Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 12-11-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Pearse has Goodspeed's book up here and a followup of the same name (Strange New Gospels) was done again by a Scandinavian scholar (name escapes me).

Per Beskow, Strange tales about Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 12-11-2006, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

The correspondence with Agbar, while almost certainly not genuine, is at least genuinely ancient.

Although best known from Eusebius' quotation of it, it in fact forms part of a Syriac text, the Teaching of Addai. Eusebius must have had contacts with the Syriac-speaking world, and been supplied with extracts from that work.

Quote:

I do not think the Archko Volume has even that going for it.

It doesn't. I have copies of both the first and second editions.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Malachi151 · 12-11-2006, 01:09 PM

It wasn't even held as reputable in 1913 apparently, as the old Catholic Encyclopedia states:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01042c.htm

So, basically, if someone brings up a "Roman Letter" that describes Jesus, my reply should be that this is possibly one of several forgeries, including a Confession of Pilate, Letter from Herod Antipas, Letter of Agbar, and Letters of Caiaphas, all of which are later forgeries, some of which were written as early as the 2nd century and other as late at the 19th.

Does that cover it?

S.C.Carlson · 12-11-2006, 01:18 PM

As far as I am aware, all supposed Roman-government letters dating to the first century mentioning Jesus are fakes.

Stephen

Peter Kirby · 12-11-2006, 01:20 PM

Except for the real one I keep in my shoebox.

--
Peter Kirby

jakejonesiv · 12-11-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

.... Someone said that their copy of the Bible has a letter in the back that is supposed to be from some Roman that exactly describes Jesus and that it was written by a Roman that talked to him while he was alive, etc.

Next time this come up, could you ask which Bible this is in the back of? This is a real puzzler. Most versions of the Bible do not contain strange new gospels or little known apocryphal letters. It has to be something acceptable to evangelists, or your audinence would never have seen it.

Jake Jones IV

Toto · 12-11-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

It wasn't even held as reputable in 1913 apparently, as the old Catholic Encyclopedia states:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01042c.htm

So, basically, if someone brings up a "Roman Letter" that describes Jesus, my reply should be that this is possibly one of several forgeries, including a Confession of Pilate, Letter from Herod Antipas, Letter of Agbar, and Letters of Caiaphas, all of which are later forgeries, some of which were written as early as the 2nd century and other as late at the 19th.

Does that cover it?

Forgery didn't stop in the 19th century - witness the James Ossuary.

hjalti · 12-11-2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Someone said that their copy of the Bible has a letter in the back that is supposed to be from some Roman that exactly describes Jesus and that it was written by a Roman that talked to him while he was alive, etc.

Obviously this is bogus, but I got this same letter brought up at a different presentation as well.

Does anyone know what the hell these people are talking about?

That sounds like the letter of Publius Lentulus (at least it describes Jesus):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholic Encyclopedia

"Lentulus, the Governor of the Jerusalemites to the Roman Senate and People, greetings. There has appeared in our times, and there still lives, a man of great power (virtue), called Jesus Christ. The people call him prophet of truth; his disciples, son of God. He raises the dead, and heals infirmities. He is a man of medium size (statura procerus, mediocris et spectabilis); he has a venerable aspect, and his beholders can both fear and love him. His hair is of the colour of the ripe hazel-nut, straight down to the ears, but below the ears wavy and curled, with a bluish and bright reflection, flowing over his shoulders. It is parted in two on the top of the head, after the pattern of the Nazarenes. His brow is smooth and vary cheerful with a face without wrinkle or spot, embellished by a slightly reddish complexion. His nose and mouth are faultless. His beard is abundant, of the colour of his hair, not long, but divided at the chin. His aspect is simple and mature, his eyes are changeable and bright. He is terrible in his reprimands, sweet and amiable in his admonitions, cheerful without loss of gravity. He was never known to laugh, but often to weep. His stature is straight, his hands and arms beautiful to behold. His conversation is grave, infrequent, and modest. He is the most beautiful among the children of men."#

But I can't imagine why that letter is in a Bible.

S.C.Carlson · 12-11-2006, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Forgery didn't stop in the 19th century - witness the James Ossuary.

As long as writing has authority, there will be forgery.

Stephen

John Kesler · 12-11-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

It wasn't even held as reputable in 1913 apparently, as the old Catholic Encyclopedia states:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01042c.htm

So, basically, if someone brings up a "Roman Letter" that describes Jesus, my reply should be that this is possibly one of several forgeries, including a Confession of Pilate, Letter from Herod Antipas, Letter of Agbar, and Letters of Caiaphas, all of which are later forgeries, some of which were written as early as the 2nd century and other as late at the 19th.

I find the following excerpt from your link to be very interesting:

Quote:

It gave the little town a popularity which vanished on the day that it fell into the hands of conquerors. It was a rude shock to those who believed the legend; they were more ready to attribute the fall of the city to God's anger against the inhabitants than to admit the failure of a safeguard which was no less trusted to at that time than in the past.

Is this mindset any different from that of the ancient Israelites, who thought that they were God's special people, who would always exist as a nation, and who had to come up with a rationalization (God's anger) when they were conquered? See for example 2 Kings 21:10-15 (but compare to 2 Kings 8:19).

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

12-11-2006, 01:09 PM	#13
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	It wasn't even held as reputable in 1913 apparently, as the old Catholic Encyclopedia states: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01042c.htm So, basically, if someone brings up a "Roman Letter" that describes Jesus, my reply should be that this is possibly one of several forgeries, including a Confession of Pilate, Letter from Herod Antipas, Letter of Agbar, and Letters of Caiaphas, all of which are later forgeries, some of which were written as early as the 2nd century and other as late at the 19th. Does that cover it?

12-11-2006, 01:18 PM	#14
S.C.Carlson Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: USA Posts: 1,307	As far as I am aware, all supposed Roman-government letters dating to the first century mentioning Jesus are fakes. Stephen

12-11-2006, 01:20 PM	#15
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Except for the real one I keep in my shoebox. -- Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.