But what if it is found to be a
genuine fragment from the early the centuries of Christianity? Well then it must be placed alongside more
than 5000 other fragments. Though the
fragment may prove to be as old as some are saying it is, it doesn’t mean that
what is written on it is true.
Of all the thousands of fragments
and manuscripts from early church years, we have many that are fictional and
unreliable. These writings are known as
the New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.
The Gospel of Thomas the Gospel of Barnabas are just two of these. It is a fascinating study to discover how and which Christian Scriptures were indeed considered
authentic and reliable and therefore earned their place in what we call the
Canon of Scripture. It was a couple of
centuries after the death and resurrection of Christ before this final list was
determined. Those that did not make the
cut were grouped together as useful and interesting for study but not necessarily
authentic. The Pseudepigrapha were
another group of writings that were considered by early Christian scholars as
probably fake. Often the writer assumed the identity of a well known associate
of Jesus or an early church father in order to make his writing seem more authoritative.
The ones
that did make the cut had certain distinguishing traits that made them
authentic -- one of which was that they were written and supported by eye witnesses
and those who knew, saw and heard Jesus personally.
Unfortunately,
the waters of this subject are made more murky by the fact that from the time
of the translation of the Bible into English, the Roman Catholic Church has
included the Old Testament Apocryphal books in their dogma as having the same
authority as the usual canon of Scripture.
In contrast, the Protestant Church has been adamant that the Canon of
Scripture is closed – no more manuscripts and thus no more teachings may be
added to either the Old or the New Testaments.
Many
differences between the Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches have come about just
because of this issue. The sinlessness
of Mary, her Assumption and the infallibility of the Pope have been added to
Catholic beliefs only in the last two hundred years. Protestants who base their
beliefs only on what is taught in the Bible reject these teachings. Still more confusion is engendered by those
who call themselves Christian but are open to not only what the Pope says but also
to any other teachings of any other person which seem to them to be reasonable.
There is so
much more to add to this subject that I cannot begin to tell all about it here.
If you would like to learn more, let me recommend you Google The History of New Testament documents and begin your own research.
If you have questions, email me and I will be glad to try to answer them
– as long as they are posed in a respectful manner.
To find my email click on my profile and you will find it there.
8 comments:
If Jesus were married,how would that change who Jesus was, and did?
He still died for me.
Jesus will still be my Saviour.
Jane xxx
I don't consider myself a true Bible scholar--and often get frustrated with some of the seeming discrepencies of the biblical narratives. Each bit of historical background that I read makes the scriptures more interesting. Somehow this latest 'discovery' comes across as a sensational detraction from the real gospel message.
Hardly a new theory, is it (I recall reading a book about the ideas used in The Da Vinci Code long before Brown wrote that). I don't doubt the idea as such probably goes very far back. But that's not the same as to make it true.
I think the challenge involved is the idea that if there were direct descendants of Jesus, that would either reduce him to be "just a man" OR give his (presumed) physical descendants a status of being more divine than others. The latter is probably the more dangerous view.
I understand it has been discovered to be a fake. Not sure why anyone would want to do that.
JANE: You're right, of course, but some people like to use this kind of info to undermine the truths of the Bible. It doesn't affect my faith, but as a teacher I often had to guide the thinking of teens who would insist that the Bible was just a bunch of fairy tales. That's just lack of education, yet it is exactly what I was taught in school. You can choose not to believe what the Bible teaches, but the manuscripts as written are definitely authentic.
MORNING'S MINION: discrepencies are often the result of incomplete information, and as you say, don't detract from what we know, by personal (subjective) experience the truth of the gospel. Some may dismiss the Bible, but they can't dismiss my experiences.
DAWN TREADER: Your logic is on target, and believers
find it hard to ignore that which undermines Jesus' divinity.
SNAFU: I hadn't heard that it had been proved a fake. It really doesn't matter because all the other manuscripts available are not fake. What matters is, is what they say fake?
People do that for the same reason as they faked the Piltdown man. They want to prove a point.
One thing that no-one seems to be mentioning is that the name Jesus was a very common name back then. Surely this fragment could have been written by any one of them. And there are just too many 'maybe's' about all this, as usual. It would take a lot more than one obscure scrap of parchment to prove/disprove anything about Jesus. When they have as many parchments as it took to compile the Bible, they might have something to go on. But who really needs anything more?!
I had not considered the idea that any supposed descendants of Jesus might consider themselves superior. Yes, that would be an undesirable outcome. As far as true believers go, their faith will not be affected by this 'news'.
well, it WAS written 3 or 4 centuries AD. it could be authentic but doesn't prove anything one way or another
Post a Comment