Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Paul invites that kind of ass kicking! I think what Paul is saying is more anti-Judaic than what the Chrestians were saying because Paul denies Isreal is Isreal, the new Isreal are his followers only. This wholesale repudiation of the commandments and traditions is extreme no matter he occasionally ...

The flaw with logia theories, of which your Thomas is one, is that it requires a purpose for a collection of sayings and its circulation. Where did it come from? What assumptions does it make of the reader? It doesn't take much investigating down these avenues blows wide gaping holes in the concept...

The best counter to Paul is the Odes of Solomon which show the pre-Paul church he reworked into his brand of Christianity. Nothing beats a historical text no matter how good an argument is, and in the Odes there is no existential problem of sin - period. The existential problem in the Odes is ignora...

which is where it get's interesting! the teachings of Thomas have to be unravelled to know where to place it let's say i admit your right and there's nothing 'Judaic' about these teachings, that would mean the author is just aware of 'universal truths' existing, it's no surprise it doesn't look Juda...

ok i'll admit the sayings of Thomas are otherworldly theres nothing 'Judaic' about them apparently although the 'anti-Judaic' stuff could be interpreted as being anti-religion in general, not Judaism specifically, are they 'universal'??? but... when they're actually connected to the known traditions...

Oh yes, there's nothing divine about the IS of Thomas, he's not even there: he's a mere concept that's why we're seeing it different, i just assume a historical IS/Jesus guy existed in some place and he says stuff i don't get why he has to be nothing to do with Judaic spirituality except its nice t...

Yes. John is the first to take Thomas into a narrative, and *Ev builds onto that. There's a theoretical option that John took *Ev, excised all parables and made it all about the Father, but the likelihood of that is minimal I think John is the gospel with the most connection back to the earlier mov...

ok i get that, was surprised to see you saying *Ev draws from John have i got that right? i don't want to interrupt your interesting take on this but i'm still not sure how Chrestians really fit in with Judaism, without knowing their exact theology isn't it hard to be sure? these early sources do no...

I thought ML's theory was like the one that has Mark drawing from *Ev in order to get rid of Q, so that Thomas can be Q? That 'Lukan' priority won me over, Mark is just a summary of *Ev at a point in time and is earlier than Luke sometimes. How different Mark and *Ev were i wish i knew! I see Matthe...

Yes lclapshaw, agreed re: corinthians, isn't 2 as certain as 1 though? there's always been something about Romans that didn't sit right with me. i can't put my finger on it But I can understand the appeal of binning the traditional dating of Paul, i just think the problems can be solved without this...