If I had to pick one thing that bothers me about Christians/the Church/Christendom today, it's our lack of drive to be the absolute best. We ought to strive for nothing less than excellence in all of our endeavours. We are a reflection of the God we serve, and looking around at God's reflectors here in America, God seems pretty, well, lousy.
Jesus asks us to function as lights to society, so that they can "see our good deeds and give honor to our Father in heaven." Furthermore, in I Corinthians Paul said that we should do everything for God's glory.
If God is really so great (not to mention real) why aren't His followers great? Why aren't we producing the most talented music, running the most successful businesses, building the most efficient houses, writing the most brilliant books, developing the most advanced technology, and altogether running circles around the competition?
To make matters worse, we hypocritically condemn the "secular" pursuits of the world, only to capitalize on their developments. We use cell phones, drive cars, shop at stores, watch TV, take medication, live in houses, and enjoy other such "worldly" creations. Basically, we mooch off of society's advancements, all the while touting an I-only-pursue-God-and-I-don't-waste-my-time-on-temporary-pleasures-because-I-am-so-spiritual attitude.
We tell ourselves that anything other than Bible study and prayer is somehow un-spiritual, and so we don't pursue our interests with excellence (i.e. we aren't good "contributors to society"). If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well. If you think it would be a waste of time to perform something you do with anything short of excellence, you are wasting your time. God has given us dominion over this world, and has asked us to bring honor and glory to His reputation. We are supposed to be making God famous. People should watch what we do, and see the glory of God. God has saved us from an old life of bondage to sin, and brought us into a new life of bondage to Him. We have been brought from death to life. We should want to please God, by doing our absolute best for Him. Anything else damages the reputation of God.
The problem comes when I look in the mirror. Am I an excellent writer? researcher? assistant manager? citizen? church member? husband? Do I contribute something worthwhile to others, or just leach off of other's accomplishments?
Truth is, I'm a pretty mediocre guy. Maybe the problem isn't other Christians. Maybe the problem is me.
Monday, May 11, 2009
American Theater
IMDB (Internet Movie Database) is a massive online tool for researching anything to do with movies, TV, actors, etc. On their website, they have a list of the all-time USA box office movies. Tell me if you noticed the same thing I did about the following list of the top 35 grossing movies of all-time in the USA.
Rank. Movie (Released) $Ticket Sales
1. Titanic (1997) $600,779,824
2. The Dark Knight (2008) $533,316,061
3. Star Wars (1977) $460,935,665
4. Shrek 2 (2004) $436,471,036
5. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) $434,949,459
6. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) $431,065,444
7. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) $423,032,628
8. Spider-Man (2002) $403,706,375
9. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) $380,262,555
10. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $377,019,252
11. Spider-Man 2 (2004) $373,377,893
12. The Passion of the Christ (2004)$370,270,943
13. Jurassic Park (1993) $356,784,000
14. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) $340,478,898
15. Finding Nemo (2003) $339,714,367
16. Spider-Man 3 (2007) $336,530,303
17. Forrest Gump (1994) $329,691,196
18. The Lion King (1994) $328,423,001
19. Shrek the Third (2007) $320,706,665
20. Transformers (2007) $318,759,914
21. Iron Man (2008) $318,298,180
22. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $317,557,891
23. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) $317,011,114
24. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) $313,837,577
25. Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) $310,675,583
26. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007) $309,404,152
27. Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) $309,125,409
28. Independence Day (1996) $306,124,059
29. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) $305,388,685
30. The Sixth Sense (1999) $293,501,675
31. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) $292,000,866
32. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) $291,709,845
33. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) $290,158,751
34. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) $289,994,397
35. Home Alone (1990) $285,761,243
(Taken directly from this IMDB web page)
Even after a cursory reading of this list, it's hard to not notice the prevailing theme. All but five of these movies (Titanic, Passion of the Christ, Forrest Gump, The Sixth Sense, and Home Alone) have strong plot elements of fantasy. (Some would argue that "Passion of the Christ" and "Sixth Sense" also have elements of fantasy, I disagree). Whether it's animation (Finding Nemo), magic (Harry Potter), supernatural curses (Pirates of the Caribbean), Sci-Fi (Star Wars), aliens (Independence Day), superheroes (The Dark Knight), or people and places from a whole new world (Lord of the Rings) 81% of the top 35 all-time grossing movies in America have strong non-natural elements. Fascinating, isn't it?
It could be that these movies do so well, because, broadly speaking, they are more "family" oriented. In other words, movies that are rated 'R' can't do as well in the theater because you can't bring the whole family along and, consequently, the movie doesn't earn as much money. These Top 35 movies may have simply had the better chance of grossing high, not because of their genre, but because of their PG-PG13 content.
