Re: [GTh] Gospel of Judas
>> Sorry, I don't buy it, Jack. The emphasis, in fact, is on the part thatThe problem with John 20:29 is that it was made by the
>> _isn't_ in Isa 6:9, i.e., that those who have _not_ seen Jesus will
>> in him. That echoes much more strongly (to my mind) of Jn 20:29.
>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.
resurrected Jesus to Thomas while the supposed setting
of the Agbar correspondence is pre-crucifixion. Aside
from divine foreknowledge,* the pre-crucifixion Jesus
could not have gotten it from the resurrected Jesus.
* Which is beside the point if one thinks about it
because the reference is intended on its face to be
helpful to the mortal King Agbar (but in actuality
very helpful the forger's real audience).
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
- 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