Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-13-2013, 11:01 AM

Instead of just posting the latest news about this text (which is pretty old I guess because it is listed as being published by Brill in 2012) http://books.google.com/books?id=343...=shape&f=false I thought I would ask a deeper question - why is it that we assume off the bat that Cyril of Jerusalem didn't write the text? I am not saying that I think it was by Cyril, but I have noticed this rush on the part of scholars to assume that all the 'orthodox' Fathers were really orthodox. I saw this with respect to the Letter to Theodore (where there is often a parallel stupid rush to claim that Clement 'couldn't have' written this letter because it shows him embracing texts and ideas that were outside the canon.

Here is the newspaper article http://www.livescience.com/27840-sha...ient-text.html. The idea is that Cyril 'couldn't have' written this because it contains all sorts of stupid beliefs. But again, is that a proven hypothesis? Don't we at least have to develop an argument for the proposition before we dismiss the authorship as it is? Scholars typically don't see the need for any sort of debate because they just assume that Cyril was one of them. I find this dangerous and typical of the dogmatism that keeps us thinking in terms of universal orthodoxy among the early writers rather than considering the possibility that the faith displayed in many of their writings was often added to the lost original or even feigned.

Toto · 03-13-2013, 11:58 AM

"Shape-Shifting Jesus Described in Ancient Egyptian Text"

There is no way serious scholars are going to allow something that weird to contaminate their scholarship.

Quote:

Written in the Coptic language, the ancient text tells of Pontius Pilate, the judge who authorized Jesus' crucifixion, having dinner with Jesus before his crucifixion and offering to sacrifice his own son in the place of Jesus. It also explains why Judas used a kiss, specifically, to betray Jesus — because Jesus had the ability to change shape, according to the text — and it puts the day of the arrest of Jesus on Tuesday evening rather than Thursday evening, something that contravenes the Easter timeline.

The discovery of the text doesn't mean these events happened, but rather that some people living at the time appear to have believed in them, said Roelof van den Broek, of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, who published the translation in the book "Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem on the Life and the Passion of Christ"(Brill, 2013).

Why assume that ancient Christians actually believed that the story actually happened? If you admit that no one actually believed this tale of magical reality actually happened, you might have to admit that they didn't think the more sober gospels actually happened?

There is a guest blog post by the translator here

andrewcriddle · 03-13-2013, 12:38 PM

I can not comment on this specific text but there are a whole group of coptic homilies attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem which often contain later ideas and traditions (e.g. about the Virgin Mary) and cannot be genuine works of Cyril. (Unless our whole history of the development of these legends is wrong.)

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 03-13-2013, 12:47 PM

Yes obviously. But this text is different. Saying that Cyril believed and promoted the Virgin Mary is to be expected. We can't expect the monks in these monasteries to have developed critical sensibilities. But saying that Cyril thought that Jesus was a shape-shifting doppleganger - what possible reason would there be to have preserved this? No one would have created a text of this description and attributed it to Cyril. So we are left with an old text which floated around in the monastery attributed to Cyril. Again, the same question raised against the Letter to Theodore. Why would anyone want to preserve this text? The only reason I can see is that it was attributed to Cyril a priori to the preservation. A ninth century manuscript is extremely ancient by relative standards.

stephan huller · 03-13-2013, 01:04 PM

delete

stephan huller · 03-13-2013, 01:10 PM

"Epiphanius (Panarion) diverges from Clement's opinion not only concerning the length of the public ministry but also the day of the crucifixion, which Epiphanius places on Tuesday. Cf. Cath. Encycl., VIII, 375—85. 304 Cf. Tertullian, Apol. I. 21."

stephan huller · 03-13-2013, 01:15 PM

I think this is the reference to a Tuesday crucifixion:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tKt...uesday&f=false

" But Jesus was arrested late on that same third day, which was the nighttime of the eleventh of the month, the sixteenth before the Kalends of April.131 The dawning of the fourth day of the week was the nighttime of the [Jewish] twelfth day of the month, the fifteenth before the Kalends of April. The daytime of the thirteenth day of the month was the fifth day of the week, but the [ensuing] nighttime was the fourteenth of the month of the month was the eve of the Sabbath, the thirteenth before the Kalends of April. The daytime of the fifteenth of the month134 was the Sabbath, the twelfth before the Kalends of April."

