Opinion gospels carbon dating join. was and
Posted in Dating
This is a problematic source, and their claims dont necessarely represent Saint Thomas Christians; they call themselves Patriarchs of Jerusalem. Also note that the site is said to be maintained by 'Rev. Archdeacon Marcus, in New Zealand. Also, those churches separated like all the other oriental orthodox churches, at the council of chaledon, in AD and this is far too late for there to be an aditional gospel, cuz like this text explains, the sellection of the gospels in the orthodoxy crystallised much sooner, certanly by the late 2. In all, Id like to see some aditional support for this ancient tradition of this gospel as a part of the bible actually existing, precisely because such prospect is incredibly tantalising. Please, if any reader thinks it is worth to be posted, do so. The article presents strong arguments in order to explain why GThomas should be dated around
The great Dutch philologist Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam had established a text from a handful of manuscripts dating from the later Middle Ages. Unfortunately he used only manuscripts of inferior quality for his edition of A few verses from the Apocalypse were lacking in the manuscripts at his disposal.
He simply re-translated them from the current Latin version! Erasmus' intention with his edition was to provide a basis for a new Latin translation of the New Testament. The Reformers used it to produce vernacular translations of their own. Until the nineteenth century New Testament scholars and translators availed themselves only sparingly of other manuscripts. Then, within a fairly short period, a number of manuscripts of superior quality became available, mainly thanks to the work of the German scholar Constantin Tischendorf.
These manuscripts dated from the fourth and fifth centuries and presented a text that was at least free from the accretions of a later age. We had to wait, however, until the 70's and 80's of the nineteenth century for new critical editions of the New Testament. Tischendorf himself and the British scholars Westcott and Hort produced two rival editions of the Greek text. They believed that their text reflected the original as well as possible, even if it was based on manuscripts dating from at least three centuries after the New Testament was written.
Gradually the new critical texts replaced Erasmus' text, which has not received much attention from serious scholars anymore.
Thousands more ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have become known in the past years. Monastery libraries in countries around the Mediterranean have yielded most of the manuscripts.
The textual critics of the Greek New Testament have been able to come to terms with only a few of them. Most of them are not very old manuscripts anyhow, and in textual criticism it is age and quality that counts, not mere quantity.
In the 30's and 60's of the twentieth century a number of other, very important manuscripts have become available. We owe this to the efforts of two wealthy book collectors, Chester Beatty and Martin Bodmer. These manuscripts are of a special class for two reasons. They are written on papyrus and date from well before the fourth century.
Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts by Peter van Minnen. The New Testament text we read in our English Bibles is based on the original Greek text. We know this text, albeit imperfectly, through a large number of ancient manuscripts. All these manuscripts are mere copies, and the great majority of them are copies of copies, yet. The first step in finding a friend with benefits is finding friends. The friends you find matter, of course. If you Carbon Dating The Gospels make friends at an evangelical religious retreat, you're a lot less likely to find a sex partner than if you Carbon Dating The Gospels make friends among sex-positive people. So it helps to make sex-positive friends/ Both of these codices bind texts which are categorised by academics as "Gnostic Gospels". However the date of the former (NHC) is generally assumed to be reasonably estimated by other dating methodologies. In the absence of a C14 dating test for the NHC this article assumes a theoretical C14 date equivalent to its current age estimate.
The earliest papyrus manuscripts come very close to the time when the New Testament was written. Of course, manuscripts on papyrus were known before, but these dated from a much later period and tended to be rather fragmentary. For almost all New Testament books we now have manuscripts earlier than the fourth century. How do we know these manuscripts are so very early?
How do we know their dates for certain? Some of you may think "scientific" tests on the physical structure of the papyrus may yield such dates.
In fact they cannot, because such tests are very inaccurate. No, we can date papyrus manuscripts, any manuscript for that matter, simply by looking at the way it is written. Handwriting is a product of human culture and as such it is always developing. Differences in handwriting are bound to appear within one generation.
