Board index ‹ Bible

[Herbal Wonder]

And then it was like, BOOOOM: Nag Hammadi library. Have fun reading!

For me, personally, neutrality is key. For (most) the Christians, negative results may vary...since, you know, what could be said in some of these gospel documents and accounts has the potential to refute the Official (Catholic-approved) Doctrine.

[Just Lurking]

What is your position on the question?

[jimwalton]

My position is that new information is always helpful. Scholars are generally decent about weighing the veracity, reliability, and import of discoveries, so their assessments would help us discern the credibility of the discovery. The date of the document would matter, and I think that a signed document would be more valuable than an anonymous one, but even an anonymous one would be fascinating to find. it would depend on its similarity/differences with the current Gospels and the other Gnostic documents we have found.

I think that generally it would be a positive event, giving us more information about Jesus and his followers.

[Shadow Destroyer]

I disagree with the dates you attribute to the Gospels. I think there is good reason to believe that there were no Gospels in the first century.

And you say "same stories", but same stories in regards to what Gospel?

The Gospels are unreliable. They are not independent, they are filled with obvious fictions and stories which are not probable a priori. Many of the earlier Gospels are filled with Midrash, making it even harder to support them as being reliable. I can go on and on here.

[jimwalton]

I could go on and on with this one also, and I don't know if we really want to get into that here. Almost all ancient and modern scholarship place the Gospels in the first century. It's almost unanimous. There are credible reasons to place all of them before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, but there is some debate about that. The evidences for pre-90 writing of the Synoptics are plentiful and strong. The fact that they are not independent is no critique of their veracity. In our research books, PhD. theses, and professional journal papers, we value lots of footnotes. It shows someone has done their homework. And yet when we see the Gospel writers tapping off of each other's work, we cry foul.

> they are filled with obvious fictions

Evidence?

> and stories which are not probable a priori

According to whose definition of probability?

> Many of the earlier Gospels are filled with Midrash

Evidence, or just your supposition (bias?)?

[Page 007]

> Would it REALLY make a difference, because now we have an account that is NOT in the Bible.

The Gospels aren't unreliable because they are in the Bible, they are unreliable because they are interdependent, unsigned accounts of oral hearsay. Answering your question relies on the nature of the new documents; if they are similar then there is little change.

> If it was anonymous, one could always accuse "unknown source." But if it had a name on it (and probably not necessarily a name that was known), then I assume that would still be "unknown source." Even if it had a name like "Barnabas" on it, some would still say, "There were lots of Barnabases. We don't know which one it was, " therefore, "unknown source."

Hence why people of such a time took care to explain who they were; "Barnabus of Cyprus, companion of Paul, previously Saul of Tarsus, disciple of Jesus of Nazareth," etc. To do otherwise would of course be silly for the reasons you stated.

[jimwalton]

> they are unreliable because they are interdependent

That they are interdependent is no critique of their veracity. In our research books, PhD. theses, and professional journal papers, we value lots of footnotes. It shows someone has done their homework. And yet when we see the Gospel writers tapping off of each other's work, we cry foul.

[Imagine That]

Academics have been hoping and wishing for a missing piece to the Gospels for quite some time. The "Q" source is believed to be a sayings gospel that, just like Mark, was used as a source for Matthew and Luke.

I just wanted to offer one of those "positive" possibilities. Others have mentioned the rejection of certain gospels by Irenaeus, as being too late or too gnostic or just too different. If the "Q" source was found (from the German for source, quelle), it would be truly groundbreaking, the earliest gospel, and maybe even written during life or just after the death of Jesus.

While the synoptic gospels are largely biographical—weaving the parables of Jesus with his baptism, peripatetic movements, and crucifixion—the Q source would literally just be the sayings and teachings of jesus... without explanation (it would be similar in construction to the Gospel of Thomas, and it's probable that this is what Thomas was mirroring).

What would we learn from such a document? Is it possible that it was a source for Mark as well? Who wrote first transcribed it and why? Does it even mention the resurrection?? OR Does it simply end with the crucifixion as Mark once did? These questions are just personal ones from me... I'm sure if you asked an actual scholar they could blow your mind with what Q could actually say.

Alas, it will most likely never be found, as the earliest members of the nazarene movement were usually the poorest and lacked the means of preservation beyond an oral tradition. Maybe, it was only ever an oral tradition.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for a thoughtful reply. Yeah, it would be interesting if the hypothetical "Q" were ever found, along with the alleged J, E, D, or P. We really have no evidence for any of these supposed sources. All of Q might say is pure speculation, as not even a fragment of it has been found, to our knowledge.

I think it's always positive to find new material. I just don't know if, in the minds of hard-core skeptics, ANY new material would make a difference.

While the earliest followers of the Way were poor, there does seem to have been a value on preserving an accurate record of the life and words of Jesus.

[Enlil]

Our society is so entrenched in what they want to believe, that no matter what type of new information may come up people will either not pay attention to it or make excuses as to why it is not legit.