Comments on: Review: Craig Evans’ Fabricating Jesus http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/02/07/review-craig-evans-fabricating-jesus/ A weblog devoted to the study of the Christian Apocrypha Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:44:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Roger Viklund http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/02/07/review-craig-evans-fabricating-jesus/comment-page-1/#comment-25230 Roger Viklund Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:43:08 +0000 http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/02/07/review-craig-evans-fabricating-jesus/#comment-25230 Unfortunately, Evans is quite ignorant (also) when it comes to the Secret Gospel of Mark. And he is most of all biased. It is amazing to read that he is actually twisting the facts, reporting what is definitely not true. Like when he writes: “In the first, longer passage Jesus raises a dead man and then later, in the nude, instructs the young man in the mysteries of the kingdom of God” (p. 143). Now, from where did Evans get the idea that Jesus was “in the nude” as the text does not say that? In Morton Smith’s translation the text goes: “And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God.” Neither Jesus nor the youth are said to be naked. This is just a way of creating something first and then refuting the things you have created yourself. Really bad science! Evans continues and calls it a “fact that no one besides Smith has actually studied the physical document”, when it fact among others the scholars Guy G Stroumsa, David Flusser and Shlomo Pines all have examined it. And recently we learnt that also Quentin Quesnell was allowed to take the document to a firm and there had it photographed. And then Evans continues in the same fashion, referring to Carlson and Jeffrey, but mainly relying on Carlson and his so-called “forger’s tremors”, which in fact is not even there, but seemingly an optical illusion http://www.jesusgranskad.se/theodore2.htm He makes all kind of odd statements, most of which I have refuted in my article “One Thousand and One Untruths” at http://www.jesusgranskad.se/strobel2.htm where I am examining what Evans says in Strobel’s “The Case for the Real Jesus”. In the chapter dealing with Secret Mark, actually only a little more than four pages in Strobel’s book, there are at least sixteen factual errors, three misleading representations and four exaggerations. One could say that not a single issue of importance is correctly represented. Roger Viklund Sweden Unfortunately, Evans is quite ignorant (also) when it comes to the Secret Gospel of Mark. And he is most of all biased. It is amazing to read that he is actually twisting the facts, reporting what is definitely not true. Like when he writes: “In the first, longer passage Jesus raises a dead man and then later, in the nude, instructs the young man in the mysteries of the kingdom of God” (p. 143). Now, from where did Evans get the idea that Jesus was “in the nude” as the text does not say that? In Morton Smith’s translation the text goes: “And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God.” Neither Jesus nor the youth are said to be naked. This is just a way of creating something first and then refuting the things you have created yourself. Really bad science!

Evans continues and calls it a “fact that no one besides Smith has actually studied the physical document”, when it fact among others the scholars Guy G Stroumsa, David Flusser and Shlomo Pines all have examined it. And recently we learnt that also Quentin Quesnell was allowed to take the document to a firm and there had it photographed. And then Evans continues in the same fashion, referring to Carlson and Jeffrey, but mainly relying on Carlson and his so-called “forger’s tremors”, which in fact is not even there, but seemingly an optical illusion http://www.jesusgranskad.se/theodore2.htm

He makes all kind of odd statements, most of which I have refuted in my article “One Thousand and One Untruths” at http://www.jesusgranskad.se/strobel2.htm where I am examining what Evans says in Strobel’s “The Case for the Real Jesus”. In the chapter dealing with Secret Mark, actually only a little more than four pages in Strobel’s book, there are at least sixteen factual errors, three misleading representations and four exaggerations. One could say that not a single issue of importance is correctly represented.

