Gnostic timeline reversed?

actually, i'm pretty sure the gnostic traditions pre-date most biblical texts.for instance, the gospel of thomas (which may or may not actually be a gnostic gospel) is the oldest gospel we currently have.

other way around.the earliest canonic text, mark, was written about ad 90. they think thomas was about 40 or 50 in its earliest form, and that it might be related to the source document for mark, matthew, and luke (q).i could be a little fuzzy on the dates, cause i just woke up, but i do recall thomas being older than any gospel in the new testament.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 10-21-2004 10:41 AM

well, yes, i said earliest gospel, not earliest epistle. i'm not terribly sure on the dates for the epistles, because frankly i hate paul so i'm not that interested. well, yes, i said "may or may not actually be a gnostic gospel." it could be read as one, but it also could be read in other ways. personally, i think it's somewhere in the middle.but i'll look up the dating of thomas again.

the reason i say it might be is that it only records the words of christs, not the actions. the gnostics were concerned with christ as a spirit, and a source of wisdom, but not as a man who died.having christ say that he's all around us is, indeed, very gnostic.

like proverbs, yes. you're ignoring the importance of the observation. gnostics were more concerned with the wisdom and teaching of christ, and not his actions, miracles, or death/resurrection. since thomas records only sayings, it is likely the have been a gnostic text.no one's debating that it's in a pattern of an older tradition, i'm simply saying that because it follows this pattern, it's more likely to be gnostic than otherwise. the two are not entirely separable. gnostics were a sect christians. their traditions are christian, just not the sort we follow today. at the same time, you can't entirely pull the gnosticism out of the existing canonical texts, particularly not after the resurrection.