It could also be, and I think this is closer to the truth, that these movies fill a whole in our lives much more than a "realistic" genre, such as Drama, ever could. We want to escape from the hum drum of everyday. We want to exercise our imaginations again like we did when we were kids. We want a safe world where black is black and white is white. We want a hero we can emulate, and a villain we can conquer. We want the satisfaction of withholding impending doom from an alien attack. We want a place where our creativity can maneuver unhindered by the harsh realities of life.
Whatever your interpretation of the Top 35 list, it certainly provokes thought, and, perhaps, helps us understand each other just a little bit better.
Rank. Movie (Released) $Ticket Sales
1. Titanic (1997) $600,779,824
2. The Dark Knight (2008) $533,316,061
3. Star Wars (1977) $460,935,665
4. Shrek 2 (2004) $436,471,036
5. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) $434,949,459
6. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) $431,065,444
7. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) $423,032,628
8. Spider-Man (2002) $403,706,375
9. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) $380,262,555
10. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $377,019,252
11. Spider-Man 2 (2004) $373,377,893
12. The Passion of the Christ (2004)$370,270,943
13. Jurassic Park (1993) $356,784,000
14. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) $340,478,898
15. Finding Nemo (2003) $339,714,367
16. Spider-Man 3 (2007) $336,530,303
17. Forrest Gump (1994) $329,691,196
18. The Lion King (1994) $328,423,001
19. Shrek the Third (2007) $320,706,665
20. Transformers (2007) $318,759,914
21. Iron Man (2008) $318,298,180
22. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $317,557,891
23. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) $317,011,114
24. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) $313,837,577
25. Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) $310,675,583
26. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007) $309,404,152
27. Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) $309,125,409
28. Independence Day (1996) $306,124,059
29. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) $305,388,685
30. The Sixth Sense (1999) $293,501,675
31. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) $292,000,866
32. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) $291,709,845
33. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) $290,158,751
34. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) $289,994,397
35. Home Alone (1990) $285,761,243
(Taken directly from this IMDB web page)
Even after a cursory reading of this list, it's hard to not notice the prevailing theme. All but five of these movies (Titanic, Passion of the Christ, Forrest Gump, The Sixth Sense, and Home Alone) have strong plot elements of fantasy. (Some would argue that "Passion of the Christ" and "Sixth Sense" also have elements of fantasy, I disagree). Whether it's animation (Finding Nemo), magic (Harry Potter), supernatural curses (Pirates of the Caribbean), Sci-Fi (Star Wars), aliens (Independence Day), superheroes (The Dark Knight), or people and places from a whole new world (Lord of the Rings) 81% of the top 35 all-time grossing movies in America have strong non-natural elements. Fascinating, isn't it?
It could be that these movies do so well, because, broadly speaking, they are more "family" oriented. In other words, movies that are rated 'R' can't do as well in the theater because you can't bring the whole family along and, consequently, the movie doesn't earn as much money. These Top 35 movies may have simply had the better chance of grossing high, not because of their genre, but because of their PG-PG13 content.
It could also be, and I think this is closer to the truth, that these movies fill a whole in our lives much more than a "realistic" genre, such as Drama, ever could. We want to escape from the hum drum of everyday. We want to exercise our imaginations again like we did when we were kids. We want a safe world where black is black and white is white. We want a hero we can emulate, and a villain we can conquer. We want the satisfaction of withholding impending doom from an alien attack. We want a place where our creativity can maneuver unhindered by the harsh realities of life.
Whatever your interpretation of the Top 35 list, it certainly provokes thought, and, perhaps, helps us understand each other just a little bit better.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
No Harm, No Foul
I think we underestimate the tremendous impact the consequences of an action have on our judgment of the morality of that action. If we do something stupid, we quickly whip out our “Consequence Meter” and begin to gauge just how stupid said action really was in the first place. Let me offer a couple of illustrations in order to try and clarify my point.
Several months ago, I was driving through a section of downtown Chattanooga with which I was fairly unfamiliar. I was busy checking road signs, trying to get into the correct lane, and undoubtedly, (though I don’t completely remember) adjusting the radio. Suddenly, I became under the distinct impression that something wasn’t quite right. It was at this point I realized, while blowing through a busy intersection in broad daylight without a care in the world, the light - my light - was red!
Amazingly, I didn’t get into an accident, or get a ticket (I didn’t even get a ticket in the mail a few weeks later from those intersection camera thingamajigs). The only significant consequence of this bone-headed move on my part was that my heart rate increased for a few minutes. Other than that, it was business as usual for the rest of the day, and I felt very, very little guilt for running the red light. However, can you imagine if I had struck a car, and killed someone? What if I had killed a whole family? I would still be feeling absorbed with guilt, even to this day. I would have forever regretted not paying attention on that could-have-been-fateful day. The odd thing is, in either scenario (getting off scot-free vs. killing a family of five) I made the EXACT SAME MISTAKE - I ran a red-light. My evaluation of the mistake however, boiled down to the significance of the consequences.
