On 10/17/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>
> Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gilberto commenting upon Susan's words:
> At least you are opening up. First you were saying that the NT was the
> only source of information. Now you are willing to include Thomas.
> Hopefully you would be willing to admit that Josephus is another
> extra-Biblical source of information about Jesus.
> I think we all are willing to admit that Thomas's Gospel is concurrent with
> the canonical Gospels. This is in opposition to the much later date of the
> other non-canonical gospels which may be out and out forgeries committed at
> a much later date to support a point of view of Christ that the Church had
> declared heretical - i.e., in particular the Gnostic point of view.
Forgery is too strong a word, especially given how people understood
authorship back then. In fact, from what I've read, the oldest
manuscripts of the Biblical gospels are actually anonymous and the
names are attached to them by a later tradition. And it is my
understanding that only a minority of Biblical scholars would accept
that they were actually written by the people whose names are on them.
> The Gospel of Thomas seems to take no point of view, being only quotations
> from Christ. These quotations are largely contained in the canonical gospels
> in various places, and one would assume that those portion s of Thomas are
> equally valid.
Thomas is typically identified as Gnostic.
> However, not every quotation of Christ in the Thomas Gospel occurs in the
> other canonical books, so some of it is open to doubt.
It's all open to doubt. If you are a historican looking at the issue
objectively, it would be wrong to just take the churches side for
granted. Just because the Church decided not to put a text in the
canon, that doesn't make it historically unreliable. There were other
texts which are very early, and very widespread among many churches
but also didn't make the cut. There were books which almost made the
cut, but were objected to on theological grounds. These aren't good
historical grounds for rejecting an account.
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