Really? I don't see how this is being interpreted that way.

andrewcriddle · 03-13-2013, 01:21 PM

Actually the idea that Judas was necessary because Jesus could appear in different forms is ancient. It seems to go back to Origen.
See Allegory and Event

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 03-13-2013, 01:23 PM

No I read the information attributed to Cyril wrong. He agrees with Epiphanius insofar as the arrest being on Tuesday http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/...egyptian-text/

Quote:

and it puts the day of the arrest of Jesus on Tuesday evening rather than Thursday evening, something that contravenes the Easter timeline.

stephan huller · 03-13-2013, 01:23 PM

So the text agrees with Epiphanius's timeline for the Passion. That could be significant (although it would be hard to imagine Epiphanius believed Jesus was a shape-shifter.

03-13-2013, 11:01 AM	#1
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	How Do They Know This Isn't 'the Real' Cyril of Jerusalem? Instead of just posting the latest news about this text (which is pretty old I guess because it is listed as being published by Brill in 2012) http://books.google.com/books?id=343...=shape&f=false I thought I would ask a deeper question - why is it that we assume off the bat that Cyril of Jerusalem didn't write the text? I am not saying that I think it was by Cyril, but I have noticed this rush on the part of scholars to assume that all the 'orthodox' Fathers were really orthodox. I saw this with respect to the Letter to Theodore (where there is often a parallel stupid rush to claim that Clement 'couldn't have' written this letter because it shows him embracing texts and ideas that were outside the canon. Here is the newspaper article http://www.livescience.com/27840-sha...ient-text.html. The idea is that Cyril 'couldn't have' written this because it contains all sorts of stupid beliefs. But again, is that a proven hypothesis? Don't we at least have to develop an argument for the proposition before we dismiss the authorship as it is? Scholars typically don't see the need for any sort of debate because they just assume that Cyril was one of them. I find this dangerous and typical of the dogmatism that keeps us thinking in terms of universal orthodoxy among the early writers rather than considering the possibility that the faith displayed in many of their writings was often added to the lost original or even feigned.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-13-2013, 12:38 PM	#3
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	I can not comment on this specific text but there are a whole group of coptic homilies attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem which often contain later ideas and traditions (e.g. about the Virgin Mary) and cannot be genuine works of Cyril. (Unless our whole history of the development of these legends is wrong.) Andrew Criddle

03-13-2013, 12:47 PM	#4
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Yes obviously. But this text is different. Saying that Cyril believed and promoted the Virgin Mary is to be expected. We can't expect the monks in these monasteries to have developed critical sensibilities. But saying that Cyril thought that Jesus was a shape-shifting doppleganger - what possible reason would there be to have preserved this? No one would have created a text of this description and attributed it to Cyril. So we are left with an old text which floated around in the monastery attributed to Cyril. Again, the same question raised against the Letter to Theodore. Why would anyone want to preserve this text? The only reason I can see is that it was attributed to Cyril a priori to the preservation. A ninth century manuscript is extremely ancient by relative standards.

03-13-2013, 01:04 PM	#5
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	delete

03-13-2013, 01:10 PM	#6
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	"Epiphanius (Panarion) diverges from Clement's opinion not only concerning the length of the public ministry but also the day of the crucifixion, which Epiphanius places on Tuesday. Cf. Cath. Encycl., VIII, 375—85. 304 Cf. Tertullian, Apol. I. 21."

03-13-2013, 01:15 PM	#7
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I think this is the reference to a Tuesday crucifixion: http://books.google.com/books?id=tKt...uesday&f=false " But Jesus was arrested late on that same third day, which was the nighttime of the eleventh of the month, the sixteenth before the Kalends of April.131 The dawning of the fourth day of the week was the nighttime of the [Jewish] twelfth day of the month, the fifteenth before the Kalends of April. The daytime of the thirteenth day of the month was the fifth day of the week, but the [ensuing] nighttime was the fourteenth of the month of the month was the eve of the Sabbath, the thirteenth before the Kalends of April. The daytime of the fifteenth of the month134 was the Sabbath, the twelfth before the Kalends of April." Really? I don't see how this is being interpreted that way.

03-13-2013, 01:21 PM	#8
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	Actually the idea that Judas was necessary because Jesus could appear in different forms is ancient. It seems to go back to Origen. See Allegory and Event Andrew Criddle

03-13-2013, 01:23 PM	#10
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	So the text agrees with Epiphanius's timeline for the Passion. That could be significant (although it would be hard to imagine Epiphanius believed Jesus was a shape-shifter.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.