Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Beyond Belief ...

Expand Messages
  • Maurice Cormier
    I am not sure how many list members have read Elaine Pagels newest book, Beyond Belief , but I would have expected that a bit of discussion might have
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 5, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I am not sure how many list members have read Elaine Pagels newest book,
      "Beyond Belief", but I would have expected that a bit of discussion
      might have surfacced on this list by now about some of her findings
      therein, particularly as regards to the Gospel of Thomas.

      To those who have not yet read it, Beyond Belief contains a lot of very
      valuable insight into early Church history and its reaction and posture
      with respect to the Nag Hammadi corpus of texts (particularly the Gospel
      of Thomas) and its underlying doctrine(s), which was/were reasonably
      widespread (seemingly) up to the time of Irenaeus (and other early
      Church Fathers ... certainly including that of Athanasius in the 4th
      century) and leading up to the Nicene Council under Constantine in 325
      CE.

      One of the author's foremost conclusions (surprisingly so, by my humble
      grasp of reality at least) is that the Gospel of John (which promotes
      the idea that Jesus is God in human form) would have been written so as
      to specifically counter the Gospel of Thomas wherein the suggestion is
      postured that oneness with God, or at least the full discovery of Him,
      is possible not only for Jesus, but indeed for everyone who seeks to
      know Him ... given that indeed He is "knowable" by all given that we are
      all "created in His image".

      The part which struck me as being the most interesting about this is not
      so much that the Gospel of John may not indeed be a strong contrast of
      this very sort against the Gospel of Thomas, but rather that Mad. Pagels
      seems to base her finding on two somewhat fragile (as I consider them)
      premises.

      The first of these is that she relies on a suggestion by Irenaeus
      himself that (p. 153) in his own words "John, the Lord's disciple wrote
      this gospel for precisely the same purposse that he himself was now
      writing his own book (Irenaeus, that is) - namely to expose heretics; to
      confound those who spread falsely so-called gnosis; and, above all, to
      establish the canon of truth in the church." Of course, Irenaeus may
      have indeed said these words (Against Heresies 3.11.1), but how much
      confidence and objectivity can be seriously assigned to a man whose
      logic would lead him to believe that there can (or need) only be 4
      gospels in the Church's canon based on the fact that there are only four
      "cardinal directions" etc ....

      The second aspect of her posture which surprised me a bit was the
      importance and the emphasis which she placed on the insipit to the
      Gospel of John in arriving at her conclusion ... wherein he, John, (or
      perhaps some later writer wanting to help him along) postulates the "God
      in human form" thesis, but not without "all too suspect congruency" with
      the Hindu "Vedas" texts (Vagvisarea TMB,XX,14,2) written some 500 years
      earlier in India, which teach:

      "In the beginning was Brahman,
      with whom was Vak or the word,
      and the Word is Brahman."

      It would seem to me that Irenaeus (being an expert on heresies) would
      have (or should have) known the possible provenance of John's incipit,
      and would surely not have taken the risk of being seen (or understood)
      to thus be using John's gospel to counter the Gospel of of Thomas ...
      which to Irenaeus' followers would have made a pretty moot, if not
      unconvincing, argument.

      I am, of course, "nitpicking" here as "Beyond Belief" is an excellent
      read overall, bringing out a great deal of information and reflection on
      the Nag Hammadi texts.


      Maurice Cormier
    • pessy@chez.com
      ... Jay Raskin showed recently that Irenaios is just a mouthpiece of Tertullian, who forged the New Testament. Joseph Turmel figured that John s is of
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 6, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Maurice Cormier writes:
        >
        > The first of these is that she relies on a suggestion by Irenaeus

        Jay Raskin showed recently that Irenaios is just a mouthpiece
        of Tertullian, who forged the New Testament.
        Joseph Turmel figured that John's is of docetic/dualist origin
        and got later catholisised, the editors claiming it to be
        written against the dualist/docetic heresies.
        Thus it had been forged in order to fight its original authors.


