Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Gnostic Gospels

In the "Doctrine of Christ" thread, several of us started down the rabbit trail (tangent) of discussing the Gnostic Gospels - the most popular one being the Gospel of Thomas.

Does anyone have any articles, resources, research findings, etc. to challenge my understanding that the Gnostic Gospels were written in the 2nd and 3rd century AD?

If there's evidence to support first-century authorship, then by all means, let's discuss it.

Also...we can talk about why the Gnostic Gospels were excluded from the canon.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» _Boanerges_ - Gnostic Gospels

In response to Gnostic Gospels posted by BrianTubbs:

we can talk about why the Gnostic Gospels were excluded from the canon

one main reason is the question of authorship.....

-- posted by _Boanerges_

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - Gnostic Gospels

In response to Gnostic Gospels posted by _Boanerges_:

.
one main reason is the question of authorship.....
.
If the 'main' reason is authorship... there was and is question of authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, but it was accepted and included in Bible canon nonetheless.
.
I found this interesting:
http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-criteria-of-...
.
(quote) "2. Use: The regular use of writings in the ancient churches was also an important factor in their selection for the New Testament canon. This is what Eusebius had in mind when he mentioned that certain writings were "recognized" (homolegoumena) among the churches and became "encovenanted" (endiathekoi = "testamented" or "canonical"). 64 The wide-spread use of the New Testament writings in the churches may have been the most determinative factor in the canonical process. The fact that the authorship of Hebrews was strongly questioned, yet it made it into the New Testament canon, suggests that churches were reluctant to dismiss a useful and cherished document. An important factor was who was favorable toward the acceptance of a document and who was not. [My bold] Athanasius and Epiphanius, for instance, would have had a greater influence on the church than many lesser known figures. Also, larger churches in the metropolitan centers such as Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Ephesus, and the New Rome, Constantinople, were more likely to have a greater influence on which books were included than were the smaller churches in rural areas. While most New Testament writings were known and used by most of the churches in Eusebius's day, doubt lingered over others. These "disputed" (antilegomena) writings included James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, probably Revelation, and possibly Hebrews. Notice for example, how Eusebius acknowledges wide acceptance of 1 John, but is reluctant to accept 2 and 3 John and Revelation. For him, the Gospel of John and 1 John have been "accepted without controversy by ancients and moderns alike but the other two are disputed, and as to the Revelation there have been many advocates of either opinion up to the present. This, too, shall be similarly illustrated by quotations from the ancients at the proper time." [Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.25.1-7] This shows his considerable interest in what the majority of churches concluded about the matter of canon. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Lee Martin McDonald, Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church: The Criteria Question, p 432, 2002)" (end quote)

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - Thomas

.
You asked badactor (in the Doctrine thread):
I'd be interested in your evidence for 1st century authorship of Thomas. See the new thread I started on "Gnostic Gospels."
.
Evidence? The dating of all the canonized books of the NT is based on scholarly speculation. And so is the Gospel of Thomas. Here's a couple:
.
Helmut Koester:
John H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History Harvard Divinity School
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...
. (quote)
"... Some of these sayings may go back to a very early period of Christianity, some of them may have been added later. The document itself comes from the fourth century.... As with all gospel text, with this one in particular, we have to remember that these texts were fluid, that scribes could add, that scribes could leave out things, that scribes could add comments, or add an interpretation. So we cannot with certainty reconstruct what did the Gospel of Thomas look like around the year 100 or earlier. But it is very likely that it existed at that time, and that a good deal of the material that's now in that manuscript was already in a Greek manuscript that dates back to the first century...." (end quote)
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_t...
(quote) "The early camp argues that since it consists of mostly original material and does not seem to be based on the canonical gospels, it most likely was transcribed from an oral tradition. Since the practice of considering oral tradition as authoritative ended during the 1st century, the Gospel of Thomas therefore had probably been written before then, perhaps as early as around 40. Since this date precedes the dates of the traditional four gospels, there is some claim that the Gospel of Thomas is or has some connection to the hypothetical Q document-a text (or oral verse) that, with Mark, is postulated to have been a source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke....
.
"The early camp also notes that Q is almost universally regarded by secular biblical scholars as the most parsimonious explanation for the synoptic problem and is widely regarded to be the earliest written text of Jesus' teachings. It has been hypothesized that Q exists in 3 strata, termed Q1, Q2, and Q3, with the apocalyptic material belonging in Q2 and Q3. Secular biblical scholars have identified 37 sayings that overlap between Thomas and Q, all of which are conjectured to be in either Q1 or Q2 and none of which included the latter, apocalyptic material of Q3. As Thomas does not incorporate material from Q3, it was not aware of Q3 and precedes it. The Q layers of Q1 and Q2 are thought to predate the four gospels. Hence the Gospel of Thomas is thought to be early." (end quote)
.
You might want to read the rest of this article. Too much to post.
.
Hippolytus and Origen referred to a Gospel of Thomas, but it isn't clear whether they were talking about the 'Infancy' Gospel of Thomas or the 'sayings' Gospel of Thomas. Secular scholars believe the 'Infancy' was written mid-2nd century.
.
For estimated dates of early Christian writings, this might be helpful: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds