Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 05-17-2006, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Here's a third option: evolution. GJohn has had several redactions. At each point, copyists have to make a choice about what they will retain, and the longer version is to be preferred. Naturally, over time, it will displace any other version, since its theology is so incredibly Catholic.

Vorkosigan

But how did the gospel end up in the same form in areas and churches outside catholic control.

This is the point that is never addressed.

The four gosples turn up independently in Persia, out side of the control of the church within the Roman Empire.

How and when are the questions never addressed

The problem again is that only the Catholic tradition and the Catholic church is deemed to be the Christian church.

judge · 05-17-2006, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Perhaps only the final version of the fourth gospel (with chapter 21) was actually published, in the fullest ancient sense of that word. The earlier versions might have been regarded as mere υπομνηματα, or notes, and might have easily been displaced even without the full pressure of orthodoxy.

Thanks for the reply. I will have good look at it.

Kosh · 05-17-2006, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

The four gosples turn up independently in Persia, out side of the control of the church within the Roman Empire.\

What is the actual dating of those copies?

The Bishop · 05-18-2006, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

That would be Polycarp, not Porphyry.

Ben.

See, and I knew the name was wrong, but didn't have time to look up who the hell I was talking about. Apologies!

The Bishop · 05-18-2006, 03:35 AM

It's not even true to say that there was only one "final" copy of John. John 7:53 to 8:11 - the stoning of the adulteress - appears in at least two manuscript traditions somewhere in Luke (where it more properly belongs, apart from the John-like detail of Jesus writing in the sand). And it's missing altogether from the oldest and best witnesses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

But how did the gospel end up in the same form in areas and churches outside catholic control.

This is the point that is never addressed.

You raise a good point. Not being a full-on scholar, I've always been fascinated by the widespread dissemination of essentially the same books, but I don't know the stories of how that is thought to have happened.

cad0830 · 05-18-2006, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

GJohn is a layered work with different layers of authorship at different times, but it's Canonical form is usually dated to sometime around the turn of the 1st century. The author knows about the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues so that puts it at least in the 90's.

What John knew of synoptics is an open question. It shows awareness of some Markan material (e.g. an empty tomb) but does not quote directly from it. The fact that it contains no Q material, that it has no Nativity or virgin birth and that it implies that Jesus was born in Nazareth (showing no awareness of a Bethlehem tradition) would tend to suggest that the author was not familiar with Matthew or Luke.

Could you, for the record, point me to a copy of Q? Since there is no copy, I would argue it never existed. After all, in legal systems, if it was not recorded, it did not happen. If you were to discuss Q in court, it would never hold up, because besides conjecture, we have no proof it exists.

MadMez · 05-18-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cad0830

Could you, for the record, point me to a copy of Q? Since there is no copy, I would argue it never existed. After all, in legal systems, if it was not recorded, it did not happen. If you were to discuss Q in court, it would never hold up, because besides conjecture, we have no proof it exists.

Well, you can't point to an original copy of any of the gospels, so we can all have fun figuring if there ever was one of those. And a court discussion of the same would lead to the same conclusion and thus lead to conjecture that Mr Christ's existence also be called into question. Which brings us the this sub forum.

So welcome! Pull up a keyboard and open them bags of worms! It's a blast!

Gamera · 05-18-2006, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cad0830

Could you, for the record, point me to a copy of Q? Since there is no copy, I would argue it never existed. After all, in legal systems, if it was not recorded, it did not happen. If you were to discuss Q in court, it would never hold up, because besides conjecture, we have no proof it exists.

Being a lawyer, I can say, without getting into details, that under the rules of evidence (in California and Federal court at least), this isn't true. Secondary evidence of missing documents is admissible for various purposes.

But in any case, legal standards are not the standard of scholarly, empirical research. The use of Q raises a lot of epitomological problems, but positing its existence isn't irrational.

judge · 05-18-2006, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kosh

What is the actual dating of those copies?

5th century IIUC. However it is a liitle more complicated than this as I will can show.

But the problem is that at present all we have is a vague theory. Whilst it reamins vague it is impossible to test the theory to see if it is any good.

So what I am asking Vorksorgian to do is to get more specific.
Then we can test the theory.

I mean isn't anyone at least prepared to propose some where and whens?

You see if there is no possible when and where then the theory must be wrong!

Vorkosigan · 05-18-2006, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

5th century IIUC. However it is a liitle more complicated than this as I will can show.

But the problem is that at present all we have is a vague theory. Whilst it reamins vague it is impossible to test the theory to see if it is any good.

So what I am asking Vorksorgian to do is to get more specific.
Then we can test the theory.

What's to test? At the moment, it seems incredible to you that one version of a text could supplant others, although that normal throughout human history in a wide variety of different situations. I could argue if you had a relevant objection, but I can't see a way to get around your incredulity. I'm certainly curious about transmission routes to other climes and places, but unfortunately I don't know how GJohn arrived in Persia and in what condition. So I'll leave you to contemplate Ben's post.

Vorkosigan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.