Blasphemy!

[andrewbos]

You are right, the tantric-mystic teachings of the original mission (study them in their original form, you'll be surprised) have nothing to do with christianity or in fact with any religion.

What about asceticism?

In Q1 Jesus instructs those in his mission to follow a strictly ascetic life, a life only focussed on attaining the Rule of God.

The Jesus of Q1 attacks narrow-minded sectarian religion.

As do many texts within the Nag Hammadi Codices.

True, but Q1 is a much stronger text with a much clearer and more coherent ideology. It also shows better what the mission looked like in practice and what the role of Jesus was for the disciple (the tantric-mystic master/guru through whom the disciple attains the Rule of God).

That's why it is highly unlikely that christians created Q1 (and related texts) themselves.

And does this, in your opinion, include the Gospel of Thomas?

What I think I now see in the history of christianity, is that different parts of the early heterodox and proto-orthodox movement seem to be out of touch with the other parts and base themselves on diverse other traditions (syncretism) in diverse ways.
I believe that the Gospel of Thomas was loosely based on the synoptic gospels, as it has been shown that Thomas depends in part on synoptic Jesus sayings that were not yet present at the Q1 level. The sayings in Thomas are more vague, incoherent and impractical (weak) compared to those in Q1.
It seems illogical that the Thomas folk were trying to reconstruct the original Q1 in their own clumsy way without having access to the original text but I see no other way to explain why Thomas was created. Did these Thomas people have some sort of collective memory of the Q collection of sayings of the past? They must have come up with this idea of writing Thomas in that way for a reason.

Of course there have been other attempts in the history of christianity to bend things back to a more mystic focus, such as in the teachings of Simon Magus and Paul, the gospel of John and different later mystic or gnostic sects.
Yet you see no-one at all who convincingly tries to highlight and explain the Q1 sayings as they must have been meant by their originator.
But the Thomas people seem at least to be saying that it started out with a collection of Jesus sayings teaching mysticism and other christians perverted these origins.
How did they know this if even edited Q was already lost as a document?

[Leucius Charinus]

The sayings in Thomas are more vague, incoherent and impractical (weak) compared to those in Q1.

Which academics claim this? Are there contrary opinions? And is there is a consensus on this?

Or does this represent the general depreciating rhetoric reserved to elevate the canonical texts over the gnostic texts?

It seems illogical that the Thomas folk were trying to reconstruct the original Q1 in their own clumsy way without having access to the original text but I see no other way to explain why Thomas was created. Did these Thomas people have some sort of collective memory of the Q collection of sayings of the past?

Q is still hypothetical. From WIKI: The existence of a treasured sayings document in circulation going unmentioned by the Fathers of the early Church remains one of the great conundrums of modern Biblical scholarship.

But the Thomas people seem at least to be saying that it started out with a collection of Jesus sayings teaching mysticism and other christians perverted these origins.

How did they know this if even edited Q was already lost as a document?

Mysteries still abound. Thanks for your comments.



LC

[Sheshbazzar]

The shit is already in the world and has been for over one and half millenia. It was raised from an obscure latrine and hit the political fan in the 4th century and has remained stuck to everything ever since.

This is, as 'Readers Digest' would put it; 'Towards more picturesque speech."

[MrMacSon]

Q is still hypothetical. From WIKI: The existence of a treasured sayings document in circulation going unmentioned by the Fathers of the early Church remains one of the great conundrums of modern Biblical scholarship.

Mark Goodacre is one theologian highly sceptical of Q http://markgoodacre.org/Q/

[andrewbos]

....

[Leucius Charinus]

The shit is already in the world and has been for over one and half millenia. It was raised from an obscure latrine and hit the political fan in the 4th century and has remained stuck to everything ever since.

This is, as 'Readers Digest' would put it; 'Towards more picturesque speech." :-)

I'll keep that in mind Sheshbazzar thanks LOL.




LC

[Leucius Charinus]

Or does this represent the general depreciating rhetoric reserved to elevate the canonical texts over the gnostic texts?

If I found a copy of something very similar to Q1 somewhere in a desert cave that the academics would brand as a "gnostic text" (the word gnosis even appears in one of the sayings of Q1), then I would surely not depreciate that text, I look purely to the contents.

Thanks for this clear qualification of your position on Q (and gThomas). I too see the merit of attempting to place the contents of all texts in the spotlight. Political context is what would be nice, and we don't have that other than "Church History".

Q is still hypothetical. From WIKI: The existence of a treasured sayings document in circulation going unmentioned by the Fathers of the early Church remains one of the great conundrums of modern Biblical scholarship.

You mean the final authors/editors of Luke and Matthew did not save any copies of the documents they used to create their own versions of the gospels. No, they did not, nor did the final editor of Mark do so. Why do you think no copy of Marcion's Gospel of the Lord remains?