Just compare the handwriting of your parents with your own. Or look at your own scribblings of a few years ago. It is the same handwriting as today but an expert, a paleographer, can distinguish not unimportant differences. He cannot establish the exact date but he can confidently place one handwriting in the 30's and another in the 80's. Even printed texts can easily be dated according to the outward appearance of the type or font used by the printer.
For such an ancient period as that between A. There is infinitely less comparative material. Nevertheless we are now in a fairly comfortable position to date papyrus manuscripts according to their handwriting. We do not have to rely on manuscripts of the New Testament only. We have hundreds of papyrus manuscripts of Greek pagan literary texts from this period and again hundreds of carefully written papyrus documents that show the same types of handwriting.
I see the link to the Gthomas gets deleted by minds set in stone regularly. Please explain this is not prejudice. This article is about a christian subject. Hence the use of the CE notation is probably not appropriate. Furthermore, the original date notation in this article was AD. At some point the AD notation was removed.
Now someone is trying to sneek in the CE notation a bit at a time no mention in the edit summaries of a controversial amendment. Any comments? Arcturus24 January UTC.
Amen to this! In physical terms, a point source. Gordon, 16 April UTC. Read the Wikipedia style guides no link handy - you can find it. IMHO it's not worth fighting over. I do purposefully try to use B CE in articles about other religions out of respect.
I'm not sure, but I don't believe that the verses in Matthew and Thomas refer to the same thing. Thomas' quotation is more akin to that about the discovery of the kingdom of heaven by someone. Analogous verses are previous to this, in Matthew 13 Could someone replace it? Homagetocatalonia10 March UTC. Why under the phil. Isn't the gnosticism template a little obtrusive, given that many scholars don't consider the GoT to be gnostic at all?
I thought that it should have begun with something attributive, like, "Opponents of this view note However, I noted the reference to John and thinking it over, pulled the whole thing to think about it some more. The Orthodox and Catholic understanding of this passage is quite different. In these traditions, John ff is very much an embrace of the sacramental goodness of the Created world, and the spiritually and physically nutritive value of the flesh and blood of Jesus.
Plus, I only find one reference to "this world" belonging to the "[Dd]evil" with a quick egrep of my RSV. Mark does not refer to the "devil" at all, though "Satan" is. The closest are two references in John to the "ruler of this world. So I think this yank stays on the Talk. I renamed it, cuz i clicked on it thinking it was an eastern or oriental orthodox comment; its too ambigous. I would also object to saying for a prety specific view like advaita vedanta, that its simply 'eastern', as a practicing buddhist.
Such comparative study may be an interesting endaveour, im certanly not sad to have found that site; still, I wonder about the wisdom if its unverified inclusion in an encyclopedia - anyone more knowlegabe about wiki policies know when links are to be included in an article?
Why is there a cleanup tag on the article? Please explain these NPOV issues, per the guidelines for tagging pages. Seems like weasel-words and is really saying: "Clever people think like me - Stupid people think the other way - I of course am completely unbiased". The following statement in the article is vague. Firstly which Church is being refered to?
Is it the Roman Church and its denominations, is it the Greek orthodox church, or the Church of the latter day saints etc? Secondly, the statement does not appear to be qualified with a reference. It would be better to show or reference comments from one of the Roman Church's council meetings to support the statement, if indeed heresy was the reason for its exclusion from the canon. Also, heresy was only a percieved threat to the Roman Church.
One should destinguish the historical Roman Church from modern views! For instance, what does the present Pope think of the GoT? Does the present Roman Catholic church fear diverse views? It should be realised that the contents of the texts are likely to challenge the very basis of Christianity". I have not applied a lazy bumpersticker to this article, but I have started a Notes section. Statements that aren't simply axiomatic or familiar commonplaces need to have a source in a footnote, as elsewhere now in Wikipedia.
Luke and Acts refer to the Twelve as apostles. The other gospels don't; the other supposed reference to "apostles", in the English versions of one verse each of Matthew and Mark, comes after Jesus is said to have "sent" them; in those two isolated verses it means simply "the sent ones.
