The quoted text was mine (CJF).
My perspective was that when comparing the limited source material we have about what Jesus "actually said," there are sayings or parables which appear in more than one text, and some that appear in only one. I do not recall who did the study, but I know I have seen a scholarly work which attempts to rank the authenticity by how often the same or similar quotations appear in the various works. I agree that just because a saying appears only once, it does not invalidate its authenticity. Nor does the fact that a particular Gospel was canonized validate its authenticity. But I think frequency should be considered, especially when ranking the significance of the saying.
Unfortunately, Jesus, to our knowledge, never "wrote" anything himself. Some have suggested that this was intentional: "Progressive Christians have explained that Jesus never wrote anything down because God never intended a text-based Christianity." http://socialgospel.blogspot.com/2004/10/w...te-it-down.html In any event, no matter what the source, we are forced to live with hearsay accounts and memories.
Dating the Gospels is another issue that is all over the map, and so I wanted to respond the issue raised about John being written in competition with Thomas. "I believe that it was in Beyond Belief by Elaine Pagels that the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John were in competition, being written about the same time. " - Des.
I have not read that work, so I am not familiar with the arguments, but it sounds interesting. My NIV dates the cannonical gospels at Mark: 55 AD; Matthew (pre-Jerusalem destrustion), i.e., before 70 AD; Luke: between 50 and 63 AD [Matthew and Luke relying in part on Mark's account and commonly upon the Q source]; and John: 85 AD or later. NIV dates I John, which in its introduction states was written to combat the Gnostics, at around 90 AD. There is debate as to whether this Gospel is truly Gnostic (http://home.epix.net/~miser17/faq.html).
The Nag Hammadi version of Thomas (written in Coptic and the most complete we have) is believed to date to the fourth century, with text dating back to 140 AD. See: Burton H. Throckmorton, Jr., Gospel Parallels, A Synopsis of the First Three Gospels (4th Ed.) at xvi, and http://home.epix.net/~miser17/faq.html, supra: "Portions of Greek versions of the Gospel of Thomas were found in Oxyrhynchus Egypt about one hundred years ago and these can be dated to about 140 A.D. or somewhat before. A complete version in Coptic (the native Egyptian language written in an alphabet derived from the Greek alphabet) was found in Nag Hammadi Egypt in 1945. That version can be dated to about 340 A.D. The Coptic version is a translation of the Greek version. Thus most, if not all, of the Gospel of Thomas was written prior to 140 A. D." Who knows what changes were made to the original Greek sayings over time, or lost in translation? Look at the differences in the King James and NIV versions of the Bible, and also the additions to Mark at 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11.
If John was written to compete with Thomas, as opposed to Gnostics in general, it would seem that there would have to have been an earlier version than what we have, and it assumes that one exists. I am just glad we have the Nag Hammadi version, because it provides interesting insights when compared with the Cannonical texts. I like the focus on sayings, rather than an attempt at a historical narrative of Jesus' life. I like Mark, because it starts with Jesus' baptism and ministry, and ends with the discovery at the tomb Mark 16:6-8.
~ CJF
