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

Re: [GTh] Gospel of Judas

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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
    • 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.