Paul uses the word "apostle" to include himself along with James the Bishop of Jerusalem and the other brothers of Jesus, plus at least two other Christian leaders, Andronicus and Junia the latter, interestingly, being female. The most correct statement the article could make would be "The Gospels do not list any women among the Twelve.
However, there are discrepancies in the three synoptic gospels' listings of the tenth and eleventh of the Twelve, although the other ten are identical in all three. Why the inconsistency? Was number ten originally Mary Magdalene? Was number eleven originally Salome the wife of Zebedee, who was also the mother of James and John?
According to the Thomas Gospel, those two women were intimate disciples! Were those two female names scratched out of the three canonical gospels by women-hating patriarchalists and replaced haphazardly by male names? Shucks, "Salome of Zebedee" actually resembles "Simon the Zealot" in its sound.
Tom The preceeding is wrong. The last logion is followed by the words "the gospel according to Thomas". Those words complete the manuscript, and seem to be a title. Apparently at some recent time a Christian priest came through and littered this article with roughly fourteen billion "citation needed" tags. This seems excessive. I think enough time has passed, and since much of the claims in this article remain unsourced, they should be deleted as original research.
Frjohnwhiteford talk6 February UTC. The issue of the date is really inconsequential in comparison to the teaching of the Gospel of Thomas which is in fundamental opposition to the apostolic teachings. It is much more of a theological argument that is broader than the erroneous philosophical assumption that the most precedent event is somehow the source of truth concerning written material.
There were plenty of religious writing before the Christian gospel but it would be erroneous to ascribe them as the predecessor to the Christian faith. The Gospel of Thomas is apocrypha because the Church fathers did not accept it in the cannon; it is a matter of apostolic authority not literary precedence.
Talk:Gospel of Thomas/Archive 1
No literature can stand apart from the living. In many instances it is simply easier for Gnostics to deal with 'dead letters' rather than a living human authority placed over them namely the Catholic bishops. Obedience to authority is a fundamental trait of humility and piety found in many religions without which theological scholarship is vain.
The significance here is to remind the reader of the necessity of staying cognizant of the philosophical comprehension of the Christen and Catholic position in regards to these matters. The Nicene Creed for instance which is still recited in every high Catholic Mass reads in part "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of lifewho proceeds from the Father and the Son, with the Father and the Son he is worship and glorified.
He has spoken through the prophets. It was written to consolidate the Catholic teachings in response to Gnostic and other heretical positions. This is Catholicism, the Bible is the Churches Book, one cannot dictate to the Church what will be cannon and what will not.
It is worthy on behalf of the enterprising student of Catholic teachings to keep in mind two very important points. One is that the Church is held accountable for the souls i. Second, many so called scholars of Catholic theology are dismissive of the Catholic or Christian faith due to a presumption of familiarity with faith which is prohibitive due the largeness of the subject. I believe the majority opinion is that the Gospel of Thomas is a gnostic text, though this is not pointed out in the article.
For example:. Its more a debate about whether the gnostics existed at the time - it cannot be a gnostic text if the gnostics were not around when it was written. If the gnostics did exist at the time, it gives greater weight to the position that gnosticism was the original form of Christianity rather than emerging laterand hence is somewhat controversial.
Clinkophonist15 July UTC. Please forgive me if this entry was made incorrectly. I have developed a strong desire to understand the differences between Orthodoxy I am Protestant and Gnosticism.
In the process of studying, I have made Wikipedia a helpful source. While reading this particular article it seemed that; whether or not GoT was written before the Four is irrelevant, in as much as Orthodoxy and Gnoticism are completly opposite. It seems that the real issue is not necessarily when GoT was written because there is much support that the Four were already extant and could make similar claims - see Pauline Letters which were dated as much as whether GoT is Gnostic or not.
By definition any writing which refers to Jesus Christ in a dualist light: Jesus was a human man and Christ was 'above' the material and a seperate entity, IS Gnostic.
