A thought experiment question for Bart:
A trusted colleague tells you that an intact, complete book from the New Testament has been found in a tomb dated around 100 AD. This is most probably an original or first copy of one of the 27 books.
Which book would you most hope it to be? What would be your second choice?
If we’re talking about an early version of one of the canonical books then definitely gMark would be it for me. But if we’re talking about hypothetical works, then I agree with Robert. A letter from one of Paul’s contemporary Christian opponents would be priceless. But if we’re fantasizing then how about a previously unknown but authentic letter from Paul where he tells us more about his own conversion experience or details about Jesus? (Such a find would raise interesting theological questions about inspiration and canon would it not?) How about a transcript (or even a description!) of the Jerusalem council by one of the participants?
The problem of course is that what we would most want to see is the least likely to have survived.
Paul never met the “fleshly” Jesus and in his letters he seemed to have distanced himself from James and the Apostles. So I don’t believe he had any details about Jesus.
Paul goes out of his way to tell his followers that he only had contact with the spiritual Jesus and received his unique Gospel and theology strictly from multiple revelations throughout his life from that source. (This begs the question: Who really invented Christianity as we know it today since Paul’s letters predate the Gospels by decades and those books follow Paul’s theology NOT the Jewish based theology of James and the Apostles?)
For more info see: “Paul and Jesus” by James D. Tabor
Well what we really need is a time machine. Of course that would create some difficulties. I have no Aramaic. I am six feet tall and like 90% of melanin deprived Georgians my ancestors were Scots-Irish so I would stand out in first century Palestine like a sore thumb. In the movies nobody ever thinks about that part. Jesus always speaks perfect english and looks like a hippie.
Robert said
Welcome, Stella, to the Readers Forum. I agree about wanting to see the original ending of Mark. While I don’t think that our current copy has been mutilated with the original ending being lost, there is a popular hypothesis that an earlier draft or version that was never widely ‘published’ might have included something like the current transfiguration scene as a resurrection scene. Purely speculative, but popular speculation among Markan scholars.
Thank you! 🙂
I am a newbie in the New Testament Studies and joining this blog community has been great fun so far. Unfortunately, I cannot (yet) take part in the discussions here (or elsewhere) as much as I would like to (mostly due to sad and mundane academic reasons), but I enjoy reading the comments of others!
And yes. Based on your own previous comments, I can only guess that you and I are probably currently holding more or less opposite viewpoints of many (most?) core issues in the New Testament Studies. But then again, who cares; it is more fun like this anyway! 😉
P.S. My personal assumption is that the original lost ending of the Gospel of Mark was just an ‘ordinary’ ending and that it was thus nothing shocking or spectacular (i.e. no walking crosses etc.). Still, it would be interesting to see and read it!
KaryNation said
Paul never met the “fleshly” Jesus and in his letters he seemed to have distanced himself from James and the Apostles. So I don’t believe he had any details about Jesus.Paul goes out of his way to tell his followers that he only had contact with the spiritual Jesus and received his unique Gospel and theology strictly from multiple revelations throughout his life from that source. (This begs the question: Who really invented Christianity as we know it today since Paul’s letters predate the Gospels by decades and those books follow Paul’s theology NOT the Jewish based theology of James and the Apostles?)
For more info see: “Paul and Jesus” by James D. Tabor
My favorite non-Ehrman book.
cstu said
JAS said
A full copy of Q
I, too, would like to see the hypothetical document that likely never existed.
Regardless of whether or not “Q” existed as a separate document, the material itself certainly exists. Arguments over whether or not the material existed as a separate document tend to obscure what for me is the most important issue. How authentic is this material? It evinces a Palestinian milieu and is heavily apocalyptic, both aspects we would expect from the sayings of the historical Jesus. Undoubtedly it’s been worked over, buffed and polished, but I suspect it’s quite primitive.
Stephen said
cstu said
JAS said
A full copy of Q
I, too, would like to see the hypothetical document that likely never existed.
Regardless of whether or not “Q” existed as a separate document, the material itself certainly exists. Arguments over whether or not the material existed as a separate document tend to obscure what for me is the most important issue. How authentic is this material? It evinces a Palestinian milieu and is heavily apocalyptic, both aspects we would expect from the sayings of the historical Jesus. Undoubtedly it’s been worked over, buffed and polished, but I suspect it’s quite primitive.
Whether Q exists is very important is determining how much of the material is authentic. As I understand it, the “Q hypothesis” was created to give credibility to the material in Matthew after scholars agree that Mark was written first. If Q never existed, then Matthew either wrote down oral tradition that wasn’t known to the author of Mark (or he didn’t want to use) or invented it himself. The same goes for the “L” parts of Luke.
I don’t think that follows. I think the “Q” hypothesis was formulated in large part to hold on to Matthean and Lukan independence. Whether a source was shared or not has little to do with its provenance. And of course “Q” could have existed as a document and Matthew the only one who knew about it.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)