Originally posted by ShakyamunisonThat would be correct. However, nearly everything was copied by early Christians, even the Gnostic gospels and other writings. Although the Gnostic gospels were mostly destroyed we still many mentions of them by the Church fathers prior to the Council of Nicea when they were formally rejected. Do you not think that something as a significant as the sayings of Jesus would have been copied if it existed? And more significantly, do you not think there would have been mention of it by the Church fathers? Of course people will argue Papias wrote it, but I think that is a desperate ploy.
There have been a lot of things lost over time. From what I understand, all we have of all the books of the NT are copies. Am I wrong about that?
"Matthew compiled the oracles of the Lord in a Hebrew manner of speech" does not suggest any written documents at all. Yet, that is the basis for the argument for the Q document. I fail to understand why the idea that one of the gospels came first is so hard to accept. Personally I see the best argument to be for Matthew, though I think the popular idea that Mark came first is very plausible.
Originally posted by Nellinator
That would be correct. However, nearly everything was copied by early Christians, even the Gnostic gospels and other writings. Although the Gnostic gospels were mostly destroyed we still many mentions of them by the Church fathers prior to the Council of Nicea when they were formally rejected. Do you not think that something as a significant as the sayings of Jesus would have been copied if it existed? And more significantly, do you not think there would have been mention of it by the Church fathers? Of course people will argue Papias wrote it, but I think that is a desperate ploy."Matthew compiled the oracles of the Lord in a Hebrew manner of speech" does not suggest any written documents at all. Yet, that is the basis for the argument for the Q document. I fail to understand why the idea that one of the gospels came first is so hard to accept. Personally I see the best argument to be for Matthew, though I think the popular idea that Mark came first is very plausible.
But that is not the point I was getting too. Many people claim that the Gnostic Gospels are invalid because they date from a later time then the Gospels of the NT. They forget to mention that we are only talking about copies and not originals. Therefore, because one copy is older then another does not say anything about the age of the originals that were copied from.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonMany of the Gnostic gospels were originally written at a later date. It has been determined using literary analysis and by deduction from early Christian writings. Thomas is the only one with an earlier date, however, date is not the only source of discrimination.
But that is not the point I was getting too. Many people claim that the Gnostic Gospels are invalid because they date from a later time then the Gospels of the NT. They forget to mention that we are only talking about copies and not originals. Therefore, because one copy is older then another does not say anything about the age of the originals that were copied from.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Many of the Gnostic gospels were originally written at a later date. It has been determined using literary analysis and by deduction from early Christian writings. Thomas is the only one with an earlier date, however, date is not the only source of discrimination.
But this same literary analysis supports the Q Gospel. You can't have it both ways.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonNo, not really. Hence the criticism of the Q document. There are a few arguments that are equally well explained by the priority of any one of the gospels. The strength of the argument for Markan priority is that there are many different places that suggest it, while there are limited places the Q document hypothesis provides any solution. That said, I don't think there really needs to be a solution because there is a good chance there isn't even a problem.
But this same literary analysis supports the Q Gospel. You can't have it both ways.