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

Re: [GTh] Gospel of Judas

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Jack ... My point is that is the Author of John got it from Jesus..or indirectly...then Jesus could have gotten it from Jesus too. In short, the letter from
    Message 1 of 47 , May 1, 2006
      Jack

      >>>You don't gotta buy it, Mike. It's free! :)

      My point is that is the Author of John got it from Jesus..or
      indirectly...then Jesus could have gotten it from Jesus too.

      In short, the letter from Jesus is not from the same hand nor in the
      same style as that of Abgar which I would expect if the whole thing
      was a scam.<<<

      If this group is truly as it says... for scholarly discussion...
      then I think we don't have to assume that John has so much to do
      with an historical Jesus in a direct way. In any event, I have to
      side with Mike here. There simply isn't any good critical reason to
      accept the Abgar letters, and much reason not to. The story itself
      seems to date from the third century. The notion that there was some
      genuine interaction between Jesus and Abgar seems so unlikely that
      it borders on the impossible. It does fit into Eusebius' agenda
      quite nicely though.

      BTW, Eusebius was not fighting the Dan Browns of his time... he WAS
      the Dan Brown of his time.

      PMCV
    • 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
        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.