Whether Gnostics see entry above - posted 15 July existed when doesn't matter. I do ask if a kind soul can offer suggestions to further my learning please point me in the right direction. I edited the article slightly to point out that a majority of Thomas scholars favor an early date, while a majority of scholars at large favor a late date.
It's very important that readers understand and appriciate this distinction, as well as the fact that the dating of GOT is extremely contraversial. I had not intended to offend anyone with my "nonsense", so I guess I will have to admit I should have paid more attention to the canonical gospel admonition against casting pearls before swine.
This article needs to be properly referenced, and many assertions of fact need to be identified as the opinions that they are. Frjohnwhitefor 5 October UTC. I am not seeing anything on this web site that would indicate that this is a reliable source.
Unless someone can show how it conforms to Wikipedia:Verifiabilitythese references, and the claims based on them should be removed. Even the name of the web site is suspect, given the contents. Frjohnwhiteford talk10 March UTC. The article states that The Gospel of Thomas does not refer to Jesus as "Christ"' but goes on to say 'though it does mention Peter, James, Thomas, and Matthew as "disciples of Christ"'.
Two points of correction. First, there's ample evidence that the "oral gospel" was still authoritative for many Christians well into the second century. Irenaeus' early writings rely on an oral gospel, for instance, while later he vigorously defends the four written canonical gospels. Second, are there any Christian groups that take the Gospel of Thomas as authoritative? I don't know of any; if there aren't any, then "Many" can be changed to "No Christian groups accept it as authoritative.
Much like the Ethiopian Coptic Church, they were cut off from Western Christendom for several hundred years, and they have a different collection of religious texts in their cannon. In their version of the new testement, there is a version of the ' Gospel of Thomas'. I am sure that the preceding is incorrect.
Radiocarbon dating of the papyrusRadiocarbon testing of the Gospel of Jesus's Wife fragment and a Coptic fragment of the Gospel of John was performed independently by Greg Hodgins at the University of Arizona NSF Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory (June-July, ) and by Noreen Tuross of Harvard University's Department of Evolutionary Biology in conjunction . Anyone searching "carbon dating Nag Hammadi" or anything similar into Google will hit this page, from P. R. F. Brown, as their first result (the most relevant one, according to Google's algorithms): Radiocarbon Dating the Gnostics Gospels after Nicaea (And now the page has gotten another link, boosting its place in the results. From a scientific perspective, Carbon dating on old fragments of scriputure (such as the GoT) only tells you how old that copy of the GoT is. So it is wild speculation to say that carbon dating can give us a clear idea of which Gospels came first.
There's no evidence that the Christians of India used the Thomas Gospel, much less regarded it as canonical. You may be confusing it with the Acts of Thomas, an apocyphal book which is often said also incorrectly to be part of the canon of the Indian Christians.
Grenfell and Hunt, the original editors of the Greek fragments of Thomas, dated them to c. Stephen C. Carlson Dec 5, UTC. By the end of the first century, pagans and Christians referred to Jesus as the Christ, and Josepheus may have referred to Jesus as the so-called Christ. GOT does not refer to Jesus as Christ, but all the gnospels do. As noted in an edit summary, I'm concerned about this article. We have tons of stuff arguing for the early camp, but very little arguing for a 2nd Century date for the GoT which, as far as I know, is still a very viable and supported proposition.
I believe there is info out there that would balance this article, but don't possess it. As it stands, we seem to have contributions from anons who are fans of Elaine Pagels and those of her school of thought-legitimate scholars, certainly, but as Pagels has made a lot of money out of her advocacy for these apocryphal gospels, I would like it if we relied on other scholars as well?
Jwrosenzweig9 Feb UTC. I highly doubt that evolution is "fact" as there is no concrete evidence to prove such a statement. It is appropriately named a theory. It appears very suspicious that the majority of the texts which were found with the GofT were all dated around the AD.
There are older references to these texts but there are not many manuscripts. Whereas many of the gospels in the cannon have many manuscripts, some dating earlier than AD. It is a genuine document form around the AD but it seems highly doubtful that it originated by Thomas or during his lifetime.