        Klaus Schilling
      • David C. Hindley
        ... Tertullian, who forged the New Testament. Joseph Turmel figured that John s is of docetic/dualist origin and got later catholisised, the editors claiming
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 6, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Klaus Schilling says:

          >>Jay Raskin showed recently that Irenaios is just a mouthpiece of
          Tertullian, who forged the New Testament. Joseph Turmel figured that John's
          is of docetic/dualist origin and got later catholisised, the editors
          claiming it to be written against the dualist/docetic heresies. Thus it had
          been forged in order to fight its original authors.<<

          If the Greek-writing Irenaeus is a pen name for the Latin-writing
          Tertullian, why does Irenaeus love the Shepherd of Hermas and Tertullian
          hate it?

          With all due respects to Jay at the JesusMysteries Yahoolist, I think he is
          waaay out on a limb with this equation.

          Respectfully,

          Dave Hindley
          Cleveland, Ohio, USA
        • BitsyCat1@aol.com
          In a message dated 06/06/2003 2:03:03AM, pessy@chez.com writes:
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 6, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 06/06/2003 2:03:03AM, pessy@... writes:

            << Pessy writes

            Jay Raskin showed recently that Irenaios is just a mouthpiece
            of Tertullian, who forged the New Testament.
            Joseph Turmel figured that John's is of docetic/dualist origin
            and got later catholisised, the editors claiming it to be
            written against the dualist/docetic heresies.
            Thus it had been forged in order to fight its original authors.

            >>

            John replies

            I believe this does fall into the category of the subject of the e mail
            "Beyond Belief"
            IM not sure many people like Tertulian, but you give him too much credit.

            John appears to be contra Thomas in some sections..Especially the Choice
            of Thomas to say "My Lord and My God" A Verification of the Incarnation which
            presumably the Thomasines did not accept.

            This would not be a problem for Tertulian but would be for 1st Century
            and early 2nd Century Believers in The Incarnation of Yeshua Bar Yosef.
            In searching I can find nothing written specifically against Thomasines.
            By that time there were other problems many current problems.

            Regards John Moon
            2401 Crescent
            Springfield, Tenn. 37172
          • sarban
            ... From: Maurice Cormier To: Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 5:08 AM Subject: [GTh] Beyond Belief ... ... It is
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 6, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Maurice Cormier" <cobby@...>
              To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 5:08 AM
              Subject: [GTh] Beyond Belief ...


              > I am not sure how many list members have read Elaine Pagels newest book,
              > "Beyond Belief", but I would have expected that a bit of discussion
              > might have surfacced on this list by now about some of her findings
              > therein, particularly as regards to the Gospel of Thomas.
              >
              > To those who have not yet read it, Beyond Belief contains a lot of very
              > valuable insight into early Church history and its reaction and posture
              > with respect to the Nag Hammadi corpus of texts (particularly the Gospel
              > of Thomas) and its underlying doctrine(s), which was/were reasonably
              > widespread (seemingly) up to the time of Irenaeus (and other early
              > Church Fathers ... certainly including that of Athanasius in the 4th
              > century) and leading up to the Nicene Council under Constantine in 325
              > CE.
              >
              > One of the author's foremost conclusions (surprisingly so, by my humble
              > grasp of reality at least) is that the Gospel of John (which promotes
              > the idea that Jesus is God in human form) would have been written so as
              > to specifically counter the Gospel of Thomas wherein the suggestion is
              > postured that oneness with God, or at least the full discovery of Him,
              > is possible not only for Jesus, but indeed for everyone who seeks to
              > know Him ... given that indeed He is "knowable" by all given that we are
              > all "created in His image".
              >
              >
              > Maurice Cormier
              >
              >
              It is interesting the very wide divergence among scholars as to the date and
              provenance
              of Thomas. Perrin recently published a book arguing that Thomas is dependent
              on the
              Diatessaron, which puts it about a century after the date Pagels is arguing
              for.
              Perrin probably overstates his case but even if Thomas is not dependent on
              the
              Diatessaron as such there is a strong case that they both shared the same
              sources in the
              Synoptic gospels. Does Pagels discuss the relation of Thomas to the Syriac
              gospel tradition?

