Missing Gospels?

[SalixIncendium]

This is a curious sentence.

Of course it is.

You claim other historical accounts. What are they?

If you cannot answer the question, your claim is literally baseless.​

​

You can view them here:

Christian Apocrypha: The “Lost Gospels”? - Biblical Archaeology Society

If you can answer the question, then the books you identify are either in the Bible or excluded from it; there is nothing "alleged" about it.

Sorry, I'm not going to present something as fact unless I have sufficient evidence, which I do not feel is the case at this juncture. Hence the reason I asked others for their thoughts on the subject in the OP. I've been presenting the idea as more of a hypothesis, but I've been researching intermittently today. I stumbled across some of these on Sacred-texts. If you's like, you can thumb through them yourself here:

http://sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm

As for those identified accounts excluded from the Bible, on whose authority should they have been deemed Gospel and worthy of inclusion?

Exactly what I was asking.

 

[SalixIncendium]

His lack of knowledge is confirming what you don't know?

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

 

[shunyadragon]

There is variation in the gospels, because it is different people, in certain instances, such as the resurrection narrative.

The resurrection narrative, seems like the same story, told by different people, to me.
Very difficult to fake, and why would later church people make such a complicated forgery, instead of simply having one version and extra writings, or such. . .

The gospels were compiled and edited from handed down oral testimony and not witnesses. The authors would not consider it a 'complicated forgery' by the authors regardless of whether the stories are true or not. Yes, they would have been compiled from different sources of oral traditions. The would have written what they believed to be true.

'Before Abraham, I am', John 8:58 the statement by Jesus, makes more sense in Hebrew, than in English, for those unfamiliar with the theology. Why make an obscurity in greek, if not a translation? Clearly those reading the text are not reading the bible in a greek language context, 》》 it's a translation, not an interpretation.

I believe it is both a translation and an interpretation, and actually it does not necessarily have traditional Christian interpretation, putting it in the context of the gospels as a whole.

 

[Desert Snake]

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

If you want to formulate the premise into a clear argument, it would help.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If you want to formulate the premise into a clear argument, it would help.

In the OP is offered that there were those that presume that gospels were left out to the Bible because they depicted Jesus not as divine, but as a man.

In Repox's research, he shows that following the conclusion about the Gospel of Q in how Jesus was depicted, he was first depicted as a wise man or sage, and not divine, thus corroborating what I had stated in my OP.

 

[Desert Snake]

The gospels were compiled and edited from handed down oral testimony and not witnesses. The authors would not consider it a 'complicated forgery' by the authors regardless of whether the stories are true or not. Yes, they would have been compiled from different sources of oral traditions. The would have written what they believed to be true.



I believe it is both a translation and an interpretation, and actually it does not necessarily have traditional Christian interpretation, putting it in the context of the gospels as a whole.

We are discussing something not entirely familiar to either of us, hmm? I identify religiously as a Judahite, without the *christian theology concepts, generally. therefore, I'm not going to understand everything in the gospels. This doesn't mean that it isn't congruent to the beliefs.

*the sameness is in the singular plurality godhood concept, which traditional christianity does have

 

[Desert Snake]

In the OP is offered that there were those that presume that gospels were left out to the Bible because they depicted Jesus not as divine, but as a man.

In Repox's research, he shows that following the conclusion about the Gospel of Q in how Jesus was depicted, he was first depicted as a wise man or sage, and not divine, thus corroborating what I had stated in my OP.

A problem with this idea, imo, is the timeline. There simply isn't enough time and geographical spacing after the resurrection, to develop a mythic character, /this would almost be an entirely new mythic character, in the new religion.
What people don't seem to consider, is that the religion was already extant, before the textual compilation. This isn't a "book presented to the populace", it's a group of books that people are going to compare to their beliefs. The religion predates the churches in europe, so forth. This situation would make 'creating a new religion', extremely difficult. At best, the religion most likely was modified somewhat in practice etc, by individual churches, or by pagan priests, trying to keep their influence, as new "christian" priests, etc.

The attempts to 'change' the religion seem to have happened after the books were compiled generally.

 

[SalixIncendium]

A problem with this idea, imo, is the timeline. There simply isn't enough time and geographical spacing after the resurrection, to develop a mythic character, /this would almost be an entirely new mythic character, in the new religion.
What people don't seem to consider, is that the religion was already extant, before the textual compilation. This isn't a "book presented to the populace", it's a group of books that people are going to compare to their beliefs. The religion predates the churches in europe, so forth. This situation would make 'creating a new religion', extremely difficult. At best, the religion most likely was modified somewhat in practice etc, by individual churches, or by pagan priests, trying to keep their influence, as new "christian" priests, etc.

The attempts to 'change' the religion seem to have happened after the books were compiled generally.

