Comments for Apocryphicity

Comment on Is the Gospel of Judas a Forgery? by Tony

Tony — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:44:35 +0000

The manuscript is due at the printer’s this month; hopefully that means it will be ready for SBL in November.

Comment on Is the Gospel of Judas a Forgery? by Mark Goodacre

Mark Goodacre — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 05:14:08 +0000

I am looking forward to the volume, Tony. Do you have a publication date yet?

Comment on Is the Gospel of Judas a Forgery? by Tony

Tony — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:18:32 +0000

Ah, Mark. Just wait until you read the proceedings from the Secret Mark Symposium. You will be convinced (well, I hope so anyway).

Comment on Is the Gospel of Judas a Forgery? by Mark Goodacre

Mark Goodacre — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:23:48 +0000

sorry, *their evidence

Comment on Is the Gospel of Judas a Forgery? by Mark Goodacre

Mark Goodacre — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:23:13 +0000

Ok, if you’re not talking about Stephen’s work there, then I’m not so bothered. I don’t know Peter’s as well as I do Stephen’s though I also think it would be unfair to describe his work as cavalier. I disagree that there evidence is not strong, but that’s a discussion for another day.

Comment on Is the Gospel of Judas a Forgery? by Tony

Tony — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 00:21:46 +0000

I’m not sure I would use “cavalier” to describe Carlson’s arguments, or Peter Jeffrey’s for that matter–though, as you say, I don’t agree with their positions, they do take the time to present evidence (none of it strong, mind you). “Cavalier” describes just about everyone else who accused Smith of forgery before Carlson came along (Quesnell, Neusner, Akenson, even Price, to name a few). What else would you call unfounded accusations of forgery?

Comment on Is the Gospel of Judas a Forgery? by Mark Goodacre

Mark Goodacre — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:47:35 +0000

I was enjoying your article, Tony, until the last line! I read Arthur’s article some time ago and was unimpressed by it. I understand that you disagree with Stephen Carlson’s case, but I think it is unfair to call his case cavalier.

Comment on Apocryphal Traditions in Homily by Theophilus of Alexandria by Rich Griese

Rich Griese — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 15:05:53 +0000

I am not interested in the supernaturalism of Christianity, but am very interested in the study of the early history of the group. I am always happy to talk to others that are also interested in this topic. My interest specifically is up till perhaps a generation or two after Irenaeus. But I would say I am interested in anything from the Maccabean revolt up till about 384CE when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire.

Cheers! RichGriese.NET/religion

Comment on York Secret Mark Symposium Papers Coming Soon by Mike K.

Mike K. — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:53:01 +0000

I am very much looking forward to this publication; I would have loved to have gone to the conference itself if still in Canada, but have been doing PhD work in the UK so it was a no-go Anyways, I am researching the reception history of Mark in the patristic period and slightly lean towards authenticity of the letter to Theodore (though not yet sure what to do with Secret Mark, was it written by same evangelist or just some later addition in Alexandria?), but I will wait to see if this book will convince me in what direction or the other.

Comment on Was the Author of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas a Child? by Joel

Joel — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:37:53 +0000

A word of warning: The “pseudo” in the “Gospel of PSEUDO-Thomas” is all important.

“This gospel of Jesus’ childhood is utterly different text from Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, which does not describe childhood of Jesus at all.”

http://jeronymklimes.webpark.cz/mojeprace/pseudothomas.pdf