Allow me to give a second illustration to complete the point. How many times have you said something to someone, only to wonder if maybe whatever it was you said would have been better left, well, unsaid. Confused? The other day I said something I shouldn’t have. (I’m sure that comes as a shock to all of you) I said something rude/embarrassing/insulting to a friend of mine. When I said it, I was afraid I had hurt his feelings so I asked him, “Are you mad at me? Did I hurt your feelings?” Why did I ask him that? Because I was going to judge the morality of what I said based on his response. If he had laughed it off, I would have been tempted to continue in my rude/embarrassing/insulting ways. If he had become upset or hurt, I would have felt terrible about what I had said, and judged what I had said to be wrong. In other words, I didn’t so much care whether or not I had said something rude, I only cared if HE cared. I was judging my behavior based on the consequences. (I am fully aware that in some instances, other people’s sensitivities/culture should guide what we say, that’s not what I’m talking about here).
So what’s the point? My point is, pay attention to how often you judge morality based on the consequences. There is a good deal of temporary injustice in this sin cursed world. Chances are, you might do something dreadfully bad and (don’t miss this) get away with it. Or, you might do something heroically good, only to draw the short straw.
News Flash: Sometimes good things happen to bad people. Truly mind-blowing. It’s so counter-intuitive to how we think. We think that if you’re doing the right thing, then people will respect you, you’ll have money in the bank, your boss will notice you, your friends will be loyal to you, and you’ll have a massive impact. Being a God-pleaser doesn’t always mean cake and ice-cream. At least not now. But, don’t be deceived. God is not mocked, whatever a man sows, that will he also reap. (Galatians 6:7)
Several months ago, I was driving through a section of downtown Chattanooga with which I was fairly unfamiliar. I was busy checking road signs, trying to get into the correct lane, and undoubtedly, (though I don’t completely remember) adjusting the radio. Suddenly, I became under the distinct impression that something wasn’t quite right. It was at this point I realized, while blowing through a busy intersection in broad daylight without a care in the world, the light - my light - was red!
Amazingly, I didn’t get into an accident, or get a ticket (I didn’t even get a ticket in the mail a few weeks later from those intersection camera thingamajigs). The only significant consequence of this bone-headed move on my part was that my heart rate increased for a few minutes. Other than that, it was business as usual for the rest of the day, and I felt very, very little guilt for running the red light. However, can you imagine if I had struck a car, and killed someone? What if I had killed a whole family? I would still be feeling absorbed with guilt, even to this day. I would have forever regretted not paying attention on that could-have-been-fateful day. The odd thing is, in either scenario (getting off scot-free vs. killing a family of five) I made the EXACT SAME MISTAKE - I ran a red-light. My evaluation of the mistake however, boiled down to the significance of the consequences.
Allow me to give a second illustration to complete the point. How many times have you said something to someone, only to wonder if maybe whatever it was you said would have been better left, well, unsaid. Confused? The other day I said something I shouldn’t have. (I’m sure that comes as a shock to all of you) I said something rude/embarrassing/insulting to a friend of mine. When I said it, I was afraid I had hurt his feelings so I asked him, “Are you mad at me? Did I hurt your feelings?” Why did I ask him that? Because I was going to judge the morality of what I said based on his response. If he had laughed it off, I would have been tempted to continue in my rude/embarrassing/insulting ways. If he had become upset or hurt, I would have felt terrible about what I had said, and judged what I had said to be wrong. In other words, I didn’t so much care whether or not I had said something rude, I only cared if HE cared. I was judging my behavior based on the consequences. (I am fully aware that in some instances, other people’s sensitivities/culture should guide what we say, that’s not what I’m talking about here).
So what’s the point? My point is, pay attention to how often you judge morality based on the consequences. There is a good deal of temporary injustice in this sin cursed world. Chances are, you might do something dreadfully bad and (don’t miss this) get away with it. Or, you might do something heroically good, only to draw the short straw.
News Flash: Sometimes good things happen to bad people. Truly mind-blowing. It’s so counter-intuitive to how we think. We think that if you’re doing the right thing, then people will respect you, you’ll have money in the bank, your boss will notice you, your friends will be loyal to you, and you’ll have a massive impact. Being a God-pleaser doesn’t always mean cake and ice-cream. At least not now. But, don’t be deceived. God is not mocked, whatever a man sows, that will he also reap. (Galatians 6:7)
Thursday, April 23, 2009
When Life Kills the Dream
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.
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.
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)