I agree with this assessment completely. Much of what was written, as I see it, would have to come by way of oral anecdotes past down from one generation to the next rather than eyewitness accounts. IMO, this brings into question the accuracy of these anecdotes. The Telephone Game comes to mind.

 

[shunyadragon]

We are discussing something not entirely familiar to either of us, hmm?

I am familiar with it and I have taken a college level course on both the Old Testament and the New Testament, and a Seminar at UNC.

I am only responding factually from academic sources concerning the known history related to the gospels and the rest of the NT.

I identify religiously as a Judahite, without the *christian theology concepts, generally. therefore, I'm not going to understand everything in the gospels. This doesn't mean that it isn't congruent to the beliefs.

I am at present not considering whether the gospels are or are not congruent to the beliefs. Those that believe use their own apologetic arguments to justify the gospels congruent with what they believe.

 

[Kenny]

There are other historical accounts of Jesus that were allegedly left out of the Bible. Why are you referring to them as letters and what disqualifies them from being called gospels?

My error in writing it down. You did mention them as gospels. To reiterate the question correctly:

Then again, one could ask the question "What are your thoughts on a group of men deciding that those gospels are correct?."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You can view them here:

Christian Apocrypha: The “Lost Gospels”? - Biblical Archaeology Society

Yes, having a BAR login, I can. Can you?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Then again, one could ask the question "What are your thoughts on a group of men deciding that those gospels are correct?."

As previously mentioned ITT, I think politics came into play as did selection of the gospels best suited to convert those of other belief systems to Christianity. I struggle to believe that some were not embellished to an extent to affect this.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes, having a BAR login, I can. Can you?

BAR login?

 

[Kenny]

As previously mentioned ITT, I think politics came into play as did selection of the gospels best suited to convert those of other belief systems to Christianity. I struggle to believe that some were not embellished to an extent to affect this.

That is one view to which there is always the other side of the coin.

Some believe that a different gospel was being promoted over time and after carefully studying each document, by those who knew the apostles, validated the correct ones.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, having a BAR login, I can. Can you?

BAR login?

You wrote:

You can view them here:
Christian Apocrypha: The “Lost Gospels”? - Biblical Archaeology Society

But this is an intentionally shallow overview serving primarily to advertise the BAR 42:5 article titled "'Lost Gospels' -- Lost No More" and, by extension, the BAR itself. Of course, the only way to read that article is by (a) purchasing that issue of BAR, or (b) having a BAR login.

For what it's worth, the latter article is pretty thin in its own right and hardly worth the subscription. I have one only because BAR occasionally prints interesting articles by credible archaeologists.

 

[shunyadragon]

You wrote:

​

But this is an intentionally shallow overview serving primarily to advertise the BAR 42:5 article titled "'Lost Gospels' -- Lost No More" and, by extension, the BAR itself. Of course, the only way to read that article is by (a) purchasing that issue of BAR, or (b) having a BAR login.

For what it's worth, the latter article is pretty thin in its own right and hardly worth the subscription. I have one only because BAR occasionally prints interesting articles by credible archaeologists.

I agree with your conclusion concerning the article, which I have read, is more editorial than academic concerning the nature of the other gospels. I have read BAR over the years and yes they have excellent academic articles, but also editorial stuff that does not meet the academic test,

See, we agree on a rare occasion!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

See, we agree on a rare occasion!

Let's see if we can find more ...

 

[SalixIncendium]

You wrote:

​

But this is an intentionally shallow overview serving primarily to advertise the BAR 42:5 article titled "'Lost Gospels' -- Lost No More" and, by extension, the BAR itself. Of course, the only way to read that article is by (a) purchasing that issue of BAR, or (b) having a BAR login.

For what it's worth, the latter article is pretty thin in its own right and hardly worth the subscription. I have one only because BAR occasionally prints interesting articles by credible archaeologists.

Ah, gotcha. I appreciate the follow-up.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have read BAR over the years and yes they have excellent academic articles, but also editorial stuff that does not meet the academic test,...

Speaking of which, there is a very interesting article by Shanks (not one of my favorite people) in BAR 43:4 titled "The Four Room House - Ancient Israel's Major Architectural Achievement."

 

[shunyadragon]

Speaking of which, there is a very interesting article by Shanks (not one of my favorite people) in BAR 43:4 titled "The Four Room House - Ancient Israel's Major Architectural Achievement."

It has been a while, but I believe it demonstrated the an element of the evolution of the distinctive Hebrew culture based on the design of the house common to most if not all Hebrew villages of the time.

If my memory is correct I would not consider an archaeological achievement but a development of a distinctive feature of Hebrew culture due to a coop nature of Hebrew culture evolution from a migratory.pastoral culture to a village centered pastoral culture.