Mainstream Christianity has a vested interest in discrediting the Gospel of Thomas as a text that predated the Gospels.
Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts
TEAMS of scholars have shown that it is dated before the synoptics. This is an inherent conflict of scholarly interest. Detached atheistic and jewish scholars consistently assert that the Gospel of Thomas is to be dated to before the synoptics.
Much of the article now has reasonably good citations. I would suggest that anyone concerned about OR remaining in the article apply the tag to individual sections or sentences. Grover cleveland talk24 March UTC. It doesn't make any sense to include the evaluation of the Jesus seminar of the text in this article. That properly belongs under an article for the Jesus seminar itself.
It would be sensible to put this information in the article for the Jesus Seminar and note that the Jesus seminar had some thoughts and provide a link to that page. As it is provides undue emphasis to a particular group of scholars, and thus is essentially POV. Ekwos talk6 December UTC. I've looked at the article, at this talk page and the archived talk page.
There is one entry in the archive about NPOV.
Gospels carbon dating
Nothing else in talkpage that appears to justify the tag on the article. No doubt some scholars and experts might want to add some content or revise other bits, but at the very least, the NPOV tag should be removed from the start of the article and placed before any sections someone has concern about. I am coming at this just as a reader of the article. I think whomever put the NPOV tag on should explain why, move it to the appropriate section, or it should be removed.
Let's give it a few days and see. Fremte talk28 March UTC. I am a little concerned about this section, which seems to have no citations. I had difficulty drawing the writer's conclusions about GoT's theology from my own copy of the gospel.
I'm new to Wikipedia editing and haven't yet found out how to enter the "citation needed" tag, so I apologise for just making this comment and not editing the actual text. Later - I have discovered how to request citations and have done so in the section that concerns me.
However, I continue to be concerned that this section may be personal opinion of the editor. I am so sorry that my requests for citations came across as demanding and discourteous. I am not a Gospel of Thomas scholar and was referring to this article in order to discover something more about it.
It was as someone consulting the encyclopedia that I expressed my concern. In addition to the problem of proper citations, this section contains much speculative information. All of it is based on the assumption that the Gospel of Thomas as a Gnostic text, which is disputed. Looking at the text itself, there is nothing to indicate that it is in fact a Gnostic text in terms of its theology or its metaphysics; these are assumptions made by scholars who were too quick to label it a gnostic text.
This section needs revision to take into account other perspectives; otherwise, it is entirely inadequate and outdated in its scholarship.
Which camp is larger? The Gospel of Thomas is not generally acknowledged by scholars as a Gnostic text. A number of scholars have made this assumption. Critics from within Christianity have labelled it a Gnostic gospel, but this charge may have been merely an attempt to discredit it and label it as a heresy. It is very possible that the Gospel of Thomas is a gospel that has a claim on par with that of the canonical gospels to being an accurate representation of the words of Jesus.
The text may have been rejected not because it was not accurate but rather because competing groups within Christianity sought to ensure that their perspective on Jesus would be the official one. The Gospel of Thomas does not present Jesus as an immaculately-conceived, miracle-performing, death-defying incarnation of God, but rather as a wise teacher who sought to show his disciples their own inner divinity.
Who were the Christians who looked to G. Gentiles, it would seem. If Gentiles, did they derive from Paul's Gentile mission? Or do they represent a Gentile branch of Christianity separate from Paul's missions?
If they don't talk about Jesus being resurrected, they can hardly come from Paul's churches. But if they're separate, where did they even come from?
Was there someone besides Paul who taught that you could join Jesus' church without converting to Judaism first? Leadwind talk13 May UTC. The film Stigmatawhich was seen by huge audiences world-wide, should be included in this article. Calling it "off topic" is simply arrogant.
Most people in the world sadly know about the Gospel of Thomas only from this film. Here is the answer to my question. The prophet Micah was an astrologer who lived in what is now Afghanistan. Modern theologians throw out the baby with the bathwater, dismissing all the infancy stories as mythical. The father of Astronomy, Johannes Kepler, inidentified the Star of Bethlehem as a triple Conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces and said astrologers of that time would, in fact, would have interpreted that rare astrological phenomenon as signifying the birth of a very great king in the land of Israel.
