The dead Sea Scrolls (Jesus)

[Manji2012]

I heard someone mention that there some of the dead sea scrolls that have been translated and that they are writings of what Jesus wrote. The scrolls contradict some of what the church is doing currently.

is there any truth to this? Are there really some of the dead sea scrolls that people think Jesus might have wrote?

 

[wil]

I heard someone mention that there some of the dead sea scrolls that have been translated and that they are writings of what Jesus wrote. The scrolls contradict some of what the church is doing currently.

is there any truth to this? Are there really some of the dead sea scrolls that people think Jesus might have wrote?

I haven't heard purported that any DSS are Jesus writings. It is thought by some that the Gospel of Thomas is an accurate compilation of Jesus' sayings, and yes some is contradictory.

 

[Thomas]

I heard someone mention that there some of the dead sea scrolls that have been translated and that they are writings of what Jesus wrote. The scrolls contradict some of what the church is doing currently.

Your source was misinformed.

The DSS for the most part predate Christianity, and are concerned with Hebrew Scriptures (OT) rather than Christian Scriptures (NT). Only one document has been said to possibly be Christian, supposedly a fragment of the Gospel of Mark, which would place Mark as written between 30-60AD. As the only complete word in the fragments is 'and' ... it's a tough argument to make.

There are major copies of Hebrew books, however, as well as documents belonging to the Essenes.

is there any truth to this? Are there really some of the dead sea scrolls that people think Jesus might have wrote?

No ... no truth at all.

The Gospel of Thomas is not part of the DSS but of the Nag Hammadi find, and the materials themselves date back to the 2nd century AD.

The argument for the authenticity of the GoT ranges back and forth, but with no hard evidence, it's impossible to say ...

... as the Fathers listed those books which were considered canonical and those which were not, and Thomas is not amongst them, there is a strong argument to suggest that the GoT was never part of the Christian community, nor a serious contender.

It is not fully orthodox, but nor is it fully gnostic, and in fact it's difficult to place it within any philosophical context ... so some put it 30AD, some put it 300AD ... as the only thing going for it is its ambiguity, it has a certain appeal, as one can interpret it any way you like, but it certainly 'misses' the significant 'revelation' of Christian doctrine, so it's not really much use in any meaningful sense beyond the archaeological.

Thomas

 

[Manji2012]

Your source was misinformed.

The DSS for the most part predate Christianity, and are concerned with Hebrew Scriptures (OT) rather than Christian Scriptures (NT). Only one document has been said to possibly be Christian, supposedly a fragment of the Gospel of Mark, which would place Mark as written between 30-60AD. As the only complete word in the fragments is 'and' ... it's a tough argument to make.

There are major copies of Hebrew books, however, as well as documents belonging to the Essenes.


No ... no truth at all.

The Gospel of Thomas is not part of the DSS but of the Nag Hammadi find, and the materials themselves date back to the 2nd century AD.

The argument for the authenticity of the GoT ranges back and forth, but with no hard evidence, it's impossible to say ...

... as the Fathers listed those books which were considered canonical and those which were not, and Thomas is not amongst them, there is a strong argument to suggest that the GoT was never part of the Christian community, nor a serious contender.

It is not fully orthodox, but nor is it fully gnostic, and in fact it's difficult to place it within any philosophical context ... so some put it 30AD, some put it 300AD ... as the only thing going for it is its ambiguity, it has a certain appeal, as one can interpret it any way you like, but it certainly 'misses' the significant 'revelation' of Christian doctrine, so it's not really much use in any meaningful sense beyond the archaeological.

Thomas

I see, so when a Christian goes around saying, I have taken a my modern New testament and read it and compared it to the Dead Sea Scrolls, they're just full none sense because the Dead Sea Scrolls are almost entirely concerned with the Old Testament and not the New Testament. Alright, I got ya.

 

[wil]

I see, so when a Christian goes around saying, I have taken a my modern New testament and read it and compared it to the Dead Sea Scrolls, they're just full none sense because the Dead Sea Scrolls are almost entirely concerned with the Old Testament and not the New Testament. Alright, I got ya.

lol, when you look at DSS and Nag Hamadi....what they went thru was a pile of scrap paper like you've never seen before. Some were other materials but imagine the scrolls after hundreds of years dried out cracking, some were burned for heat then they thought they were something so they were kept in cardboard boxes...not very well conditioned...hauled around and much turned to dust.

When they got to serious review they were putting together pieces of a puzzle that was quickly deteriorating and they had tons of it (imagine a pile of leaves raked up into your yard...dried out folks walking through them and crushing them and then you trying to put them back together... incredible undertaking...

I'd like to meet those Christians that have done said comparing...

 

[flowperson]

... as the Fathers listed those books which were considered canonical and those which were not, and Thomas is not amongst them, there is a strong argument to suggest that the GoT was never part of the Christian community, nor a serious contender.

It is not fully orthodox, but nor is it fully gnostic, and in fact it's difficult to place it within any philosophical context ... so some put it 30AD, some put it 300AD ... as the only thing going for it is its ambiguity, it has a certain appeal, as one can interpret it any way you like, but it certainly 'misses' the significant 'revelation' of Christian doctrine, so it's not really much use in any meaningful sense beyond the archaeological.

Thomas

Thomas, we've had discussions about this in the past so I won't waste our time and efforts, not to mention those of our companions here, in retreading such old and dusty trails.

Yes, the Church Fathers declared back in the day that the Biblical Cannon was, is, and should continue to be the "be all and end all" when it comes to interpreting the "true meanings" of Jesus' life and times among us 2,000 years ago. There are quite a few people around today, including eminent scholars , who increasingly disagree with your "opinion" regarding the revelatory content and significance of the Nag Hamadi materials, and in particular The Gospel of Thomas.

It is clear to some of us who have diligently studied these matters that both the Biblical Cannon and the Nag Hamadi materials hold a place to help us all in the ongoing interpretation of world events as they unfold. And for me personally, The Gospel of Thomas is spot on in many instances when it comes to interpreting the mystical speculations of Jesus, and what they mean in term of what we observe on a daily basis all around us. This is a far more important concept for me than that of the Gospel of Thomas providing only archaeological anecdotes to be discussed outside of the context of the Biblical Cannon.

And I also wish to add just how much I usually always enjoy your scholarly and knowledgeable commentary as part of the vital goings on at CR...even though I sometimes disagree with their emphasis. C'est la vie !

flow....