• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can a scholar help me with something?

A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
sojourner said:
I have read the anti-Q material. But...I happen to be a proponent of the Q theory. yes. It is theoretical, but I believe the supporting evidence points heavily to its existence. In this case, I was responding to the word "theoretical" being used to dismiss the veracity of Q.

I prefer the term "hypothetical" rather than "theoretical." IMO, there's not enough evidence to call it a "theory" in the scientific sense. It's a hypothesis that can be supported by some evidence, but it's far from conclusive. BTW, I think that I remember seeing the term "hypothetical document" and "hypothesis" as referents to Q in The Critical Edition of Q.

1) There are plenty of scholars that reject Q, raising serious concerns. Objections have been voiced throughout the entire history of the hypothesis.

2) Scholars who argue for Q don't agree on what exactly Q is. It seems that there are as many compilations of Q and parallel theologies and histories of Q as there are NT scholars devoted to the study of Q. This lack of agreement is a serious weakness that excludes Q even from the scientific designation "theory."

It's a hypothesis that may well be unprovable.

EDIT: Observe, for example, the entry in wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document

The Q document or Q (Q for German Quelle, "source") is a postulated lost textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke.

The recognition of 19th-century New Testament scholars that Matthew and Luke share much material not found in their generally recognized common source the Gospel of Mark, has suggested a second common source, termed the Q document. This hypothetical lost text—also called the Q Gospel, the Sayings Gospel Q, the Synoptic Sayings Source, and in the 19th century the Logia—seems most likely to have comprised a collection of Jesus' sayings. Recognizing such a Q document is the essence of the "two-source hypothesis."

The two-source hypothesis forms the simplest and the most widely accepted solution to the synoptic problem posed by textual correspondences between the two gospels, with the Gospel of Mark forming one source, and Q the other.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Is there a theory that many different gospels were written almost independantly of each other?

I think its more likely than one or two documents being passed around, i think lots of people writing their own version of what they hear in oral tradition the most likely hypothesis.

Although, i'm no scholar.
 