IDK. There are a number of such texts mentioned for which no extant text remains.

As you said, quite a number of mysteries remain. The greatest mystery for me is, if Jesus taught the philosophy and missionary life-style as described in Q1, then why was this abandoned by the christian mission that eventually followed it? There is simply no sign of any continuity, except for the worship of Jesus as a more or less divine initiator of the movement.

We agreed (I think) on the matter of the importance of ascetic practice in the hypothetical Q1. It may be a little late for your focus on early chronology but the monastic movement of Pachomius in the 4th century seemed to be also focussed on the ascetic life. The Coptic gThomas seems to have been preserved in the NHC with some association to asceticism also. FWIW I see the Greek aphorism inscribed by the Platonists "Know thyself" to involve the ascetic practice.

Maybe there was some collective memory of the existence of Q, without the Thomas community being able to retrieve a copy?

I am not an avid supporter of the Q hypothesis on the basis that the entire phenomenom of early Christian literature was a Greek literary one without any evidence at all for an oral tradition. The "Sermon of the Mount" for example was written in Greek for a Greek literary audience. It could not have been a Greek translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic address of a wisdom sage to a Judaean multitude. The oral tradition fits in well with what is known about the Hebrew texts, but is diametrically opposed to what is known about Greek texts.



LC

[Leucius Charinus]

Mark Goodacre is one theologian highly sceptical of Q http://markgoodacre.org/Q/

Thanks Mac for the reference. I think there is every reason to be sceptical of the Q hypothesis. The Greek NT writings were purely literary and as far as I can see (unlike the Hebrew literary tradition) never involved an oral tradition. The invention of ecclesiastical historiography in the 4th century by Eusebius is characterised by the lavish use of documents. The "Church Fathers" had their desks awash with manuscripts. Those who date the Egyptian papyri early believe as a result that these manuscripts were codices and not scrolls.

Brodie is on the right path in describing the authors of the NT as a "school". I'd like to know who was the headmaster and where it was established (in which cities) in any of the "Early centuries". The existence of any forms of literary undertaking by "collegiate schools" in antiquity does not have much evidence until the rule of Diocletian at the earliest AFAIK.


LC

[andrewbos]

the monastic movement of Pachomius in the 4th century seemed to be also focussed on the ascetic life. The Coptic gThomas seems to have been preserved in the NHC with some association to asceticism also. FWIW I see the Greek aphorism inscribed by the Platonists "Know thyself" to involve the ascetic practice.

Yes, as I mentioned before, there were later efforts to bend the gospel back to more mysticism (asceticism is just an aspect of the mystic effort).
Looking purely at the text of Q1, there is no continuation or deepening of the theology or spiritual philosophy of Q1 in any other christian text including the apocryphal ones.
That there are parallels of Greek mysticism means little because mysticism was and still is a universal tendency in spiritual communities all around the globe. It is so universal because it is not irrational as most religions are but connected to human experience.

It is the combination of tantra (emphasis on effort and struggle towards the goal) and mysticism that makes Q1 a special case because it matches the behaviour of Jesus in the non-passion part of Mark and it is a-typical for what followed in the christian mission as reflected in the New Testament newer texts.
The Jesus that christians invented is very different in nature, he is more of an iconic figure with power that is blended with the christ as a divine mediator (more mythical). The Jesus of the christians is no longer a master whose teachings you need to strictly follow directly.

The type of spiritual culture or cult of the Jesus of Q1 is not particularly Jewish or Greek.
We don't have an Aramaic copy of Q, but the mistranslation of 'separate from' (Greek text gives: 'hate') in QS 56 could indicate that there was an Aramaic text behind Q.

[Peter Kirby]

So it appears to me that the hypothetical existence of a "Divine Institute" (even it includes "St Paul") for you is a loaded question.

How would you describe the "Apostolic Age"?

You're no Socrates. Shit or get off the pot.

I can only surmise that you are ignoring (and ridiculing) my questions (about your world view) because they have no merit in your world-view. It's quite obvious that the Apologists still believe in the existence of some "Divine Institute" whereas other less traditional positions (such as that of Thomas Brodie) relegate this church organisation to some sort of literary "school". The shit is already in the world and has been for over one and half millenia. It was raised from an obscure latrine and hit the political fan in the 4th century and has remained stuck to everything ever since.

Apparently I should have avoided the colloquial profanity and instead went with what I first typed, "Make your point."

I'm not ridiculing your questions. I just don't have the patience for them. I appreciate writers who can get to the point. If it requires an audience or someone to interrogate to get there, I'd say to work on it until it doesn't. Your logic will be more clear without such rhetorical props.