              Andrew Criddle
            • pessy@chez.com
              ... I also sense Tatian s school behind Thomas. Klaus Schilling
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 7, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                sarban writes:
                > It is interesting the very wide divergence among scholars as to the date and
                > provenance of Thomas. Perrin recently published a book arguing that Thomas
                > is dependent on the Diatessaron, which puts it about a century after the
                > date Pagels is arguing for.

                I also sense Tatian's school behind Thomas.

                Klaus Schilling
              • jmgcormier
                ... (snip, snip ....) ... date and ... dependent ... arguing ... ... Maurice I am not sure (I would have to reread the text) that the author is arguing for
                Message 7 of 14 , Jun 7, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "sarban" <sarban@s...> wrote:
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: "Maurice Cormier" <cobby@n...>
                  > To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                  > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 5:08 AM
                  > Subject: [GTh] Beyond Belief ...
                  >
                  >
                  >Andrew Criddle wrote:

                  (snip, snip ....)
                  > >
                  > >
                  > It is interesting the very wide divergence among scholars as to the
                  date and
                  > provenance
                  > of Thomas. Perrin recently published a book arguing that Thomas is
                  dependent
                  > on the
                  > Diatessaron, which puts it about a century after the date Pagels is
                  arguing
                  > for.
                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------

                  ... Maurice

                  I am not sure (I would have to reread the text) that the author is
                  arguing "for" any particular or specific date in her book ... although
                  I believe she is generally moreso of an "early" dater than a "late"
                  dater. The point here, however, is that in order for the Gospel of
                  John to have been written explicitely to counter the Gospel of Thomas,
                  would mean that the GoT would obviously have to have been written
                  before the Gospel of John (c. 100 or so C.E) How many years "before",
                  however, is not speculated upon by Pagels as I recall.

                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------

                  > Perrin probably overstates his case but even if Thomas is not
                  dependent on
                  > the
                  > Diatessaron as such there is a strong case that they both shared the
                  same
                  > sources in the
                  > Synoptic gospels. Does Pagels discuss the relation of Thomas to the
                  Syriac
                  > gospel tradition?
                  >
                  > Andrew Criddle

                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Maurice

                  Your sense of Perrin overstating his case seems sound to me as
                  well ... as I recall (and while opinions most certainly vary), the
                  Diatessaron seems to "log in" at appx. 175 C.E. That sounds a little
                  late for people to be asking (Thomas #53) if "circumcision is
                  necessary" (remember ... this question was settled by Paul & Barsabbas
                  in or around 49 C.E.) However, you could certainly convince me that
                  both (Thomas and the Diatessaron) use common building blocks in their
                  Gospels.

                  On your question as to if "Pagels discusses the relation of Thomas to
                  the Syriac", I dont recall that she does in amy significant way.

                  You have a hunch, perhaps, that this could lead to something
                  significantly new ???

                  I guess what strikes me in this whole John vs Thomas aregument is that
                  Pagels largely rests her case on Irenaeus' "say-so". To me, this is
                  quite a "stretch" based on his track record of objectivity and
                  impartiality as regards testimony in general. I could much more
                  readily accept, for example, that the Gospel of John was perhaps
                  written to introduce the idea (given that followers of Jesus may have
                  been concerned at His failure to "return" by the end of the first
                  century as promised) that He had really meant to return/resurrect "in
                  the spirit" as opposed to "in the flesh", and that the Gospel of John
                  was somewhat "spun" accordingly .... but to posture that John was
                  written to counter Thomas seems a bit much. Indeed, not to go so far
                  (in time, that is) as Perrin, it may well even be that John was
                  written long before Thomas .... no ?

                  Maurice Cormier
                • Michael Grondin
                  ... Barsabbas? Well, at any rate, the range of meanings of the Greek loan-word ophelei used in Th53 doesn t seem to have included necessary . Typically, it
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jun 7, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Maurice:

                    > ... as I recall (and while opinions most certainly vary), the
                    > Diatessaron seems to "log in" at appx. 175 C.E. That sounds a little
                    > late for people to be asking (Thomas #53) if "circumcision is
                    > necessary" (remember ... this question was settled by Paul & Barsabbas
                    > in or around 49 C.E.)

