Scholarly discussion about changes in biblical texts

Was on a Thames Sailing Barge once, and we put aground (on purpose) on a sandbank at the mouth of the Thames which was partially formed by barges from the Victorians and earlier eras dumping the city's trash in the channel. Went for a walk, the barge's dog, Joxer, went on a killing spree, the place was alive with rats. We were kicking over glass and porcelain pots and what-nots and all manner of detritus which, dug up and washed clean, would probably fetch a few quid in the antique/junk shops in the more affluent parts of town.

"Where there's muck, there's brass" (brass = money).
 
TheLightWithin said:
I just checked with my husband who was an archaeology major back in the day and who has kept up with the field.
He confirmed it was the norm that most archaeological finds were in trash heaps.
He said that archaeologists do try to extrapolate from every bit of evidence they find.
However he also said that it is not the consensus or even common to infer that an item wasn't important because it was found in a trash heap.
He said that archaeologists reason that everything or nearly everything gets thrown away at some point.

It's old, broken, damaged, somebody dies, something is held onto for decades and at some point somebody tosses great grandpa's stuff out, natural disaster or neglect or erosion crumbled the house or storage building, etc...

What is the old saying? One man's trash is another man's treasure?;) 😌 🧐
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges. I'm not talking about pottery, which is the gold standard for archeology. I'm talking about important documents that were considered holy.

I have spoken directly with professors in college on this very same subject and my point was one they often brought up. I checked with them and also had them review my paper I wrote on this matter. Scripturally important papers aren't the same as pottery.

I wish I had a clue where my research paper was on the Gospel of Thomas (if I did indeed keep it) because I would just present it here.

But as always I was just stating a fact. That's all.
 
TheLightWithin said:
I don't know why or how it ended up there. I don't know if any of the scholars know or could know.
I can think of all sorts of reasons right off the top, but I'm just guessing
As I pointed out, sometimes materials were suppressed by opponents, so they would destroy or discard them.
People throw away stuff they dislike even if they aren't persecuting per se.
Imagine something thinking their kid was in a cult and jettisoning their books.
People who were trying to hide things THEY considered sacred hid them in odd places.
When people die, their stuff gets thrown out.
People throw out stuff they are done with if they get something new.
Stuff gets thrown out by mistake by people who don't know their value to someone else.
As I pointed out, first drafts get discarded or drafts with mistakes. I'm sure even then, without copy machines.

As I pointed out, a LOT of archeology is done on trash heaps. That's just the way of it. That's where stuff is FOUND.
I do not know whether or what most archaeologists make of the fact the items they find are in the trash.
Whether or what they extrapolate from that.

I don't know why, but you seem to be dubious almost to the point of being - is it too much to say hostile? to this material?
What is it about it that you would prefer to dismiss or discredit? 🤔 :oops:🧐
Click to expand...
I'm being hostile? I was thinking that about you.

I stated a fact. Just a fact. No essay. Just a fact. Them facts sure are hostile to you.
 
muhammad_isa said:
I always become suspicious, when somebody goes on about 'facts'.
It seems as if the word 'fact' becomes the focus of attention .. and then
we can all have an argument about what a 'fact' is. :)
Click to expand...
Nothing suspicious about it. Nobody brought up this fact so I just threw it out there. I didn't realize it was something that was so controversial.
 
Thomas said:
But tracts of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament were also found there ... ?
Click to expand...
Along with a bunch of gnostic texts. A library one was nearby so the assumption is that these texts were intentionally discarded due to being declared heretic.

Let me explain my purpose here because you don't seem to understand. I barely have any free time. My newborn is 2 weeks old so I just have checked in on here now and then. I know a lot about this text and just noticed that nobody mentioned that it was intentionally discarded into trash, which is where it was found. I just tossed my two cents into the conversation. As always, I feel people should be informed. I never said that this fact automatically closed the door on the canon authenticity of the text. Wasn't being hostile. I get what everyone is saying. All I'm saying is that a book was intentionally put in the literal trash. I might also add that it wasn't mentioned for about 1,500 years. So it obviously wasn't considered a very important text for most of its time.

I'm sure I'll have plenty to add later. I haven't studied this text for 25 years so I'm sure we learned more about it since then. I was hoping to learn what has been found since then. Didn't know that was a big deal.
 
Thomas said:
Was on a Thames Sailing Barge once, and we put aground (on purpose) on a sandbank at the mouth of the Thames which was partially formed by barges from the Victorians and earlier eras dumping the city's trash in the channel. Went for a walk, the barge's dog, Joxer, went on a killing spree, the place was alive with rats. We were kicking over glass and porcelain pots and what-nots and all manner of detritus which, dug up and washed clean, would probably fetch a few quid in the antique/junk shops in the more affluent parts of town.