The apostle Paul wrote that "all Scripture is inspired of God, and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness".(2 Tim 3:16) The apostle Peter wrote that "men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit".(2 Pet 1:21) Thus, what has been preserved in the four gospels, with the word gospel meaning "good news", is inspired or "God-breathed"(Gr., The·o´pneu·stos; Lat., Di·vi´ni·tus in·spi·ra´ta; Heb. beru´ach ’Elo·him´, "by God’s spirit."). Hence, those that wrote down the Bible, including the four gospels, did not put "their own spin" on what they wrote, but rather are God's thoughts.
There are available for comparative study more than 13,000 papyrus and vellum manuscripts containing the whole or a part of the Christian Greek Scriptures, dating from the 2nd to the 16th century. Of these, some 5,000 are in Greek, and the remainder in various other languages. More than 2,000 of the ancient copies contain the Gospels, and more than 700, the letters of Paul. While the original writings themselves are not currently extant, copies date back to the second century, which is very close to the time the originals were written. This vast number of manuscripts has enabled Greek scholars in the course of years to produce a highly refined Greek text of the Scriptures, including the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and confirms in many respects the dependability and integrity of our present-day translations of the Christian Greek Scripture.
The four gospels give us a fourfold historical account of the life and activity of Jesus, each account being an independent report. The first three of these are sometimes called synoptic (meaning "like view") because they have a relatively similar approach to Jesus’ ministry in comparison with John’s Gospel, yet each reflects individualism on the part of the writer. John’s Gospel fills in certain details omitted by the other three. These are especially valuable, for they reveal the personality of God as reflected in the life and ministry of Jesus, his Christ or "anointed one".
The writers of the gospels were literate, though viewed by the religious leaders as "unlettered and ordinary," indicating that their education was elementary and not from a school of rabbinic training.(Acts 4:13) Otherwise, how could they have provided such a precise record of Jesus life while on the earth ? For example, the apostle Peter, though a fisherman by trade, showed his capability in quoting from the book of Joel and the Psalms.(Acts 2:16-21,26,27) Luke was a doctor or physician. That Luke was well educated is apparent from his writings. Also, his background as a doctor is noticeable in his use of medical terms.(Lu 4:38; Ac 28:8) John, having been instructed by Jesus, was literate, for he was inspired to write 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John, and especially the book of Revelation, with all it's multitude of symbolisms.(Rev 1:1) Mark, or John Mark, was a cousin of Barnabas.(Col 4:10) It appears that Mark served as attendant to both and Barnabas, perhaps caring for their physical needs while they traveled. (Ac 12:25; 13:5) He, thus would need to be literate in order to properly fulfill their needs and requests.
The language that Matthew (which was written first in Hebrew), Mark, Luke, and John wrote in, was Koine Greek, as did all those who wrote the Christian Greek Scriptures, commonly called the "New Testament". The Greek vocabulary is quite abundant and exact. The Greek writer has at his disposal sufficient words to enable him to make fine differentiation and to convey just the shade of meaning that he desires. To illustrate, the Greek makes a distinction between ordinary knowledge, gno´sis (1Ti 6:20), and accurate knowledge, e·pi´gno·sis (1Ti 2:4), and between al´los (Joh 14:16), meaning "another" of the same kind, and he´te·ros, meaning "another" of a different kind. (Ga 1:6) Many expressions in other languages have incorporated Greek words as well as basic roots that comprise Greek words, resulting in language that is more precise and specific in expression.
Generally Koine is shown to have had five cases. (Some scholars enlarge this to eight.) In English there is usually no change in form for nouns except in the possessive case and in number. (Pronouns, however, are subject to more changes.) But in Koine each case usually requires a different form or ending, making the language much more complicated than English in this respect. In English there are both a definite article ("the") and indefinite articles ("a," "an"). Koine has but a single article
ο (ho), which is in some respects the equivalent of the definite article "the" in English. Whereas the English definite article "the" is never inflected, the Greek article is inflected as to case, gender, and number, just as the nouns are.
The Greek article is used not only to set off substantives, as with English, but also with infinitives, adjectives, adverbs, phrases, clauses, and even whole sentences. The use of the article with an adjective is found in the Greek at John 10:11, where the literal rendering would be: "I am the shepherd the fine [one]." This is stronger than merely "I am the fine shepherd." It is like putting "fine" in italics.
The King James Bible, though used by millions, has numerous drawbacks. For example, we might say to someone: "Where did you come from ?", But the King James Bible says "Whence comest thou ?" at Judges 17:9. We do not speak in archaic language, as it does, but in modern English. Thus, any Bible, for it to be truly understood, must be translated accurately from either Hebrew or Koine Greek into the language that people use today.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I think people should remember that a lot of people may have been bilinguists back then. Judaea was once a Hellenistic kingdom, where Greek was commonly spoken throughout the former empire of Alexander the Great. It is wrong to assume that Jesus and the apostles only spoke Aramaic. Even the Romans had learnt Greek, which some had preferred over their native Latin.

I don't think it is out of place, if the gospels/letters were written in Greek or Aramaic (or even Latin). Does it really matter?

Beside, the word gospel is not even Aramic or Greek. Gospel is actually derived from an Old English word godspel, for good story. In Greek, it is euangelion, and this is rendered as evangelium in Latin. Does anyone have a clue what the gospel was called in Aramaic?
 

Evandr2

Member
Your question at the head of this thread is a good one. Here is my take on the answer.

It doesn't matter as much as a lot of people think. The Bible books are a compilation of epistles (letters) from inspired men to the saints (members) of the authorized organization that Jesus Christ established. They were written so that unchanging Gospel principles could and would be understood by those ancient people.

We can glean a lot from them through translations but there has to be more that has been prepared by the Lord especially for our time in a language that we can understand.

I am LDS and it is one of the LDS articles of faith that states "We believe the Bible to be the word of God so far as it is translated correctly." That is a reasonable belief.