                    Barsabbas? Well, at any rate, the range of meanings of the Greek loan-word
                    'ophelei' used in Th53 doesn't seem to have included 'necessary'. Typically,
                    it meant 'advantageous', 'beneficial', 'profitable', etc. - something beyond
                    necessity. Even after Paul, a Christian audience might still have been
                    asking, "OK, circumcision isn't necessary, but isn't it (at least)
                    advantageous?" Or: "We know it isn't necessary to be Jewish, but isn't it
                    helpful?" This continuing question might be taken to favor post-Paul dating,
                    though I'm myself agnostic on the dating issue.

                    > ... to posture that John was
                    > written to counter Thomas seems a bit much. Indeed, not to go
                    > so far (in time, that is) as Perrin, it may well even be that John was
                    > written long before Thomas .... no ?

                    I don't know about the entirety of the original version of John, but chapter
                    21 is widely accepted as a later interpolation, and the part about Thomas in
                    chapter 20 strikes me as a bit suspicious as well. It seems to have been
                    written to counter a specific set of beliefs about the "resurrection", and
                    Thomas was chosen as representative of those beliefs, which must mean
                    something. Could the "doubting Thomas" material have been added at the same
                    time as chapter 21? There doesn't seem to be much, if any, anti-Thomas stuff
                    elsewhere in John, however, so I'd agree with you that the general
                    conclusion about the whole of John having been written to counter Thomas is
                    "a bit much". (This said having not yet read Pagels' new book.)

                    Mike
                    The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
                    http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm
                  • pessy@chez.com
                    ... Following G.A. Van den Bergh van Eysinga , i see it coming from semi-gnostic circels in the second quarter of the second century, and gradually catholised
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jun 8, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Michael Grondin writes:
                      > I don't know about the entirety of the original version of John,

                      Following G.A. Van den Bergh van Eysinga ,
                      i see it coming from semi-gnostic circels in the second quarter
                      of the second century, and gradually catholised in the second half.

                      Klaus Schilling
                    • odell mcguire
                      Dear Mike, list I read Beyond Belief a month ago, after it first came out, and don t have time right now to revisit. But I have the distinct impression that
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jun 8, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Mike, list

                        I read Beyond Belief a month ago, after it first came out, and don't have
                        time right now to revisit. But I have the distinct impression that she
                        placed the writing of both gospels in the 90s, GThom being the earlier, in
                        the vicinity of Syria, if not explicitly, then easily inferred. She shows
                        little or no interest in the the thesis, accepted by most, that both are
                        compilations rflecting the incorporation of both earlier sources and later
                        additions. Actually the calender time is unimportant to her; only the
                        sequence and place of writing.


                        Her main point is that author 4G was a salesman for the LOGOS solution to
                        the "Who WAS Jesus, anyway?" probem. As a salesman, he had competitors,
                        active in the same neighborhood, and part of his pitch was a diminution,
                        denigration of THEIR products--so modern readers can best judge who that
                        competiton was by who it was that author 4G was most interested in
                        diminishing.
                        In 4G, to be specific: The Baptist, was a Witness to The Light, nothing
                        more; The Magdalen, tho first to enter the tomb, mistook Jesus for the
                        gardener; Peter was outrun by the BD (John, no real ? about it here) to the
                        tomb; Thomas was out of town, was the absolute LAST of the original Apostles
                        to see the risen Jesus, and even then, didn't believe what he saw.
                        Obviously, the gnostics, Mary M. and Thomas, are LEAST qualified to answer
                        ?s about Jesus' identity and that places their cults, if not their written
                        expositions, among author 4G's existing competitors.

                        I think her case is convincing. You ought to read it Mike.

                        As far as Irenaeus is concerned, I think the most interesting thing about
                        him is that, according to Pagels, he wrote out of a conviction that he,
                        himself, could trace his apostolic succession directly through Polycarp, his
                        1st teacher, to John, the BD and author 4G, who in turn was Polycarp's 1st
                        teacher. Again, she has a good case. And in any case, the notion that such
                        a writer as Irenaeus could be a mere mouthpiece for the Latin Tertulian is
                        about as preposterous as any I've seen voiced on this list. And as you
                        know, from my own contributions if not otherwise, thats goin' some.

