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

Re: Gospel of Judas

Expand Messages
  • smithandp
    ... The response from Jesus is very ... written ... historicity....that the ... Surely Jesus wasn t the only person to speak a Semitic language. Assuming that
    Message 1 of 47 , May 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gthomas@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:
      The response from Jesus is very
      > Semitic. The opening "Happy/Fortunate (makarios in Greek; Tubino in
      > Aramaic) is vintage Jesus. The reference to Isa 6:9 as have been
      "written
      > of me" also has precedence in the Yeshuine corpus. My conclusion falls
      > between Ehlers and others who believe in the total
      historicity....that the
      > letter FROM Abgar is a reconstruction and the response from Jesus is
      > genuine.
      >
      > Shlomo
      >
      > Jack

      Surely Jesus wasn't the only person to speak a Semitic language.
      Assuming that you're correct Semitic syntax in the Greek indicates
      that it was translated from a Semitic language, why would this
      indicate anything more than the letter being forged in Syria?

      Best Wishes

      Andrew Smith
    • 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.