Spirituality
08 Dec 05
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioThere was a man sometime in the 20th century who accurately recited the Koran from memory, which is about the same size as the whole New Testament. So he'd find a Gospel or two to be pretty easy.
This is a very important point. The ability to write things down leads to 'lazy memories.'
Before literacy was wide-spread -- such as in only oral cultures -- people really pay
attention to things and tend to remember them with a greater degree of accuracy than
those people, like us, who can simply scroll up, or pull a dictionary/encyclopedia off the ...[text shortened]... recall things with great accuracy. Our circumstances do not demand it; their's did.
Nemesio
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by orfeoIt doesn't rely solely on Matthew and Luke. Other documents figure into it as well, such as the Gospel of Thomas.
I'm quite familiar with the idea of Q, but I must say I struggle very hard to come to terms with some of the notions about it.
I mean, I can understand how Matthew and Luke can be compared with each other and with Mark, and from that it can be worked out what material came from Q (accepting the two source hypothesis of course, otherwise the exercise is red ...[text shortened]... also be in a Gospel (in fact it's probably in two of them). I must be missing something here.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by rwingettSo, essentially the hypothesis is that the write of Thomas (heck, let's just say 'Thomas' and so on, it's easier) chose DIFFERENT bits of Q?
It doesn't rely solely on Matthew and Luke. Other documents figure into it as well, such as the Gospel of Thomas.
Okay in theory, but I think I still have the problem that I don't understand how someone could pick through and say "this is a Q bit that was only picked up by Thomas" and distinguish that from "this is a bit that Thomas took from somewhere other than Q" or "this is a bit that Thomas made up himself". If you don't have the original documents to look at, I genuinely don't understand how that's done.
To my mind, all you can say is "these say the same thing, so they came from the same source". How anyone determines what that source IS - even saying it was a document rather than direct word-of-mouth - is puzzling me. And I like to think I'm a bright guy.
It's nearly 2am which probably isn't helping, so I'm not sticking around for an answer just at the moment.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by rwingettBut it makes the fallacious assumption we can reconstruct Q using the Gospel of Thomas or any other. Even if Thomas was based on Q, there is no way to know if Thomas was faithful to Q, or a bastardization of Q. And reconstruction of Q based on other Gospels is fallacious.
It doesn't rely solely on Matthew and Luke. Other documents figure into it as well, such as the Gospel of Thomas.
Let us say we find an older text, and we call it Q. It would be fallacious to argue that Thomas or any other Gospel was based on Q. This Q may be a copy of still another. Maybe this Q is another bastardization of the text that Luke or another Gospel was based on. Maybe this Q was rejected by the ancients since it was a false Gospel - a text made to look like the true Gospel with false additions.
So really, any reconstruction of Q is in excessive in fantasy. And even the discover of an older manuscript - any assumption that it is the basis of later gospels is a post hoc fallacy. For we can't know if it is truer to Jesus words, or a twisting of Jesus teaching to suit someone political agenda.
In the end, the idea of Q turns out to be a hypothetic metal exercise of imagination and speculation - a huge jump in reasoning - into a speculative unknowable.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiPerhaps. As I said earlier, I started this thread merely to present Q, not to spend time arguing on its behalf. Make of it what you will.
But it makes the fallacious assumption we can reconstruct Q using the Gospel of Thomas or any other. Even if Thomas was based on Q, there is no way to know if Thomas was faithful to Q, or a bastardization of Q. And reconstruction of Q based on other Gospels is fallacious.
Let us say we find an older text, and we call it Q. It would be fallacious to arg ...[text shortened]... rcise of imagination and speculation - a huge jump in reasoning - into a speculative unknowable.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiLet me ask you, Coletti...do we have any evidence that the 'canons' existed prior to Vaticanus or Sinaiticus?
In the end, the idea of Q turns out to be a hypothetic metal exercise of imagination and speculation - a huge jump in reasoning - into a speculative unknowable.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by David CI don't know what "Vaticanus or Sinaiticus are offhand. I do believe that the "cannon" as we generally call it was not "official" collected into the "Bible" until several generations after Christ's death. But that has no bearing on Q.
Let me ask you, Coletti...do we have any evidence that the 'canons' existed prior to Vaticanus or Sinaiticus?
As for "evidence" of the cannons existence - I assume you mean the various writings that now part of the New Testament. None of these had been written at the time of Christ as far as we know. Some of the texts were written shortly after Christs death, anywhere from 5 to 30 years later, and some maybe 60 or more years later. But I'm only guessing at the dates - just like for anyone else - it's an estimate.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiI don't know what "Vaticanus or Sinaiticus are offhand.
