I have unashamedly lost count of the number of times I've watched Susan Boyle perform I Dreamed a Dream for 'Britain's Got Talent'. Apparently, I'm not the only one, last I checked her song has been collectively viewed over 90 million times on YouTube. For me, it's not because of her beautiful voice, though it is beautiful. Nor is it because of the contagious reaction of the crowd, though it is contagious. And nope, it's not even because I have nothing better to do with my time...OK that was a lie.
I think the reason I sense a magnetic pull between myself and her performance is because I strongly identify with the emotions expressed in the song. The message of the song (yes, heavy metal fans, music actually has words - they're called "lyrics"), coupled with her thoroughly brilliant performance resonates loudly with how we experience that thing known as, "life".
John Lennon once said, "Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans." That's how it feels sometimes isn't it? It's as if you take stock of your life and your thinking, what happened? It's not what you imagined. It's isn't what you had hoped it would be. You try, try again and then you get dealt a 3-7 offsuit. Or, you get what you want, but it fails to satisfy like you thought (or had been promised) it would. Day after day you pursue your dreams, only to find them forever escaping your grasp and replaced by dreams anew. You just want the chips to fall your way for a change. Is that too much to ask? You just want comfort, ease, and for all of your wildest (or even mildest) dreams to come true.
At the risk of coming across calculated and cold, may I say something as gently as possible to you (and myself)? The above mindset is utterly selfish. Really, it is. It's consumed with self. Like an obnoxious child completely focused on getting their own way, so too is the individual who exists for self, and self alone. Certainly, this song is a valid expression of legitimate emotions, which I have no problem with. However, taken to it's extreme, the mindset of self-pity due to lack of self-fulfillment will ultimately destroy you.
Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life? If you wish to save your life, you will lose it. But if you lose your life for my sake, you will find it."
The song is a powerful one, and we identify with it's sentiment. The question is, what do we do with that sentiment? Do we take a dose of self-help and continue the all consuming fight for do ra ME? Or do we submit our lives, and will, to the One who offers us redemption?
~~~
If you haven't already, you can check out Susan Boyle here.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Non Canonical Gospel Considerations
I am fully aware that this topic might not be of much interest to many of you, and that's ok. However, one of the purposes of this blog is so that I can gather my thoughts and try to put them in writing. This blog post is simply my attempt to put in writing some of my musings about non-canonical gospels. It isn't designed to be exhaustive, and I would be embarrassed if a NT scholar, such as John Meier, Richard Bauckham, Craig Blomberg, or Ben Witherington, were to read this post. That said, here goes....
As you probably already know, the four gospels in the Christian canon (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) aren't the only ones penned about Jesus Christ. Perhaps the most well known of these other gospels is the 'Gospel of Thomas'. In fact, Robert Funk, representing the Jesus Seminar, published a book called, "The Five Gospels" in 1996 which offered a fresh look at Christ's life and used the 'Gospel of Thomas' right along with the canonical four.
If you're like me, when you first hear the word 'gospel' you picture the gospels you grew up reading. You picture a sustained narrative starting with an infancy narrative (at least in the case of Matthew and Luke), followed by Christ's being anointed by the Holy Spirit at His baptism, an earthly ministry which includes teaching about the Kingdom of God and miraculous signs, the passion week, and finally, the resurrection/ascension. You might be surprised to learn that, when compared with the four gospels found in the Bible, the non-canonical (the term I use to describe what are commonly called "gnostic" gospels) gospels have many differences to ours (e.g. time of writing; period of Jesus' life described; number of extant manuscripts; acceptance by early Christians; context within Palestinian Judaism; nature of Jesus' teaching).
I would be irresponsible if I tried to explain all of the non-canonical gospels to you because, frankly, I'm not qualified. The world of gospel studies is one of the most intricate, confusing, and intimidating subjects you could ever endeavour to learn about. However, if you are interested I highly recommend you read the source texts which can be found on Early Christian Writings (in fact, reading them for yourself is the best thing you can do if you're interested in them). The site isn't a conservative one, but it is a great tool for studying source texts.
If you are one of those interested in reading non-canonical gospels, allow me to offer you a couple of tips. First, as you enter this strange world of gospel studies, remember that scholars will sometimes talk about hypothetical documents as if they are real. For example, you can go to the above site and read the document known as 'Q' (from the German word for source, 'Quelle'). However, Q doesn't really exist, it's a hypothetical source document.
