I was simply thinking about the text attributed to the author Matthew, however said author composed it. I heard that the apostle Matthew, didn't really write the gospel, but so far I havn't seen much to support this other than two church fathers, giving different accounts of how Matthew composed it.
The evidence that Matthew the apostle did not write Matthew is overwhelming. The date is wrong, the Greek is wrong, he says "'them" instead of "us," there's no record of it even existing until after 100 AD. Almost all scholars agree that Matthew was based on Mark. Most believe that there was actually one person with a pen responsible for text in more or less the version we have it, but there's not even agreement on that.
Ah, this one I know a little about. You'll have to excuse me, but there's something about that thing that reeks of balooney. Morton Smith happens to discover a forgotten peice of Mark, which just happens to support his own theories about Jesus as a magician and a homosexual, then the text magically disappears. No one besides him has seen it, alot of scholars have noted inconsistensy in style between Secret Mark and Clemens. Plus alot of other trouble...
All of this makes the claim sound implausible, especially after its rejection by most critics. Not to sound offending to you, but that's what it looks like to me.
We know that there were "secret" gospels from the Church fathers and a few manuscripts. Morton's manuscript? That's another question. In any case it appears that the manuscript was destroyed. I do have to say that most critics do not reject the Morton manuscript. Most Clement scholars believe it to be a genuine letter of Clement, and it would be very difficult to forge--you'd have to know antique Greek handwriting, Clement, and Mark very well. In fact the usual argument given is that it is too good, that it is probably a Clement pastiche.
This I also remember, but I didn't know if it what of the theology that was different. Do you know the specifics? The ressurection and Jesus as the son of God came earlier than John, but what points did the author/s of John try to add?
I believe the most common theory is that John I was a "signs gospel," a listing of Jesus' miracles. At various places John will refer to the signs as if they were a numbered list.
John II was probably a gnostic version. The resurrected Jesus was a spirit. Jesus was God, not a person. After we die we all become spirits (as opposed to the Jewish concept of resurrection of the flesh). Jesus is not coming back in any physical sense. Baptism is a magical rite that fills you with the spirit.
John III alters the most extreme Gnostic theologies to their opposites. (The
logos became flesh, for example.)
Of course what you need is what the scholars have reconstructed as the greek version of the bible. Unfurtunatly I can't read ancient greek, though I'm lucky enough to live were I can ask questions to people who know more about this than I.
As far as I can see, the current greek bible that has been assembled is pretty close. I've seen some comparisons between certain verses and read discussions between people who know this better than I. Though there are small differences here and there, there's nothing Earth shatteringly new, or wildly different... Protestants also teach some doctrine, I'm just interested in the text itself, which seems to be pretty darn close to the original. However I'll look up this Erhman and read his books, once I'm done with The Road to Reality by Penrose.
I contend that the concept of an "original text" is meaningless. There were numerous texts contributed to by numerous people. Each sect had its own versions that it considered sacred. What we have now is the selection made by the sect that eventually won out. Had things been a little different Christians might be revering "Q" and Mark and the Signs Gospel as sacred and condemning Matthew as a clumsy pastiche of only historical interest.
The selection part is critical. We have a pretty good idea of the content of the books that the Church fathers picked out for us. You can compare this text to other versions and get
huge differences, or you can just say that the huge differences aren't the same text.
Several oral traditions, which were later written down around 600BC? That's about all I know about that.
Arrgh, let's not go there! If you're a Protestant, your OT comes from a Hebrew manuscript assembled in the Jerusalem temple around the time of Christ. If you're a Catholic, your OT comes from a Greek translation of Hebrew manuscripts from around 300 BCE. The original Hebrew manuscripts are long lost, and differed in many ways from the ones used by Protestants. Some of the text appears to have never been in Hebrew, but others appear to have been more authentic and less altered than the manuscripts we have today.