Although it is important to be familiar with this sacred text, there is far too much emphasis on the Bible and too little on the fact that our Heavenly Father has prepared for us to be able to understand His gospel. He has not stopped communicating with mankind but a person needs to ask, in fasting and prayer with a faithful heart, where to turn to find His authorized servants on the Earth.

I believe I know who they are. I have no doubt of it. They lead the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I don't expect you to believe that because I say so, you need to discover that for yourself.

Vandr
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Evandr2 said:
The Bible books are a compilation of epistles (letters) from inspired men to the saints (members) of the authorized organization that Jesus Christ established.
That is a baseless statement.
 

Evandr2

Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
That is a baseless statement.

Baseless!? All you have to do is read them. These are epistles (letters). Someone wrote each epistle as instruction and edification to others. When they were written it was not with the idea that they would one day be part of a book we call the Bible. Please clarify your statement because what I said is heavily supported by the content of each book of the Bible not to mention pure journalistic obviousness.

Vandr
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Evandr2 said:
Baseless!? All you have to do is read them. These are epistles (letters). Someone wrote each epistle as instruction and edification to others. When they were written it was not with the idea that they would one day be part of a book we call the Bible. Please clarify your statement because what I said is heavily supported by the content of each book of the Bible not to mention pure journalistic obviousness.
What you've said is not supported in the least.
  • Much of the Bible, including the entirety of the Tanakh, is not epistle.
  • Much of those that are epistles are believed by many to be pseudepigraphic.
  • There is zero evidence that any of the NT was written by eye-witnesses.
  • There is zero evidence of continuity between a Torah-observant Jerusalem Jesus movement and Christianity.
To assert that any branch of Christianity is "the authorized organization that Jesus Christ established" is entirely baseless.
 

Evandr2

Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
What you've said is not supported in the least.
  • Much of the Bible, including the entirety of the Tanakh, is not epistle.
  • Much of those that are epistles are believed by many to be pseudepigraphic.
  • There is zero evidence that any of the NT was written by eye-witnesses.
  • There is zero evidence of continuity between a Torah-observant Jerusalem Jesus movement and Christianity.
To assert that any branch of Christianity is "the authorized organization that Jesus Christ established" is entirely baseless.

OK, I see where you are coming from. It's the old "Prove It" challenge. Fact of the matter is, by your own position, nobody knows anything for sure, including yourself.

Knowledge comes from effort. You have to choose a path and then follow it until it begins to bear fruit or you decide that it is wisdom to change it. Provable from me to you or not, I have chosen to be led by scripture, the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and it has bore great fruit of faith, understanding, and knowledge for me as it can for you if you would simply put aside your pride and apparent fear of failure and become teachable by the Spirit. You’ll never get anywhere if you refuse to step outside your comfort zone and stand up for something even if it can be slammed with the “prove it” challenge.

I cannot give you a sure knowledge of what I know by what I say. You have to get knowledge for yourself from sources that you seek out and listen too should an answer come. Then it has to be impressed upon your mind and heart by the Spirit before it becomes undeniable to you in a manner that can't be explained to the satisfaction of any other save they have experienced it for themselves.

All I can do is bear testimony to you that what I say is true. I have been told in a manner that you could not possibly understand. If you want that same knowledge for yourself you have to go get it yourself.

The sad part is that your mind seems to be unalterably made up until someone shows you a "sign". Signs do not work to increase faith for none are so blind as those who will not see.

Claiming that I do not know what I am talking about because you believe that my claims are baseless does not make it so.

Vandr
 

Evandr2

Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
Like I said - baseless.

It is unfortunate - for you that is Jayhawker Soule - that your statement is quite true.

Through history countless millions have discovered for themselves the basis for believing in, living for, devoting to, and even sacrificing their lives and all they have, in devotion to this real power called the word of God as given to us in scripture and the spoken word by living prophets. All this this history, all this testiment, and all this reason to have a far more positive attitude than yours and, alas, the truth is still quite hidden to you.

It is truly sad :sad:I can only pray that you somehow have your eyes opened to the truth before it is too late for you to do anything about it

Vandr
 
Top