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

RE: [GTh] Gospel of Judas

Expand Messages
  • Judy Redman
    ... Far be it from me to disagree with someone who made his last mistake well before I was born , but... How, then, do you explain Jesus saying for it
    Message 1 of 47 , Apr 29, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Stephen says:
      > >
      > > Eusebius was fooled by a forgery here, as it is pretty
      > clear that the
      > > letters could not have come from the time they claim. For example,
      > > Jesus's reply in this letter contains "for it is written of Me" and
      > > follows this by citing John 20:29 for Jesus's comment to Thomas, the
      > > apostole who allegedly sent Thaddeus to Edessa. Yet, this letter to
      > > Agbar pretends to have been written not only (1) well
      > before John was
      > > actually written but also (2) before this comment to Thomas was even
      > > made by the resurrected Jesus.

      and Jack replies:
      >
      > I considered this too, Stephen, in assessing whether or not
      > the Jesus letter
      > was a creation but the letter does not cite John 20:29 which
      > is 3rd person
      > plural but is instead 2nd person emphatic singular. It is
      > just as likely to
      > be a common Yeshuine phrase using the Aramaic TUbiNO which is
      > found in many
      > other sayings meaning Blessed/Fortunate/"full of good stuff."

      Far be it from me to disagree with someone who made his last mistake well
      before I was born <grin>, but...
      How, then, do you explain Jesus saying "for it is written of Me" when he is
      not quoting Hebrew Scripture? This would suggest that people were writing
      down things about him during his life, that he was aware of this and that he
      expected others (including a Syrian) king to be aware of them, too. That
      is, this would imply at a minimum a written sayings collection in fairly
      wide circulation during Jesus' life and this is the first time I have heard
      that suggested. Or have I misunderstood what Stephen has said about the
      quote?

      Judy

      --
      "There is no socially and politically neutral theology; in the struggle for
      life and death, theology must take sides." - Miguez Bomino

      Rev Judy Redman
      Uniting Church Chaplain
      University of New England
      Armidale 2351
      ph: +61 2 6773 3739
      fax: +61 2 6773 3749
      web: http://www.une.edu.au/campus/chaplaincy/uniting/
      email: jredman@...
    • 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 10:40 AM
      • 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.