Hi Richard –
The Biblical texts recovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls are a viable means of checking later versions, and there is no significant differences. Similarly, take someone like Origen, who made so many Bible citations we can cross-check the Books from his writings – and he's just one!
A group of scholars did a review of the various Biblical texts, including odd fragments from here and there, to see if there was in fact any discrepancies which would impact on theology, and found none. Critics, of course, like to make a big deal of this and that, and non-scholars insist on 'errors' and 'omissions' but can't actually pinpoint what those errors or omissions were ...
People make a big deal about this book or that which was excluded from the Canon, as if any text claiming to be a gospel should be included. The argument is fundamentally illogical. Especially when gospels turn up centuries later, claiming to be 'the secret teaching' given to this person alone (Thomas, for one). Jesus seems to have been rather naughty, telling at least half a dozen people that they alone understand Him, or are in receipt of the 'real deal', a secret transmission ... and of course, we get people turning up all through history, and still do today, claiming that everything you know is wrong, and Jesus told me this ...
Then again, I know of 'secret doctrines' which should not be spoken of. How? Because they're spoken of in the documents of the Fathers! In my experience those who claim there are 'secret teachings' etc., are usually not very well read when it comes to the 'open teachings' ... Having said that, there's a lot of stuff to get though, more than enough for one lifetime.
There's a famous story of the Anglican theologian who complained to his wife about his congregation, and she took the wind from his sails with a very apposite observation ... I wish I could remember it!
If I was offered the guidance of a simple saint or a sophisticated intellectual, I know who I'd ask for.
Actually this is a common assumption, but it's not quite true.
The Biblical texts recovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls are a viable means of checking later versions, and there is no significant differences. Similarly, take someone like Origen, who made so many Bible citations we can cross-check the Books from his writings – and he's just one!
A group of scholars did a review of the various Biblical texts, including odd fragments from here and there, to see if there was in fact any discrepancies which would impact on theology, and found none. Critics, of course, like to make a big deal of this and that, and non-scholars insist on 'errors' and 'omissions' but can't actually pinpoint what those errors or omissions were ...
People make a big deal about this book or that which was excluded from the Canon, as if any text claiming to be a gospel should be included. The argument is fundamentally illogical. Especially when gospels turn up centuries later, claiming to be 'the secret teaching' given to this person alone (Thomas, for one). Jesus seems to have been rather naughty, telling at least half a dozen people that they alone understand Him, or are in receipt of the 'real deal', a secret transmission ... and of course, we get people turning up all through history, and still do today, claiming that everything you know is wrong, and Jesus told me this ...
Really? I don't think so. There are those who like to claim a lot went on in secret, but then if it did, how do they know? It's juts playing to people's prejudices.
Then again, I know of 'secret doctrines' which should not be spoken of. How? Because they're spoken of in the documents of the Fathers! In my experience those who claim there are 'secret teachings' etc., are usually not very well read when it comes to the 'open teachings' ... Having said that, there's a lot of stuff to get though, more than enough for one lifetime.
I can sympathise, but also should point out the elitism. Not everyone's a theologian. It's quite common here at IO for some respondents to knock those who's approach to religion lacks sufficient intellectual rigour in the minds of their critics. It's elitism and hypocrisy, really. Some of those people, for all their simple and naive faith, are realised spirits a lot further along the road than you or I.
There's a famous story of the Anglican theologian who complained to his wife about his congregation, and she took the wind from his sails with a very apposite observation ... I wish I could remember it!
If I was offered the guidance of a simple saint or a sophisticated intellectual, I know who I'd ask for.