Edgerton Gospel

by peacefulpete 5 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  Regarded as likely the oldest (or tied with oldest) Gospel fragment we have is that named the Unknown Gospel or the Edgerton Gospel. Sadly it is very fragmentary. Debates regarding it's relationship with the 4 canonical Gospels have continued since it was found. The short readable sections reveal alternate versions of stories in the Gospels and an otherwise unknow story about Jesus on the shore of the Jordan river. Below is a reconstruction:

  "(...) shut up (...) has been subjected uncertainly (...) its weight unweighted?" And when they where perplexed at the strange question, Jesus, as he walked, stood on the lip of the Jordan river, stretching out his right hand, filled it with (...) and sowed upon the (...). And the (...) water (...) the (...). And (...) before them, he brought forth fruit (...) much (...) for joy (...)

  While a number of attempts to decipher the damaged wording have arrived a slightly different opinions, the thrust of the story is pretty clear.

  A small seed in the ground is hidden and invisible. How does its abundance become immeasurable?
  (By growing and bringing fruit.)
  To clarify this, Jesus performs a miracle: He walks up to the river Jordan and with the water he gives rise to a spontaneous ripening of fruit. (much, for joy!)

  Discussion?
• 

  peacefulpete

  For me the abundance of Jesus narratives and sayings that circulated in the first 2 centuries reveal just how hungry the audience was for this material. Was the audience gullible, or did they understand something lost on most modern readers?
• 

  iloowy.goowy

  @Peacefulpete,

  Audiences are still gullible today. In modern days not perhaps in an agrarian way, but in the trappings of modern stories which turn out to be only fanciful conspiracies. Thousands, millions, tens of millions fall for stupid stories based on nonsense. (Recall Q-anal, I mean Q-anus, no wait, it was Q-anon).
• 

  Magnum

  Looks interesting and would love to discuss, but I'm too ignorant of the topic right now. I had never heard of the fragment. Thanks for mentioning it. I want to research it. By the way, I did a google search and found it to be spelled "Egerton."
• 

  peacefulpete

  oops.

  I posted a new thread, describing the popular ancient practice of including gods in literature and plays for the populace. It seems to have disappeared. In short, the point of these depictions and stories was not only to entertain but a didactic method of animating the gods and making them real.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Were the works of Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, etc. acting blasphemously when creating their works of fiction because they included the gods in the stories? When Homer placed dialog into Athena's mouth, was he wrong to use his creativity to make her come alive for an audience?

  There were critics of such playwrights for their impertinence, not for the act of dramatization but in some cases for the content. The more conservative among the Greeks felt the gods were depicted too human. But generally, the practice was popular and regarded by some as essential for the religious health of the people. In fact, the god Dionysus (you know, the water-to-wine god) was the patron deity of theater.

  Did the earliest Christians feel similarly? Early forms of the faith may have seemed unapproachable, esoteric and reserved for the initiated. (2000 years later, people still find Paul "hard to understand".) A popularizing of the faith for the masses necessitated a theatrical presentation, a more accessible method of teaching through story telling. Stories of the godman interacting with humans, demonstrating his superiority, yet having a human touch. The writings of early church fathers and writers reveal a freeness to add or subtract from those stories, which betrays an understanding of the nature of the stories lost on the populace. In a similar way the intelligentsia of the Greek and Roman world generally understood Homer and similar works as allegory and mocked the popular uncritical belief in them as 'history'.

  As it happens, the very depiction of the gods as interacting directly with humans, made the gods appear smaller and, for some, paved the way for disbelief, or at least a less spiritual view of the gods. Eyes of faith replaced with literal eyes as it were. In my mind a similar process happened among Christians, the literalizing of the stories reduced them to a fixed "freeze frame" of a previously metaphysical belief system. Now, there is no disputing the success of these stories as Christianity grew rapidly, especially among the 'unlearned and ordinary'. However, many then as today find Christianity intellectually unsatisfying or indefensible when told to accept the contradictory and literary as history.

  There have been advocates for a return to a more mystical version, but against the background of the literalist, uni-dimensional popular species of Christianity, they come across as "out of their minds". Something Paul might have heard.