To make a long story short, Q is the material common between Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark. If you look at the visual aid below, Q would be represented by the blue "Double Tradition". Scholars theorize that the only way Matthew and Luke could have material so similar, is if they borrowed from a common (and probably written) source - hence, Q. There is no surviving evidence (such as existing manuscripts) that Q ever existed, and yet in the world of NT studies, it might as well be as real as the nose on your face. To be fair, there is nothing unreasonable about Q, in fact, I too believe that some source (whether written or oral) like Q did exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relationship_between_synoptic_gospels.png
As you probably already know, the four gospels in the Christian canon (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) aren't the only ones penned about Jesus Christ. Perhaps the most well known of these other gospels is the 'Gospel of Thomas'. In fact, Robert Funk, representing the Jesus Seminar, published a book called, "The Five Gospels" in 1996 which offered a fresh look at Christ's life and used the 'Gospel of Thomas' right along with the canonical four.
If you're like me, when you first hear the word 'gospel' you picture the gospels you grew up reading. You picture a sustained narrative starting with an infancy narrative (at least in the case of Matthew and Luke), followed by Christ's being anointed by the Holy Spirit at His baptism, an earthly ministry which includes teaching about the Kingdom of God and miraculous signs, the passion week, and finally, the resurrection/ascension. You might be surprised to learn that, when compared with the four gospels found in the Bible, the non-canonical (the term I use to describe what are commonly called "gnostic" gospels) gospels have many differences to ours (e.g. time of writing; period of Jesus' life described; number of extant manuscripts; acceptance by early Christians; context within Palestinian Judaism; nature of Jesus' teaching).
I would be irresponsible if I tried to explain all of the non-canonical gospels to you because, frankly, I'm not qualified. The world of gospel studies is one of the most intricate, confusing, and intimidating subjects you could ever endeavour to learn about. However, if you are interested I highly recommend you read the source texts which can be found on Early Christian Writings (in fact, reading them for yourself is the best thing you can do if you're interested in them). The site isn't a conservative one, but it is a great tool for studying source texts.
If you are one of those interested in reading non-canonical gospels, allow me to offer you a couple of tips. First, as you enter this strange world of gospel studies, remember that scholars will sometimes talk about hypothetical documents as if they are real. For example, you can go to the above site and read the document known as 'Q' (from the German word for source, 'Quelle'). However, Q doesn't really exist, it's a hypothetical source document.
To make a long story short, Q is the material common between Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark. If you look at the visual aid below, Q would be represented by the blue "Double Tradition". Scholars theorize that the only way Matthew and Luke could have material so similar, is if they borrowed from a common (and probably written) source - hence, Q. There is no surviving evidence (such as existing manuscripts) that Q ever existed, and yet in the world of NT studies, it might as well be as real as the nose on your face. To be fair, there is nothing unreasonable about Q, in fact, I too believe that some source (whether written or oral) like Q did exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relationship_between_synoptic_gospels.png
I would also like to offer you some categories to help you think about the non-canonical gospels. Some of the non-canonical gospels often "fill in the gaps" of our gospels. For example, there is a period of time between Jesus' resurrection and ascension in which there is very little of his teaching recorded, some of the non-canonical gospels (e.g. Epistula Apostolorum) attempt to fill this gap (I would call this category 'Post Resurrection Revelation'). There are also gospels which are 'Pre-Infancy Narratives' which discuss, to put it generally, the time before our gospels began (e.g. Infancy Gospel of James; a.k.a. Protevangelium of James). Another category (again, as I would describe them) is the 'Post Infancy Narrative' (e.g. Infancy Gospel of Thomas) which describes Jesus' boyhood (filling in the gap between Jesus' birth and ministry). The Gospel of Thomas actually fits into the category of a 'Sayings Gospel'. If you were to read it you would think to yourself, "This reads much like the book of Proverbs.". A 'Sayings Gospel' is simply a collection of Jesus' sayings, all strung together one after the other without any contextual background information such as an audience, setting, or location (i.e. sitz im leben). Finally, there is the category of Passion Narrative (e.g. Gospel of Peter), which describes Jesus' crucifixion.
In studying the non-canoncial gospels, I have developed a much deeper appreciation and trust for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Comparing and contrasting our gospels with the non-canonical gospels provides a priceless perspective, and helps us better understand the New Testament. The trustworthiness of the canonical gospels, evidenced by their time of writing, straightforward content, early acceptance, and textual preservation is amazing. I feel fully confident learning about my Savior from these four remarkable documents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)