                        Odell McGuire
                        Lexington, VA




                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
                        To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:42 PM
                        Subject: Re: [GTh] Beyond Belief ...


                        > Maurice:
                        >
                        > > ... as I recall (and while opinions most certainly vary), the
                        > > Diatessaron seems to "log in" at appx. 175 C.E. That sounds a little
                        > > late for people to be asking (Thomas #53) if "circumcision is
                        > > necessary" (remember ... this question was settled by Paul & Barsabbas
                        > > in or around 49 C.E.)
                        >
                        > Barsabbas? Well, at any rate, the range of meanings of the Greek loan-word
                        > 'ophelei' used in Th53 doesn't seem to have included 'necessary'.
                        Typically,
                        > it meant 'advantageous', 'beneficial', 'profitable', etc. - something
                        beyond
                        > necessity. Even after Paul, a Christian audience might still have been
                        > asking, "OK, circumcision isn't necessary, but isn't it (at least)
                        > advantageous?" Or: "We know it isn't necessary to be Jewish, but isn't it
                        > helpful?" This continuing question might be taken to favor post-Paul
                        dating,
                        > though I'm myself agnostic on the dating issue.
                        >
                        > > ... to posture that John was
                        > > written to counter Thomas seems a bit much. Indeed, not to go
                        > > so far (in time, that is) as Perrin, it may well even be that John was
                        > > written long before Thomas .... no ?
                        >
                        > I don't know about the entirety of the original version of John, but
                        chapter
                        > 21 is widely accepted as a later interpolation, and the part about Thomas
                        in
                        > chapter 20 strikes me as a bit suspicious as well. It seems to have been
                        > written to counter a specific set of beliefs about the "resurrection", and
                        > Thomas was chosen as representative of those beliefs, which must mean
                        > something. Could the "doubting Thomas" material have been added at the
                        same
                        > time as chapter 21? There doesn't seem to be much, if any, anti-Thomas stu
                        ff
                        > elsewhere in John, however, so I'd agree with you that the general
                        > conclusion about the whole of John having been written to counter Thomas
                        is
                        > "a bit much". (This said having not yet read Pagels' new book.)
                        >
                        > Mike
                        > The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
                        > http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/sayings.htm
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                        > Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
                        > To unsubscribe from this group,
                        > send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • sarban
                        ... From: Michael Grondin To: Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 4:42 AM Subject: Re: [GTh] Beyond Belief ... ...
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jun 8, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Michael Grondin" <mwgrondin@...>
                          To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 4:42 AM
                          Subject: Re: [GTh] Beyond Belief ...


                          > Maurice:
                          >
                          > > ... as I recall (and while opinions most certainly vary), the
                          > > Diatessaron seems to "log in" at appx. 175 C.E. That sounds a little
                          > > late for people to be asking (Thomas #53) if "circumcision is
                          > > necessary" (remember ... this question was settled by Paul & Barsabbas
                          > > in or around 49 C.E.)
                          >
                          > Barsabbas? Well, at any rate, the range of meanings of the Greek loan-word
                          > 'ophelei' used in Th53 doesn't seem to have included 'necessary'.
                          Typically,
                          > it meant 'advantageous', 'beneficial', 'profitable', etc. - something
                          beyond
                          > necessity. Even after Paul, a Christian audience might still have been
                          > asking, "OK, circumcision isn't necessary, but isn't it (at least)
                          > advantageous?" Or: "We know it isn't necessary to be Jewish, but isn't it
                          > helpful?" This continuing question might be taken to favor post-Paul
                          dating,
                          > though I'm myself agnostic on the dating isssue.

                          Doesn't the answer to the question about circumcision in Thomas suggest that
                          the point isn't just that circumcision is unprofitable to Christians but
                          that it was never
                          of any value as a physical rite?
                          This would be similar to the position of the "Epistle of Barnabas".

