The Story of Jesus, Revisited.

[GeminiBrian]

Although one would have to read some of the works referenced in this paper to arrive at any conclusion, with this title, I couldn't resist thinking of you.

Dating the Books of the New Testament or "The Emperor Has No Clothes"

Thanks for the link, Quest. Just in time to print it out and take to bed with me, now I have to go for my afternoon rest.

I trust its contents aren't too stimulating, in which case, I shall be over-excited, miss my hour's snooze and be in another bad mood later tonight...

(You know well enough what I'm like when I'm in a bad mood)...

[Questatement]

Oops... some warnings come too late.

[Ken Carman]

I'm not sure how much reading you have done in the NT but I always get the impression that the gospels were well distributed, studied, and taught by the teachers and preachers rising up to lead the church so the writers of the later books were interested in supplementing the gospels, not repeating a written work that was already done.

2 Pet. 1:12-21


Hence the attention to OT writings in many of the epistles.

There is supposed to have been an original source document that those who wrote the Gospel relied on. ("Q?" I get my letters mixed up here and don't have time for a Google right now.) Most biblical scholars I have read think they did use each others writings as a resource for their own work: Mark probably being the oldest. (Some claim "Secert Gospel of Mark," but most think that a fraud.)

Of course that having been typed there actually is no "first" document in the larger sense. These were passed down mostly by word of mouth, otherwise one might wind up being today's entertainment and food for the animals... amongst other things as bad.

[Questatement]

I've read the Q theory well and don't buy it. I believe the original source 'material' is the life and teachings of Jesus that were passed on orally until written down by eye-witness disciples who spent four straight years living with Jesus which includes the books of Matthew, Mark, and John.

There is little doubt that Luke was written via second-hand information but what and where that collection came from is still up for grabs. The traditional view is that Luke was a disciple of the apostle Paul and wrote on his behalf. Paul, in addition to much mingling with the original 11 apostles, received much direct revelation from God himself according to his own testimony. Something that might make sense considering that he missed out on the original apostle band-wagon.

[GeminiBrian]

I've read the Q theory well and don't buy it. I believe the original source 'material' is the life and teachings of Jesus that were passed on orally until written down by eye-witness disciples who spent four straight years living with Jesus which includes the books of Matthew, Mark, and John.

Nobody's ruled out the possibility that the Q material was, in fact, oral. I don't agree with you, Quest - postulating the existence of 'Q' is the only theory that makes sense of the structural content of the three synoptic gospels. It ties Mathew and Luke to Mark almost perfectly.

[Questatement]

Without the twisted and forced perspective on the Gospel of Thomas, the Q document theory would exist only in the farthest imaginations of those who wish to strip Jesus of his deity.

What about the Gospel of Thomas?

Until something better is discovered, I'm sticking with similarities based on inspiration and divine recall from the source... the Holy Spirit.

[Questatement]

I like Gary Byer's take on the Gnostics in general.

After the Hype: The Significance of The Gospel of Judas

Scholarly response to the document is one thing, media reaction is another. It appears that anything casting doubt on the traditional view of Scripture is widely hailed as interesting and worthy of consideration. There appears to be almost a sense of compassion for the poor Gnostics in the media (and among some scholars). I can’t help but see our own “21st century Gnosticism” here. We glory in any new information (our own “secret Gnostic insight”) that has not been part of orthodox Christianity (or Judaism). Historic truth these days, however tried and true, is just not sufficient. Following the incredible reaction to Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code (see Byers 2004), it seems more popular now than ever to trumpet any evidence that challenges traditional Biblical truth.

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Without the twisted and forced perspective on the Gospel of Thomas, the Q document theory would exist only in the farthest imaginations of those who wish to strip Jesus of his deity.

I think we must be talking of entirely different 'Q' documents - in all my reading on the subject of the Gospels I can't recollect ever having come across yours.

What has it got to do with the Gospel of Thomas, for a start?

[GeminiBrian]

I like Gary Byer's take on the Gnostics in general.

"Scholarly response to the document is one thing, media reaction is another. It appears that anything casting doubt on the traditional view of Scripture is widely hailed as interesting and worthy of consideration. There appears to be almost a sense of compassion for the poor Gnostics in the media (and among some scholars). I can’t help but see our own “21st century Gnosticism” here. We glory in any new information (our own “secret Gnostic insight”) that has not been part of orthodox Christianity (or Judaism). Historic truth these days, however tried and true, is just not sufficient. Following the incredible reaction to Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code (see Byers 2004), it seems more popular now than ever to trumpet any evidence that challenges traditional Biblical truth".

Maybe you should start rounding up all the modern Gnostics, torch them, and burn their books again, as did the early Christian church.

We haven't seen any good book-burnings for a while - not since those fanatical Muslims publicly burnt copies of Salman Rushdie's works.

That should appeal to you and your closed-minded mates, and your sense of fair play, Quest.

[Questatement]

Except books are my friends.

Why would I want to burn them?

[GeminiBrian]

Except books are my friends.

Why would I want to burn them?

Your Christian predecessors did, without the slightest compunction (along with their authors and readers).

So it's safe to assume that modern Christians have become civilised in the meantime? I'm pleased to hear it...

[DougL]

Following the incredible reaction to Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code (see Byers 2004), it seems more popular now than ever to trumpet any evidence that challenges traditional Biblical truth.

I think The Da Vinci Code's biggest fans are believers. They seem unaware or at least not bothered that the book is fiction. For some reason, believers are intrigued by Mary Magdalene. Give two lectures, one on Apostle Paul and the other on Mary, and see which one more believers attend.

As an atheist, whether Jesus and Mary had sex doesn't affect me at all. And Christians, who don't see sex as something dirty, apparently aren't bothered by the idea either.