Gospel of Thomas

[FOMWatts<><]

The Protoevangelium is also known as the Infancy Gospel of James. And in my book of the apocrypha, the books listed in the table of contents are:
Esdras I
Esdras II
Tobit
Judith
The Rest of Esther
Wisdom (of Soloman)
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch, with the Epistle of Jeremiah
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
Maccabees I
Maccabess II

Which is what protestants, at least this one, considers the Apocrypha. The main reason they were not included in the Protestant Bible is NOT due to contradictions, but to lack of reference in the remaining books. There is much mroe to it, but thats what it boils down to.

Blessings,

FOMWatts<><

 

[Philip]

Actually, many scholars say that it was written somewhat before the gospels in the bible. .

You are think of the wrong Gospel of Thomas. The OP and my comment deal with the (Infancy) Gospel of Thomas. I know of no scholar who assign a date earlier than AD 140 to it.

The Gospel of Thomas predated the other gospels in the Bible. How could it be an imitation of what came later?

There is scant evidence to prove that Thomas predates the canonical Gospels. Further, there is significant evidence that it postdates the canonical Gospels. However, that is not the topic of this thread.

 

[Krichevskoy]

As for the date, my book of gospels says this:
"The Infancy Gospel of Thomas survives in various forms in a number of languages, including Syraic, Greek, Latin, and Slavonic. The earliest extant is a Syraic manuscript dating to the sixth century. The variations among these versions make it difficult to reconstruct the earliest form of the work."

 

[pmarquette]

The books called apocrypha by Catholics (including EWTN, I presume) are not the same books that are called apocrypha by Protestants.
--- what Protestants refer to as " aprocrypha " are the 7 books found in the catholic canon of 72 books , not found in the King James Version.

-- what catholics refer to as apocrypha are what both Catholics and Protestants reject as " spurious " books : false gospel of thomas and james ; acts of peter & the Pseudopegrapha - early Jewish / christian writings ... gets confusing

 

[pmarquette]

Which is what protestants, at least this one, considers the Apocrypha. The main reason they were not included in the Protestant Bible is NOT due to contradictions, but to lack of reference in the remaining books. There is much mroe to it, but thats what it boils down to.
--- Jesus refered to most of the Old testament prophets , not to Barauch , Ecclesiaticus , tobit , macabbees , etc.
--- the 7 books are used to support prayers for the dead [ purgatory ] ; intercession of the saints / mary ; and other catholic doctrine ..... catholics kept and used

reformers included these text between covenants to denote the rise of the pharisees, sadducees, scribes , the roman occupation , to fill in the 300 years between malachi and matthew and ommitted from Bibles at the publication of the King James version
for they disagreed with some of the catholic tenants

 

[Philip]

As for the date, my book of gospels says this:
"The Infancy Gospel of Thomas survives in various forms in a number of languages, including Syraic, Greek, Latin, and Slavonic.

Is there consistancy between the different languages or are the stories divergent?