                          Andrew Criddle
                        • pessy@chez.com
                          ... That epistle even predates Christianity. Therapeutae or other diaspora Jewish mystery cults may have given up on the outer expressions of the law when the
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jun 8, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            sarban writes:
                            > This would be similar to the position of the "Epistle of Barnabas".
                            >
                            That epistle even predates Christianity.
                            Therapeutae or other diaspora Jewish mystery cults may have given up on
                            the outer expressions of the law when the Romans oppressed those
                            after the temple fall, and even more the messianic wars of Lukuas
                            and Artunion,
                            and sticked the more to the inner values of the Thorah instead,
                            like some later Quietist Christian movements
                            e.g. the Beguines (13th century) or Miguel De Molinos (17th century).
                            Another important work of those circles is the Didache, or
                            Doctrina Apostolorum.
                            This has been developed in Edwin Johnson's book "Antiqua Mater".
                            The Didache knows some of Matthew's logia,
                            but in a varia lectio that represents a more judaist phase.
                            For example, the Golden Rule appears still in its passive formulation
                            the Talmud ascribed to Hillel (1 cent. BCE).

                            Klaus Schilling
                          • pessy@chez.com
                            ... that d be Barnabas. Barsabbas is the guy who drank lethal poison without being harmed. ... Following Couchoud La Premie`re E dition de St. Paul and Van
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jun 9, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              jmgcormier writes:
                              > Your sense of Perrin overstating his case seems sound to me as
                              > well ... as I recall (and while opinions most certainly vary), the
                              > Diatessaron seems to "log in" at appx. 175 C.E. That sounds a little
                              > late for people to be asking (Thomas #53) if "circumcision is
                              > necessary"
                              > (remember ... this question was settled by Paul & Barsabbas
                              that'd be Barnabas.
                              Barsabbas is the guy who drank lethal poison without being harmed.
                              > in or around 49 C.E.)

                              Following Couchoud "La Premie`re E'dition de St. Paul"
                              and Van den Bergh van Eysinga "Marcion als Getuige voor een
                              voor-katoliek Christendom" I put Paul's epistles into the
                              second century, and posterior to the Marcionite versions
                              reported by Tertullian and Epiphanius.
                              Justin Martyr does not use the Paulinics where they should be used,
                              so this first chief ideologer of fledgling Catholic Christianity
                              does either not know about the canonical versions or not consider
                              them as authorative, even if (which I doubt severely)
                              they were extant before Irenaios and Tertullian wrote against Marcion.
                              In any case this shows that in Antonius Pius' times, they were not
                              accepted as guidelines throughout early Christianity.
                              This has been pointed out by E. Johnson in "Antiqua Mater".
                              Severians and Elkasaits also refused Paul as too hellenic.
                              Van den Bergh van Eysinga, using H. Raschke's "Werkstatt des
                              Markus-Evangelisten", showed also that the Marcionite Gospel
                              predates, or at least is more original than the canonical ones.
                              Turmel in "The Fourth Gospel" shows that John's contains much of
                              Marcionite stuff, thinly overpainted by Catholic redactors.
                              Justin Martyr even is ignorant about Evangelia as a literary genre,
                              and talks about Memorabilia Apostolorum, which contained much
                              of the material of the canonical Gospels.

                              Klaus Schilling
                            • kirby@earthlink.net
                              ... Jay Raskin has shown (according to him) that Justin Martyr is the mouthpiece of Tertullian as well. best, Peter Kirby
                              Message 14 of 14 , Jun 9, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 9 Jun 2003, at 12:27, pessy@... wrote:

                                > Justin Martyr does not use the Paulinics where they should be used,
                                > so this first chief ideologer of fledgling Catholic Christianity
                                > does either not know about the canonical versions or not consider
                                > them as authorative, even if (which I doubt severely)
                                > they were extant before Irenaios and Tertullian wrote against Marcion.

                                Jay Raskin has shown (according to him) that Justin Martyr is the
                                mouthpiece of Tertullian as well.

                                best,
                                Peter Kirby
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.