are minimal, but very significant.

Ever looked much at the Gospel of Peter, Nate? I'd be interested in discussing it sometime along with Crossan's theory of a hypothetical "Cross Gospel."

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Ever looked much at the Gospel of Peter, Nate? I'd be interested in discussing it sometime along with Crossan's theory of a hypothetical "Cross Gospel."

Yes, I am including gPet in my lecture today.

[angellous_evangellous]

At first glance, Crossan's theory looks kinda far-fetched.