5 ms·

> "I thought the various Churches had consolidated around the canonical bible centuries before then?" The Bible canon was at least semi-established in around t

> "I thought the various Churches had consolidated around the canonical bible centuries before then?" The Bible canon was at least semi-established in around the 2nd century, and by the end of the 4th century the canon was very stable. There were still ongoing disagreements between branches of the church, but never over whether a "new" writing should be included, always over writings from the first or possibly early second centuries, or older Jewish writings. An 8th century writing would not have warranted much attention. IMO the non-canonical "gospels" from after ~150 AD are uninteresting. The interesting stuff, outside of the canon, are the really old writings ( http://earlychristianwritings.com/ http://earlychristianwritings.com/ ) and the commentary/teachings of early church leaders (http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html ).

justifier 10y ago
can you elaborate on what exactly you mean by 'uninteresting'? is that opinion informed as a believer or as historian? does your date refer to survived text or assumed date of original writing?
- lotharbot 10y ago
  > "exactly you mean by 'uninteresting'?" Does not bring any particular degree of enlightenment regarding the life or teachings of Jesus, nor the founding or early history of the Christian church or religion. It might be interesting in its own right, but not for studying that topic. > "does you date refer to survived text or assumed date of original writing?" The ~150 AD date that I use to separate interesting from uninteresting? Assumed date of original writing. Oldest surviving text can sometimes help establish that date, but only in a one-directional sense. There are lots of other markers of authenticity or inauthenticity that scholars look for; if you click through to the Early Christian Writings website I linked above, most of the writings have a few-page discussion of their likely age and authorship, and reading through a handful of those descriptions will give you a taste of what a rich field of scholarship there is surrounding the authentication of ancient writings.
  - justifier 10y ago
    thanks for engaging, but you did skip over my most interesting question: is that opinion informed as a believer or as historian? > Does not bring any particular degree of enlightenment regarding the life or teachings of Jesus, nor the founding or early history of the Christian church or religion. have you read mary or judas? in coptic? they are fascinating if only from the perspective of enlightenment regarding the life or teachigns of jesus, and shine a light on the early machinations that engineered what would later be known as the christian church and religion see the excerpt from mary in another comment of mine in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11918993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11918993 that excerpt brings a fascinating degree of enlightenment at how jesus viewed gender lines that clearly went in opposition to views held by the other disciples in judas, if you read it in the original coptic you will see that every instance of the proper noun for 'jesus christ', often uniquely abreviated IHC or nXC, is quantified by the attirbutive verb 'laughing', he is the 'laughing christ'.. which for me, was an enlightening view of jesus' life and opinion
    - Bluestrike2 10y ago
      While I can't speak for him, in general, you can reasonably assume that most academic commentary is from an analytical/academic perspective and not one of religious belief. That's not to say that biblical scholars can't be believers; they absolutely are. But that sort of rigorous analysis can often come into conflict with how most believers and sects view core theology and the material that informs it. For instance, a critical reading of the gospels that make up the bible--looking at the effects of centuries worth of oral tradition, transliteration, translation, and sometimes very heavy edits--isn't exactly the same as accepting one of the more modern editions as the literal "word of God" put to print. I've only had some limited exposure to these traditions (mostly through some medieval philosophy, which obviously intersected heavily with the theology of the time), but it's a fascinating field of study. Not only in terms of how theological texts can change over time and how interpretations of them do the same, but also in how that can contrast with conventionally accepted understandings of what those texts are in the first place.
    - lotharbot 10y ago
sgt101 10y ago
A lack of printing presses surely means that while it might have been "written" in 800AD it may have been authored well before?
- lotharbot 10y ago
  sure, it could have been. There are a lot of other markers scholars look for determine whether it actually was. The wikipedia page for this particular manuscript gives a brief description of the reasons this is considered a forgery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_Wife https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_Wife
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

justifier 10y ago

can you elaborate on what exactly you mean by 'uninteresting'? is that opinion informed as a believer or as historian? does your date refer to survived text or assumed date of original writing?

lotharbot 10y ago
> "exactly you mean by 'uninteresting'?" Does not bring any particular degree of enlightenment regarding the life or teachings of Jesus, nor the founding or early history of the Christian church or religion. It might be interesting in its own right, but not for studying that topic. > "does you date refer to survived text or assumed date of original writing?" The ~150 AD date that I use to separate interesting from uninteresting? Assumed date of original writing. Oldest surviving text can sometimes help establish that date, but only in a one-directional sense. There are lots of other markers of authenticity or inauthenticity that scholars look for; if you click through to the Early Christian Writings website I linked above, most of the writings have a few-page discussion of their likely age and authorship, and reading through a handful of those descriptions will give you a taste of what a rich field of scholarship there is surrounding the authentication of ancient writings.
- justifier 10y ago
  thanks for engaging, but you did skip over my most interesting question: is that opinion informed as a believer or as historian? > Does not bring any particular degree of enlightenment regarding the life or teachings of Jesus, nor the founding or early history of the Christian church or religion. have you read mary or judas? in coptic? they are fascinating if only from the perspective of enlightenment regarding the life or teachigns of jesus, and shine a light on the early machinations that engineered what would later be known as the christian church and religion see the excerpt from mary in another comment of mine in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11918993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11918993 that excerpt brings a fascinating degree of enlightenment at how jesus viewed gender lines that clearly went in opposition to views held by the other disciples in judas, if you read it in the original coptic you will see that every instance of the proper noun for 'jesus christ', often uniquely abreviated IHC or nXC, is quantified by the attirbutive verb 'laughing', he is the 'laughing christ'.. which for me, was an enlightening view of jesus' life and opinion
  - Bluestrike2 10y ago
    While I can't speak for him, in general, you can reasonably assume that most academic commentary is from an analytical/academic perspective and not one of religious belief. That's not to say that biblical scholars can't be believers; they absolutely are. But that sort of rigorous analysis can often come into conflict with how most believers and sects view core theology and the material that informs it. For instance, a critical reading of the gospels that make up the bible--looking at the effects of centuries worth of oral tradition, transliteration, translation, and sometimes very heavy edits--isn't exactly the same as accepting one of the more modern editions as the literal "word of God" put to print. I've only had some limited exposure to these traditions (mostly through some medieval philosophy, which obviously intersected heavily with the theology of the time), but it's a fascinating field of study. Not only in terms of how theological texts can change over time and how interpretations of them do the same, but also in how that can contrast with conventionally accepted understandings of what those texts are in the first place.
  - lotharbot 10y ago

sgt101 10y ago

A lack of printing presses surely means that while it might have been "written" in 800AD it may have been authored well before?

lotharbot 10y ago
sure, it could have been. There are a lot of other markers scholars look for determine whether it actually was. The wikipedia page for this particular manuscript gives a brief description of the reasons this is considered a forgery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_Wife https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_Wife
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]