Freethought & Rationalism Archive

No Robots · 10-31-2007, 03:54 PM

More on Metzger: here is a critique that I linked to earlier.

Magdlyn · 10-31-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Lord, does everything have to be spelled out for you people? You were challenging him for making an absurd claim about how "Jesus was just a composite figurehead for a certain Jewish syncretistic movement." I was challenging him on what I felt to be a similarly absurd claim about Christ "as the copulating and dying corn god."

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

It's not absurd and I'm not a man.

Never said you were. When I said "him" it was in the neutral sense.

Okaaay. :grin:

Reference for Jesus being just another dying and rising grain god:

http://www.bartleby.com/196/

http://www.llewellynjournal.com/article/659

mens_sana · 10-31-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

I don't mind Metzger's solution, but I wouldn't want to commit myself to it without being more of a scholar myself, especially when I like so much the censorship explanation.

Suppression and censorship. Yeah, much more dramatic, suggestive of conspiracies and other good stuff. :devil1:

No Robots · 10-31-2007, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

http://www.bartleby.com/196/

The doubts which have been cast upon the historical reality of Jesus are, in my judgment, unworthy of serious attention.--Frazer, The Golden Bough, 3rd ed.

Quote:

http://www.llewellynjournal.com/article/659

Serious, peer reviewed sources, please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

Suppression and censorship. Yeah, much more dramatic, suggestive of conspiracies and other good stuff. :devil1:

Why should mythicists have all the fun?

Magdlyn · 10-31-2007, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Serious, peer reviewed sources, please.

Like Augustine and Didymus the Blind? I don't think you get to require standards for others you don't require for yourself, old girl.

No Robots · 11-01-2007, 08:36 AM

mens sana:

You haven't commented on Hodges at all. Full text available here. He quotes Metzger as saying, "the evidence for the non-Johannine origin for the pericope de adultera is overwhelming." How do you square that with your assertion that Metzger does affirm a Johannine origin?

Magdlyn · 11-01-2007, 10:13 AM

Just in case the heiros gamos needs further elucidation, from the link:

Quote:

Although the place of the Sacred Feminine and the sacred relationship between Jesus and Mary is never spoken outright in the canonical gospels, there certainly are some interesting hints.

For example: In addition to St. John, three women have the faith and courage to be present at the crucifixion. Meanwhile, all of the other men are in hiding, too afraid to show their faces...

Women accompany Mary Magdalene to the tomb of Jesus, as if they were serving as an escort to a widow in mourning. And it is to Mary Magdalene that the Risen Savior first appears, as though to his most dearly beloved. In the Sophian Tradition, the woman who anoints the body of Jesus with costly perfume before the crucifixion, though unnamed, is said to be Mary Magdalene. This alludes to a priestess-queen preparing a priest-king for a rite of sacred sacrifice – a mythical event commonly associated with the pre-Christian mystery traditions of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Greece. In other words, there are hints even in the canonized Scriptures of a deeper mystery transpiring in the Gospel – one that included the Sacred Feminine and the supreme mystery of hieros gamos.

Gnostic Scriptures are significantly more straightforward with regard to the sacred relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene; the inclusion of the Sacred Feminine; and the mystery of hieros gamos in the Christ revelation. In the Gospel of St. Thomas – albeit in a somewhat awkward fashion – the final saying clearly cites the equality of men and women by putting forth a statement of Jesus saying he will make Mary Magdalene “male” like the men who are his disciples. In saying this of Mary, he says this of all women – that in Spirit they are equal to men. The Gospel of St. Philip goes even further, clearly stating that Mary Magdalene was the wife and consort of Jesus, and that he taught her more than any of his male disciples. This gospel even alludes to her as Jesus’s equal and co-preacher of the Gospel. In the Gnostic Gospel entitled Pistis Sophia (“Faith-Wisdom”), Mary Magdalene is portrayed as his inmost disciple and serves in a capacity much like that of a divine muse; inspiring and facilitating the outpouring of secret knowledge from the Risen Savior...

If the idea of Jesus as married seems strange or offensive, or the idea of the inclusion of our bodies and sexuality in our spirituality sounds outrageous, then there is certainly something within us in dire need of being acknowledged and healed...

As the divine consort of Jesus, the Sophian teachings propose that the full Supernal Light of the Messiah pours into [Mary M]. They speak of her as the inmost disciple of Jesus to whom he imparted all teachings; the outer, inner, and secret teachings, along with their corresponding initiations. Likewise, as the first to receive the gnosis of the Risen Savior, she is the First Apostle, and bearing the full teachings of the Gospel, she is the Apostle of the apostles...

Ben C Smith · 11-01-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

I don't think you get to require standards for others you don't require for yourself, old girl.

Old girl in the neutral sense of the term, right? (On both counts... old and girl.)

(I had a friend in college who, after calling you an idiot or some such, would always append: Of course, I meant that in the best possible sense of the word. The best possible sense of idiot still seemed pretty bad to me.)

Ben.

Magdlyn · 11-01-2007, 12:05 PM

:grin:

mens_sana · 11-01-2007, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

mens sana:

You haven't commented on Hodges at all. Full text available here. He quotes Metzger as saying, "the evidence for the non-Johannine origin for the pericope de adultera is overwhelming." How do you square that with your assertion that Metzger does affirm a Johannine origin?

I can't square it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Metzger

The pericope is obviously a piece of floating tradition whch circulated in certain parts of the Western Church. ... The best disposition to make of the pericope as a whole is doubtless to print it at the close of the Fourth Gospel, with a footnote advising the reader that the text of the pericope has no fixed place in the ancient witnesses. The Text of the New Testament, 3rd edition, p.224.

Apparently, I have misapplied that attribution because Metzger even says that "the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ markedly from the rest of the Fourth Gospel ...." And I am unable to find who it was that did think it an independent Johannine item, having checked Koester, Ehrman, and Raymond E. Brown. With the Metzger note on the style & vocabulary, I'd really like to find that opinion again and reread it.

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

10-31-2007, 03:54 PM	#31
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	More on Metzger: here is a critique that I linked to earlier.

11-01-2007, 08:36 AM	#36
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	mens sana: You haven't commented on Hodges at all. Full text available here. He quotes Metzger as saying, "the evidence for the non-Johannine origin for the pericope de adultera is overwhelming." How do you square that with your assertion that Metzger does affirm a Johannine origin?

11-01-2007, 12:05 PM	#39
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	:grin:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.