Re: [GTh] Gospel of Judas
Aren't you blowing hot and cold with the same breath here?
You seem to say you think the letter from Jesus to Abgar might
be genuine but Abgar's is not- and yet you explain how Abgar's
original letter ended up back in Edessa because it was the practice
then to send the original back with the reply.
Did I misread you?- or are we doing a reprise of 1948? (grin).
At 04:31 PM 30/04/06, Jack. wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ron McCann" <ronmccann1@...>
>Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 4:51 PM
>Subject: RE: [GTh] Gospel of Judas
> > Doesn't the word "saviour" used in the Abgar letter raise any red flags
> > for
> > anyone?
> > Ron McCann
> > Saskatoon, Canada.
>There are more red flags in Abgar's letter than in Moscow on May 1st.
>San Marcos, Texas
>Gospel of Thomas Homepage: http://home.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html
>Interlinear translation: http://www.geocities.com/mwgrondin/x_transl.htm
>Yahoo! Groups Links
- 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 commonsense 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
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