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

RE: [GTh] Gospel of Judas

Expand Messages
  • David Hindley
    Ron, Thanks for the link. Yes, that seems to answer my questions. So, it was NOT written from the perspective of Judas but describes the interdealings of Jesus
    Message 1 of 47 , Apr 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron,

      Thanks for the link. Yes, that seems to answer my questions. So, it was NOT written from the perspective of Judas but describes the
      interdealings of Jesus and Judas in a way that explains how Jesus ended up being handed up to the authorities. The mention of
      Saklas, etc, suggests it is a solidly "Gnostic" (capital G) text.

      This is of the same type as the majority of the Nag Hammadi texts. My curiosity was piqued by the fact that some of the other old
      Gnostic texts (Book of Jeu and Pistis Sophia) are really kind of a different nature than the Nag Hammadi texts.

      Respectfully,

      Dave Hindley
      Cleveland, Ohio USA



      -----Original Message-----
      From: sentto-1127921-4655-1144520680-dhindley=compuserve.com@...
      [mailto:sentto-1127921-4655-1144520680-dhindley=compuserve.com@...] On Behalf Of Ron McCann
      Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 2:27 PM
      To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [GTh] Gospel of Judas


      Hi All,

      The Gospel is out and available at
      http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel about coptic text.html

      Ron McCann

      At 10:42 AM 08/04/06, you wrote:
      >Group,
      >
      >Yesterday's paper had an article by Thomas H Maugh II of the Los
      >Angeles Times about the impending publication of the Gospel of Judas.
      >
      >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-judas7apr07,1,460
      >8547.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
      >
      >Seems well written. If the information that it contains about this
      >gospel is correct, the story is from the perspective of Judas, which
      >would make it unique indeed. Supposedly, the parchment and ink have
      >been dated to circa 300 CE, around the same age as the Nag Hammadi
      >texts.
      >
      >I know that some of the Gnostic texts depict Jesus in manners very
      >different than that found in the canonical gospels, but this Judas
      >angle I've never encountered before, except in hoaxes and modern
      >fiction.
      >
      >Anyone know more specifics about what the text actually says? The
      >publishers seem to have sought peer review, but only selectively and
      >did not publish in advance in either journals or even an editio princeps.
      >
      >Respectfully,
      >
      >Dave Hindley
      >Cleveland, Ohio USA
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >--------------------------------------------------------------------
      >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
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >



      --------------------------------------------------------------------
      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
      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • pmcvflag
      Hey Jack Sorry I left your post hanging there for so long. I know the conversation has kind of moved on, but I thought now that I can I would still jump back
      Message 47 of 47 , May 28, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hey Jack

        Sorry I left your post hanging there for so long. I know the
        conversation has kind of moved on, but I thought now that I can I
        would still jump back there and answer your point.

        >>>I don't agree. Eusebius appears to have had much more common
        sense and he did have the resources of Pamphilus' Library in
        Carsarea. Eusebius was sympathetic to Arius and, post Nicaea I,
        charged Alexander for misrepresenting Arius..which took a lot of
        testicular fortitude, IMO.<<<

        Understood. However, I would point out that the evidence you give
        for believing Eusebius is based essentially on personal impression
        and anecdote. I concede that generally that is all we have to go on
        in most cases like this. My own observations about Eusebius are
        generally based on equally questionable evidence ;)

        For instance, I believe that Eusebius made up the whole Constantine
        conversion story for political gain. I also don't write out the
        possibility that he was directly involved in the Testimonium
        Flavianum hoax.

        Of course, it would be unfair to attack Eusebius in order to
        question the Abgar letters, so I don't mean to do so. Just because
        he may have forged other documents doesn't mean he forged these. I
        have heard the theory that it was Abgar iv who forged them (obvious
        motive), but again that is speculation.

        I would be more interested to hear in more detail your textual
        criticism of this situation. More directly Jesus' response is
        obviously dependant on John, and indirectly against Thomas. The
        theology it presents is obviously late (just as "churchy" as the
        supposed Abgar letter). Since I have never actually seen a serious
        academic critical analysis that placed any part of these letters
        (whether Abgar's or Jesus' side) to a little before Eusebius (if not
        by Eusebius), I am willing to hear a case for earlier dates...
        though I still can't take an argument for an actual origin in Jesus
        himself seriously.

        Karl Nygren
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.