"Where there's muck, there's brass" (brass = money).
Click to expand...
No pictures from your exploration?
 
moralorel said:
Along with a bunch of gnostic texts. A library one was nearby so the assumption is that these texts were intentionally discarded due to being declared heretic.
Click to expand...
We can only wonder ... why were 'orthodox' texts discarded as well?

I'm not defending the Gospel of Thomas by any stretch ... It may be of interests to scholars of the era, but really adds nothing to Christianity as such, other than showing how diverse the interpretations of the early communities were ... certainly none of the findings proved to be the 'bombshell' which so many hoped they would ... quite the reverse.

Hippolytus of Rome wrote (c222-235):
"They (The Naassenes) transmit a tradition concerning this in the Gospel entitled "According to Thomas," which states expressly, "The one who seeks me will find me in children of seven years and older, for there, hidden in the fourteenth aeon, I am revealed."
If so, then the version Hippolytus is working from is quite different from the surviving texts we have.

Origen was equally dismissive ...

The Naassenes seem to have drawn from a wide variety of sources, Hebrew, Christian and Greek, so again whether the Naassene reference to Thomas is an accurate transmission or a version redacted to fit their own cosmology is an open question.

So the idea that Gospel of Thomas is somehow 'revelatory' is largely stuff and nonsense.
 
moralorel said:
Apples and oranges. I'm not talking about pottery, which is the gold standard for archeology. I'm talking about important documents that were considered holy.

I have spoken directly with professors in college on this very same subject and my point was one they often brought up. I checked with them and also had them review my paper I wrote on this matter. Scripturally important papers aren't the same as pottery.

I wish I had a clue where my research paper was on the Gospel of Thomas (if I did indeed keep it) because I would just present it here.
Click to expand...
Maybe on a dump ;-)
moralorel said:
But as always I was just stating a fact. That's all.
Click to expand...

moralorel said:
Just pointing out the fact. If it were sacred, I'd wonder why it was in the trash. It's not like they had copy machines back then. Copies of books, especially scripture, were highly coveted. It doesn't mean it was truly fake, but it is one of many arrows pointing in that direction.
Click to expand...
In fact, I consider it to be a valid 5th source, not completely reliable but a collection of an upright author.
Nevertheless, it has been discarded by scholars of the majority church, so it may have not been considered a sacred text at all by the one who threw it away.
 
talib-al-kalim said:
Maybe on a dump ;-)



In fact, I consider it to be a valid 5th source, not completely reliable but a collection of an upright author.
Nevertheless, it has been discarded by scholars of the majority church, so it may have not been considered a sacred text at all by the one who threw it away.
Click to expand...
Ha ha...
Come to think of it, I think my professor kept it. I probably have it on a floppy disk somewhere. Might even be on my college computer. I still have it in storage.

If you consider it to be a valid 5th source, then feel free to provide some facts and reasoning for your opinion. I'd be interested in seeing what's new about it.
 
Thomas said:
We can only wonder ... why were 'orthodox' texts discarded as well?

I'm not defending the Gospel of Thomas by any stretch ... It may be of interests to scholars of the era, but really adds nothing to Christianity as such, other than showing how diverse the interpretations of the early communities were ... certainly none of the findings proved to be the 'bombshell' which so many hoped they would ... quite the reverse.

Hippolytus of Rome wrote (c222-235):
"They (The Naassenes) transmit a tradition concerning this in the Gospel entitled "According to Thomas," which states expressly, "The one who seeks me will find me in children of seven years and older, for there, hidden in the fourteenth aeon, I am revealed."
If so, then the version Hippolytus is working from is quite different from the surviving texts we have.

Origen was equally dismissive ...

The Naassenes seem to have drawn from a wide variety of sources, Hebrew, Christian and Greek, so again whether the Naassene reference to Thomas is an accurate transmission or a version redacted to fit their own cosmology is an open question.

So the idea that Gospel of Thomas is somehow 'revelatory' is largely stuff and nonsense.
Click to expand...
My understanding at the time was that orthodox texts found with this "gospel" were unfinished or had scribe errors. I assume you know the process behind copying scriptural texts so I won't bore you with the details. It was assumed they were discarded because they failed one of the criteria, which many did.

I did ponder the idea that this could be the actual reason why this "gospel" was thrown out as well. But when I looked through the transcription notes I didn't find anything mentioned about this. None of the professors I spoke to had any knowledge of syntax nor copying errors in the text.

I agree that it is not "revelatory". But it sure seemed that was when it was first discovered. Too bad, but it still has value for anyone wanting to learn about the gnostic movement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top