German archeologists in excavated the Magi astrology school at Sipper, near Babylon, and found the daily clay tablets that recorded their fascinated observation of that rare stellar event. The event occurred again, two thousand years later, October 12,as predicted by the astrologer, and Prophet Daniel, in this location. Dan And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
Johannes Kepler, proved the earth and planets circled the sun in elliptical paths and defied the false teaching of the Catholic Church, who claimed the earth was the center of the.
Johannes set order to the universe and sailors could navigate by stars. They no longer sailed off the earth. The Magi simply had to go to the land of Israel and inquire who was born at this time, in this place? As astrologers, They knew the longitude and latitude, or birth location. They had seen the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces. Mars was also there.
With the planets aligned they appeared as a large star that pointed to the birth site. Once found, they encountered a problem. Who was firstborn? Mt Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? Christ Didymus Thomas -Preceding unsigned comment added by Why did I even bother to read or edit this article? Two or three weeks ago I had no idea what the Gospel of Thomas was. And I have created over Wikipedia articles on Christianity, so if I feel confused, many people will.
I also saw that HighinAZ on the parables template was confused by it, so I started to figure out what this Gospel was. The article totally failed to inform me upfront. So I decided to clarify it:. So what on earth is bold about simple facts, expressed in simple terms, with references? It seems that referenced text is now called bold! Give me a break! History talk6 November UTC. Hey buddy, you are commenting on the previous version of the edits.
And all of this talk-talk-talk-talk about a few sentences The problem is that a 17 year old who reads this for the first time does not have to know or click to know what Canonical means. It is not part of their bibles is clearer. It must beclear to the public. The main problem with all this talk of Thomas is that it is wrapped in mist and uncertainty. It needs to be clear, clear, clear. Is that clear?
Does anyone have a problem making that clear? History talk8 November UTC. If you read the above more carefully, you were ok with parts of the other sentences at various points. And you have not given me specific reasons why my edit is not good for Wikipedia.
Your previous reasoning was along the Wikipedia is not a democracy lines. And he did say last sentence was ok, and you said lots of oks to other parts. And no one has yet given specific logical and valid arguments why fully referenced text should not be there.
One thing for sure is that we cannot use carbon dating to determine the date that the four gospels were written. This is because the original manuscripts (known as the autographs) of the four gospels and, indeed all the New Testament books are not in our possession. Dating the Old Testament. Mark and the Synoptic Gospels Saint Mark by Donatello. Statue in Florence, Italy. Matthew, Mark and Luke together are called the synoptic ("same eye") gospels. This is due to the close relationship between the three, as all three tell many of the same stories, often in the same way and with the same words. Of the Apr 29, Add to this the fact that the carbon dating of the John papyrus puts it in the seventh to ninth centuries, but Lycopolitan died out as a language sometime before the sixth century. No one wrote anything in Lycopolitan in the period in which this text would have to be dated. The Gospels that say Jesus had a wife are unreliable, written too.
Any why all this fuss? That I cannot completely figure out yet:. I will be totallyand I mean totally reworking said junk article within the next month, and add quality to it with references. So all debate here is really a waste of time since the article will change. There are those may "promote" the G-of-Thomas because they like Gnostic thought. But what is your stake Carl? No one asked you for a third opinion, did they? Your only, only edit here was " " namely yesterday, so why did you suddenly start feeling all emotional about this page old buddy?
Were you missing me? We had not fought for so long History talk9 November UTC. You liked "Although called a Gospel," as I did, so that is back and I used your sentence, and kept half of my list of items it does not mention to balance it.
Can we move on to fix the harmony now? But this is still a low quality article as soon as one moves beyond the intro. The problems are not just in the "intro window" but further down throughout the text.
Really needs a low quality flag at the top. History talk10 November UTC. These sentences too seem to betray, in my opinion, a traditional christian perspective, as if it must be made clear beyond any doubt -" is that clear?
