Talk:Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Untitled

• Jesus at School talks about the Tring tiles mentioned in a Guardian article. --62.221.5.212 17:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC) JFG

An unwarranted deletion discovered

On December 1 2005, User:Jamesmusik deleted the following: "The first known quote from its text is from Irenaeus of Lyon, ca 185, which sets a latest possible date of authorship." What statement of simple fact could be more colorlessly presented than this? This article needs to be monitored more closely for subtle vandalism. --Wetman 19:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The article claims that the clay bird story found its way into the Qur'an

How do we know that the reverse is not true, just like with the claims that the Gospel of Barnabas is a forgery? Kirbytime 04:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Chronology. --Wetman 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, Bart Ehrman in a lecture series he gives called ["History of the Bible: the Making of the New Testament Canon"], recorded for TTC, states the infancy gospel of Thomas dates from somewhere in the 2nd century (most likely guesstimate around the middle of that century)

He mentions the same gospel in ISBN:0195084810, stating:

One of the earliest is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the Coptic Gospel of Thomas discovered near Nag Hammadi), a document dated by some scholars to around the year 125 C.E. Here is a fascinating account of Jesus' youth beginning at the tender age of five. Behind the narrative lies a question that intrigues some Christians even today: if Jesus was a miracle-working Son of God as an adult, what was he like as a 'child? In this account, as it turns out, he is more than a little mischievous. When he first appears, he is making clay sparrows by a stream on the Sabbath. A Jewish man passing by sees what he has done and upbraids him for violating the Law by not keeping the Sabbath day holy. Instead of apologizing, the child Jesus claps his hands and tells the sparrows to be gone. They come to life and fly off, thereby destroying any evidence of wrongdoing!

the latter should more or less confirm what you're pulling into question here. Boombaard (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits and restorations

• For a text that was mentioned by Irenaeus c. 185, the following is babble:"

The text cannot be precisely dated and the range of possible dates is extremely large. The latest possible date is that of the first manuscript, sometime in the 6th century AD. Few scholars accept a date near this end of the range." All that is useful in this, is the often-instanced instinct to make a non-canonical text late, even, as here, at the risk of nonsense.

• Since the evidence for dating has been give, the following adds nothing: "While this is fairly supportive of a second century dating, it is by no means definitive." The evidence has not been characterized as "definitive".

The two episodes said to berepresented in the Quran need to be identified and translated. --Wetman 06:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Content Reference

I referenced nearly the whole of the Content section to a site I found which was not a .com, but rather a .edu

The link is as follows: http://wesley.nnu.edu/Biblical_Studies/noncanon/gospels/inftoma.htm

I went for the Greek Text A, but not Greek Text B. As for the references from Greek Text B, I haven't looked around for that yet. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.75.169.217 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Greek Text A, Greek Text B

The terms "Greek Text A" and "Greek Text B" are not defined in this article, nor elsewhere in Wikipedia. BillyPreset (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no further discussion, I am going to edit out the confusing references to "Greek Text A" and "Greek Text B". 173.168.212.159 (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

So not understanding the references to Greek A vs Greek B, instead of improving the article to clarify the distinctions, you simply removed it. Smh. All scholars today know what these mean and if briefly mentioning or quoting from this text will make that distinction of which version. Even non-scholars such as myself can figure out those terms if anyone has done any amount of research into ancient texts, especially when reading anything such as what was removed here in wiki. At any rate, I will be putting back the removed sections PLUS improve the article by adding notes to define them in this article. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

- I think for the general reader the distinction of "Greek Text A" and "Greek Text B" is unnecessary - all we need to know is that there are different manuscripts with different content - "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" WP:NOTEVERYTHING - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I concur with that sentiment to a degree. For example there is also a Greek D and a Greek S, as well as many other language versions such as Syriac, Slavonic, etc. And one could get into even more detail such as Slavonic and Latin can be seen as mostly Greek A and Greek D (which is partly why some scholars think was originally written in Greek). I left all of that out for in essence same reason as you gave. IF one really wants to know more, they can look at some of the citation sources given. However, there are 3 common principal versions today that one will almost always certainly see referrenced quite often. Clearly some even seen it once upon in this wiki article itself, so thought it wise to include if they run across it elsewhere and not understanding, came to wiki for info and simple clarification. At any rate, I added a paragraph to Manuscript Tradition section only including a summary of the main 3 principal versions one is likely to run across. Feel free to revise, shorten it, etc. It should be a consensus and not just me and my opinion. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100709055523/http://macdonald.hartsem.edu/articles/zebiriarticle.pdf to http://macdonald.hartsem.edu/articles/zebiriarticle.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Explanation needed as to the count of miracles

Much is made about there being "three miracles are before and three are after each of the sets of lessons."

However, it is not clear why several actions are counted together as a single miracle. For instance, cursing a boy who falls dead, and blinding his parents, is counted as one miracle and not two or three. Likewise why reversing these miracles and the others before the lessons counts as a single post-lesson miracle, not (say) five.

I suggest if no rationale for these being three miracles and not some other number of miracles is forthcoming, that the text regarding the number of miracles be stricken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiss Frank (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No justification for link to Gnostics given

At the time of writing, the only citation mentioning the Gnostics actually suggests that the origin was probably Ebionite, not Gnostic.