Cool pictures of the Gospel of Thomas Codex (crucify, gnostic)

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I prefer the simpler ones. I don't think that Crossan's theory has gained much support - the explanation is simply too complex. It is ingenious, but I think that ingenuity is unique to Crossan.

Sometimes things happen in complex ways. Look how complex the formation of nation-states and the various national identities has been over the past two hundred years. There's no reason to think that the formation of religious identities in the ancient world were substantially simpler.

The historical record of early Christianity is grossly untrustworthy, so I'm particularly wary of explanations that seem too simple and convenient.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Sometimes things happen in complex ways. Look how complex the formation of nation-states and the various national identities has been over the past two hundred years. There's no reason to think that the formation of religious identities in the ancient world were substantially simpler.

The historical record of early Christianity is grossly untrustworthy, so I'm particularly wary of explanations that seem too simple and convenient.

I certainly agree. But when we're explaining the literary relationship between texts, the more complex the explanation is, the less likely it is to be true. In other words, as the explanation gets more complex, you begin to distance yourself more and more from the evidence and spend more time defending your method than actually interpreting the evidence.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I certainly agree. But when we're explaining the literary relationship between texts, the more complex the explanation is, the less likely it is to be true. In other words, as the explanation gets more complex, you begin to distance yourself more and more from the evidence and spend more time defending your method than actually interpreting the evidence.

But if a simpler model leaves unexplained evidence, then a more complex model may be called for. I've read Crossan's justifications for that theory and find it to better explain the peculiar evolution of parts of the passion account through the various gospels. His exploration of the vinegar and gall (bile) through the gospels, the breaking and non-breaking of legs, and the appearance of the eclipse all support his theory that gPet has details that appear more primal than the equivalent versions of those details in the Synoptics.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

But if a simpler model leaves unexplained evidence, then a more complex model may be called for. I've read Crossan's justifications for that theory and find it to better explain the peculiar evolution of parts of the passion account through the various gospels. His exploration of the vinegar and gall (bile) through the gospels, the breaking and non-breaking of legs, and the appearance of the eclipse all support his theory that gPet has details that appear more primal than the equivalent versions of those details in the Synoptics.

... or assenting that we just don't have the requiste evidence to figure out what happened. I wasn't convinced the first time that I read it, but I can take another look.

[angellous_evangellous]

OK here it is in John:

[angellous_evangellous]

Second fragment from the top on the right. Its the third line down. You may be able to see it better if you enlarge it. I can't get a bigger pic here.

[angellous_evangellous]

[angellous_evangellous]

OK I enlarged the fragment... third full line. Fourth character from the left.

[angellous_evangellous]

Correction:

This plate appears in Codex #1 in Nag Hammadi, not Codex #2 that contains Thomas.

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

This also appears in the Codex.

[Captain Civic]

How did your lecture go?