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

Re: G-Judas, other gnostic texts, and the Christian litmus test

Expand Messages
  • g_gardner1234
    I posted this earlier to the group but it did not come up. If this turns out to be a double post, I apologize. ... Bart, After our last discussion on this
    Message 1 of 16 , Jun 2, 2006
      I posted this earlier to the group but it did not come up. If this
      turns out to be a double post, I apologize.

      James Sapp stated:

      > > Dear Dr. Ehrman:
      > > Thank you for answering. A few more questions during the wait
      for others to chime in:

      > > Did you really mean to answer "absolutely" to the question, "Is
      > >it realistic/honest to deny that monotheism is a basic, integral
      > > component of Christianity?" (Also, you still didn't really
      > > answer the sub-question, "What criteria would be required to NOT be
      > > considered a Christian if one called oneself Christian in the
      > > first-second centuries?".)

      Bart,

      After our last discussion on this forum, I purposely acquired some of
      your work on loan. My logic being, that if I was going to discuss it
      any further, I should, at the very least make that attempt to read a
      cross section of your writing. In your book "The Orthodox Corruption
      of Scripture" and your version written with the layman in mind
      "Misquoting Jesus", I do agree that your observations on the occurence
      of textual variants are in fact correct. It is your conclusions that I
      disagree with, but that is another topic possibly for later
      discussion. I am currently reading "Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene."
      In your book, I once again get the feeling that you are trying to
      validate the gnostic writings as somehow being Christian. This seems
      to be a concept that is also put forth by Elaine Pagels, Marvin Meyer,
      and others in their books and interviews. Once again my question is,
      if one can review the gnostic gospels as Christian writings, then why
      wouldn't the Talmud, Toldoth Yeshu, Quran, Jewish mystical writings
      such as the Zohar, and even various documents with a satanic overtone
      such as the book of shadows, that talks about Jesus (in a negative
      light of course) also fall under this category? Let's do a quick
      comparison using the Gospel of Judas, since that is the topic of this
      thread. In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus is mentioned approximately 21
      times. In the Quran, Jesus is mentioned in approximately 51 passages,
      and there is a complete chapter (Sura Maryam) dedicated to Mary, which
      even discusses the virgin birth. Both documents demonstrate the belief
      that Jesus is a messenger sent by God, so what is the difference then?
      I think that you would be hard pressed to find a Muslim that would
      agree that the Quran is a Christian document, so then what is the
      criteria? It would be equally hard to find a Christian, who's belief
      is based on orthodoxy to agree that the GOJ is a Christian document as
      well. (IMO)

      Bart, it is my understanding that you once were a student of Christian
      orthodoxy, but because of doubt created by your study of the variants
      in Greek mss, you decided to alter your original course. Far be it for
      me to judge another man's belief, but I guess my concern, is that it
      almost appears to me at times that you now have sort of an axe to
      grind with orthodox Christianity, which could possibly have the effect
      of coloring one's objectivity or neutrality in respect to
      interpretation. Sometimes your work appears to me as almost a subtle
      attempt to dismantle orthodoxy, or at least blur the lines by creating
      grey areas using the gnostic writings to assist in the "shading"
      techniques. I wonder how this same technique would be received by the
      adherents of Judaism, or by those of the Muslim faith if it was
      applied by you to the writings of those faiths?


      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Bart Ehrman" <behrman@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Thanks James, and thanks to Larry Swain for his response as well. I
      > think the issues are pretty clear; and I have a sneaking suspicion
      that I'm
      > not going to convince either of you! But probably this discussion
      isn't all
      > that relevant to t-c (or Judas); so if people want to pursue the
      matter and
      > see what positions are available, I'd suggest they simply read the
      > literature.
      >
      > Best,
      >
      > -- Bart Ehrman
      >
      > Bart D. Ehrman
      > James A. Gray Professor
      > Department of Religious Studies
      > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James Snapp, Jr.
      > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:55 PM
      > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [textualcriticism] G-Judas and the Significance of Papias
      >
      > Dear Dr. Ehrman:
      >
      > Thank you for answering. A few more questions during the wait for
      > others to chime in:
      >
      > Did you really mean to answer "absolutely" to the question, "Is it
      > realistic/honest to deny that monotheism is a basic, integral
      > component of Christianity?" (Also, you still didn't really answer
      > the sub-question, "What criteria would be required to NOT be
      > considered a Christian if one called oneself Christian in the first-
      > second centuries?".)
      >
      > The question about the date of Papias is fairly relevant to NTTC, so
      > I will focus especially on it. You said that R.H. Gundry's date for
      > Papias (101-108) "probably isn't plausible." Why do you think it
      > probably isn't plausible?
      >
      > BDE: "What Papias says about Matthew can't apply to our Matthew.
      > Does what he say about Mark apply to our Mark?"
      >
      > Papias was completely capable of having read a Matthean Saying-
      > Source kind of document, without encountering the Gospel of Matthew
      > as we know it. (This gets more difficult to maintain the later the
      > date assigned to Papias is.) Considering the difference between
      > what Papias says about the demise of Judas Iscariot, and what the
      > Gospel of Matthew says about it, it seems fair, to me, to conclude
      > that Papias had not read the Gospel of Matthew when he wrote about
      > the demise of Judas Iscariot.
      >
      > The idea that Papias did not encounter the Gospel of Mark is a
      > different fish. The statement that Mark "wrote as much as he
      > remembered" is almost immediately clarified by the statement that
      > Peter had delivered the teachings anecdotally, not systematically;
      > no one could read the whole statement and expect the Gospel of Mark
      > to be an exhaustive account. So this objection is a rather tenuous
      > foundation on which to build any sort of case for the idea that the
      > Elder was referring to some very large Proto-Mark rather than the
      > Gospel of Mark.
      >
      > (New question: in Papias' report of the Elder's statement, as
      > recorded by Eusebius, "Mark, who had indeed been Peter's
      > interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered," is the "he"
      > Peter, or Mark?)
      >
      > Yours in Christ,
      >
      > James Snapp, Jr.
      > Curtisville Christian Church
      > Indiana (USA)
      > www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      Thanks to all who responded on my query. It is the case that VV = Vizantiiskii vremennik. Stephen -- Stephen C. Carlson
      Message 2 of 16 , Jun 4, 2006
        Thanks to all who responded on my query.

        It is the case that VV = Vizantiiskii vremennik.

        Stephen
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
        Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.