Roger Viklund
Sweden

]]> By: Apocryphicity » Blog Archive » John and Related Apocrypha http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/02/07/review-craig-evans-fabricating-jesus/comment-page-1/#comment-4572 Apocryphicity » Blog Archive » John and Related Apocrypha Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:08:51 +0000 http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/02/07/review-craig-evans-fabricating-jesus/#comment-4572 [...] Our discussions of Thomas and Mary were fairly standard fare (overview of sources, theories of origin, etc.). We focused more on the use of the characters of Mary and Thomas and possible parallels between the texts and John than on each text’s particular theology or christology (I have to hold some things in reserve for next semester’s Gnosticism class). I like to spend time on both liberal and conservative arguments for the value and utility of these texts. This time we looked at Craig Evans’ statements (from Fabricating Jesus) about the composition of Gospel of Thomas; my summary was very quick and may have been unclear, but it can be read in my post about Evans’ book HERE. [...] [...] Our discussions of Thomas and Mary were fairly standard fare (overview of sources, theories of origin, etc.). We focused more on the use of the characters of Mary and Thomas and possible parallels between the texts and John than on each text’s particular theology or christology (I have to hold some things in reserve for next semester’s Gnosticism class). I like to spend time on both liberal and conservative arguments for the value and utility of these texts. This time we looked at Craig Evans’ statements (from Fabricating Jesus) about the composition of Gospel of Thomas; my summary was very quick and may have been unclear, but it can be read in my post about Evans’ book HERE. [...]

]]> By: Apocryphicity » Blog Archive » More Anti-Apocrypha Apologetic: Ben Witherington’s “What Have They Done With Jesus?” http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/02/07/review-craig-evans-fabricating-jesus/comment-page-1/#comment-2122 Apocryphicity » Blog Archive » More Anti-Apocrypha Apologetic: Ben Witherington’s “What Have They Done With Jesus?” Wed, 02 May 2007 18:42:39 +0000 http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/02/07/review-craig-evans-fabricating-jesus/#comment-2122 [...] One of my on-going research projects involves tracing how the CA are received by scholars and the general public. I have posted here before on some anti-CA apologetic books (including Craig Evans’ Fabricating Jesus, discussed HERE). I have just completed reading Ben Witherington III’s What Have They Done With Jesus: Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History—Why We Can Trust the Bible (San Francisco: Harper, 2006) and thought I’d post some initial observations about it here. [...] [...] One of my on-going research projects involves tracing how the CA are received by scholars and the general public. I have posted here before on some anti-CA apologetic books (including Craig Evans’ Fabricating Jesus, discussed HERE). I have just completed reading Ben Witherington III’s What Have They Done With Jesus: Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History—Why We Can Trust the Bible (San Francisco: Harper, 2006) and thought I’d post some initial observations about it here. [...]

]]> By: Peter Head http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/02/07/review-craig-evans-fabricating-jesus/comment-page-1/#comment-405 Peter Head Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:39:22 +0000 http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/02/07/review-craig-evans-fabricating-jesus/#comment-405 The problem with such declarations is that none of these are actually “facts.” Amen to that. Perhaps Evans is working on a double irony: a parody of Dan Brown with similarly unreliable 'facts'. (I wish) The problem with such declarations is that none of these are actually “facts.”

Amen to that. Perhaps Evans is working on a double irony: a parody of Dan Brown with similarly unreliable ‘facts’. (I wish)

]]> By: Awilum.com » Biblical Studies Carnival XV, in Memory of Bruce Manning Metzger http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/02/07/review-craig-evans-fabricating-jesus/comment-page-1/#comment-377 Awilum.com » Biblical Studies Carnival XV, in Memory of Bruce Manning Metzger Thu, 01 Mar 2007 03:06:14 +0000 http://www.TonyBurke.ca/apocryphicity/2007/02/07/review-craig-evans-fabricating-jesus/#comment-377 [...] Rico to the rescue with studies on the Greek text of the Didache. How was the Gospel of Thomas written you ask? Well, April DeConick asked first. Let Mark Goodacre lead you to the proper spring from which to draw. Tony has an extensive review of Craig Evans’ Fabricating Jesus. [...] [...] Rico to the rescue with studies on the Greek text of the Didache. How was the Gospel of Thomas written you ask? Well, April DeConick asked first. Let Mark Goodacre lead you to the proper spring from which to draw. Tony has an extensive review of Craig Evans’ Fabricating Jesus. [...]

]]>