The Gospel of Thomas

[kylelewis1213]

My understanding of the Gospel of Thomas is that it is not an authentic Gospel. First, people have to try way to hard to get an early date out of it. The first thing that I may point to is the attitude that the author takes toward prayer, alms and fasting. He views these in a negative light which is the kind of attitude one would expect from a later Gnostic believer who would have antipathy toward Jewish beliefs. Also, as G. Quispel observed, the Gospel of Thomas agrees with the Diatessaron, a harmony of the Gospels written by Tatian in the late 100's, or the Syriac version of the New Testament more than it agrees with the Greek that the earlier works were written in. Craig Evans pointed out that this book was not originally composed in Greek or Coptic, but in Syriac. He pointed out nearly five hundred "catchwords" that belong to the Syriac tradition. Multiple times the Gospel of Thomas agrees with the Syrian tradition and disagrees with the New Testament Gospels. Don't the works of paul date to a muche earlier time than those anyway, and doesn't he teach pretty much the same content of the death, ressurection, and diety of Christ as was written in the four canonical Gospels? Paul's letters can be dated to between 50 to 62, and Paul says that he made a trip to Jerusalem to confirm that his teachings wre not contrary to what the apostles taught around 36. So, the tradition that Paul taught must have been much older than the late 100's. To do away with all this, too much creative thinking has to be done.

It just sounds like the proponents of an early date for the Gospel of Thomas just have to work too hard; and if it can be explained easier with fewer assumptions, then we should go with the fewer assumptions.

[Sophus]

My understanding of the Gospel of Thomas is that it is not an authentic Gospel.

Hmmm....Recusant has got me questioning my original reply.

[Recusant]

Sophus, please check your PM.