I don't know what "Vaticanus or Sinaiticus are offhand. I do believe that the "cannon" as we generally call it was not "official" collected into the "Bible" until several generations after Christ's death. But that has no bearing on Q.
As for "evidence" of the cannons existence - I assume you mean the various writings that now pa ...[text shortened]... ars later. But I'm only guessing at the dates - just like for anyone else - it's an estimate.
Codeciis Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the earliest known transcriptions of the NT, and post-date Nicea. In my opinion, it would have immense bearing on the suppostion of Q, as Q may have been the only document that made it out of the 1st Century Judean wilderness, so to speak. Do you dismiss Thomas as genuine?
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by David CQ is still a matter of speculation - so your free to do with it what you want. If "Codeciis Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the earliest known transcriptions of the NT, then it's younger than the oldest known manuscripts we have. The NT cannon was defined later than the text that are in it's collection.
[b]I don't know what "Vaticanus or Sinaiticus are offhand.
Codeciis Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the earliest known transcriptions of the NT, and post-date Nicea. In my opinion, it would have immense bearing on the suppostion of Q, as Q may have been the only document that made it out of the 1st Century Judean wilderness, so to speak. Do you dismiss Thomas as genuine?[/b]
As for Thomas being genuine - genuine what? It's not inspired by God. It may be copied from inspired text, or copied from un-inspired text. There's no possible way of knowing which even by empirical standards. But by objective standards, Thomas presents a false Gospel - so it is not inspired.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by rwingettRwingo: " As I said earlier, I started this thread merely to present Q, not to spend time arguing on its behalf. Make of it what you will."
Perhaps. As I said earlier, I started this thread merely to present Q, not to spend time arguing on its behalf. Make of it what you will.
Im afraid you did not "merely present Q", Rwingo.
In your first post we can read the following:
"After all the meddling by Paul and others, Christianity looked virtually nothing like what Jesus had envisioned.
And there you have it."
..... and there you have it, Rwingo.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiThis is indicative of the insipid arrogance that has me entirely at odds with "Christians" like yourself.
But by objective standards, Thomas presents a false Gospel - so it is not inspired.
By objective standards, Coletti, it merely presents a DIFFERING version of Christ's teachings. How can you presume to label it false? Simply because the Nicean thugs either did not know of it, or actively decided it wasn't to be included? I was under the impression you had turned over a new leaf, and were leaving the irrational, illogical, suppositional statements behind.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by David CLet me ask you this, david C: Do you believe in Jesus as he is portrayed in the Thomas Gospel or in some other way outside the "official" Gospel ?
This is indicative of the insipid arrogance that has me entirely at odds with "Christians" like yourself.
By objective standards, Coletti, it merely presents a DIFFERING version of Christ's teachings. How can you presume to label it false? Simply because the Nicean thugs either did not know of it, or actively decided it wasn't to be included? I was un ...[text shortened]... ed over a new leaf, and were leaving the irrational, illogical, suppositional statements behind.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by David CBy objective standard - I mean it the presentation of the Gospels in the NT cannon are not the same "Gospel" presented by Thomas. Since you have no way of knowing what the original teaching of Christ were then you are merely speculating on it's contents, you are in no position to contradict my position. But I believe the Scriptures are inspired by God - so I know that Thomas presents a false gospel. It can not be inspired because God does not contradict himself.
This is indicative of the insipid arrogance that has me entirely at odds with "Christians" like yourself.
By objective standards, Coletti, it merely presents a DIFFERING version of Christ's teachings. How can you presume to label it false? Simply because the Nicean thugs either did not know of it, or actively decided it wasn't to be included? I was un ...[text shortened]... ed over a new leaf, and were leaving the irrational, illogical, suppositional statements behind.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by orfeoI'm not talking about the rare, 'Rainman' kind of person. I'm talking about normative
There was a man sometime in the 20th century who accurately recited the Koran from memory, which is about the same size as the whole New Testament. So he'd find a Gospel or two to be pretty easy.
memory spans. Today, they are much, much shorter than 2000 year ago. I don't
remember specifically where I learned this, but it pertained to all cultures which relied
more heavily (if not exclusively) on oral tradition rather than written.
This was the case in music before notation, which was where I first learned about it.
Leo Treitler was the scholar at the forefront of the Oral-Written Music debate (pretty
dry stuff).
Nemesio