I consider these wordings as POV. I feel a bit uneasy about saying that the gospel of Thomas has no reference to the divinity of Jesus, for various reasons, which I want to share with you. Thomas's gospel lacks all o fthe ideaology of original sin and final judgment, it has no interest in the notion that Jesus needed to be a substitutionary human sacrifice to atone for sins. Neither hell, nor the Passion of Christ, nor the Day of Son of Man when the sun will be darkened is ever mentioned. As for the deep differences between GT's viewpoint and the canonicals, there are other items I had not included, yet, e.
Does Carbon Dating Disprove the Bible? - Dr. Fazale Rana
Tarcisio Beal, Foundations of Christianity pages says:. Here is a good example:. Jesus said: 'See I am going to lead her to make her a male, so that she too might become a living spirit that resembles you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven'.
So GT is a really different entity in terms of views and doctrines. The article has not clarified these issues, hence the tag on top. History talk13 November UTC. To say that "no" scholars consider the apostle Thomas to be the original author is incorrect. While the text has been modified and added to by latter authors, a good number of N. It is a rummage sale of information, with bits and pieces all over the place.
My main item with all these "multi-author articles" is that if within 30 minutes I do searches and learn something new that the article did not tell me I know it is in trouble.
As a start, let us just look at the topic at hand, authorship. There are several suggestions about it scattered through the early camp late camp section, but no clear summary of it. Then the details of the scholarly debates can get handled at length towards the end. Then it may become readable. As is it took me web searches to understand what this document was: the wikipage had failed.
History talk5 December UTC. After adding the table, I have had to temporarily remove the image as it just didn't seem to work at the top.
I would suggest putting it under the Corresponding Oxy. Papyri if it were to stay, however, I haven't as I am on my Eeepc so the page may not appear on my screen as it would most other users. The box makes no sense since it says the author is Thomas the Apostle, while the text says the author is unknown.
Also saying the source are the Canonicals is confusing. And Diatessaron is guesswork, not sure. Please remove or correct the box. As is it is just incorrect and a liability, not asset. History talk28 December UTC. Attribution has a meaning different to authorship, and this is not a technical difference. The document clearly identifies who it is attributed to. Your previous discussions on authorship may be what clouded the water.
And again, it is a summary common to apocryphal articles. Then they are ALL confusing. This article is just one piece of poor quality nonsense text, one place after another. Why not say the author is Thomas Crown?
Makes as much sense, i. I am unaware of any other articles that simply contain a list of experts and authors who have written about the subject. My proposal is that we drop the section, and clean up the references to reflect reputable scholarship on the issue.
I will start on the bibliography now and have no hesitation to clean up the scholars list asap. I have no idea what I can do to remove the "factual accuracy is disputed" tag, because I have no idea why the editor who placed it there believes that. Warning tags like this should be accompanies by talk page discussions. We are discussing the problems with the infobox above. I believe an inline tag would be much more appropriate if the dispute is still open, then tagging the entire article.
History restored the tag, saying As I said on talk, th ebox is junk, and so is much more inside but box is main objection now And I'd maintain that problems with the box do not warrent flagging the entire article, and if there are factual issues with the entire article, they need to be spelled out so I can start addressing them.
We can't willy nilly throw on tags like that, if we aren't going to start working towards specific improvements. Please take the opportunity now to outline specific factual inaccuracies in the article that, if fixed, would satisfy the user enough so that we can remove the flag at the top of the article. If the objections cannot be sufficiently communicated to other users who want to help, then the flag has no business being on the article and again, if it's just a problem with the infobox, then use inline tags or a section flag, not an entire article flag.
The gospel of Thomas is a text. This text, as a text, contains sayings of Jesus. One is free to doubt whether these sayings are originally from the historical Jesus, as you may doubt whether the corresponding sayings of Jesus in the New Testament are from the historical jesus, or whether Jesus has even existed, or whatsoever.
In my opinion you are not right. I am assured. Write to me in PM, we will discuss.05.03.2020|Reply