Roger Pearse

Again, your comments are heavy with statements which are untrue, or worse. You'll excuse me if I do not list them all!

Elaine Pagels is the source you're working from, eh? That is *precisely* the sort of author I had in mind when I warned you to beware of imaginative garbage: likewise Bart Ehrmann, whom I heard lauded to the skies at a recent academic conference (and who attempted to pass off a falsehood on his audience). I am amused to hear that the political establishment loads these people with honours; but then, in New Testament Studies, we have all been here before. 70 years ago the (successful) attempt to create a fake consensus that John was written in 170 was eventually punctured by the polite insistence of the papyrologists. I find that the professionals in politicised disciplines reflect only the views of those who appoint them (and this was just as true when the state had a religious position more or less Christian). Even so, while I pay only limited attention to NT Studies, I think Pagels is fairly far out on the wacko wing.

In any politicised discipline, I think that it's best to descope authorities, descope one's own prejudices and work directly from the raw primary data in the historical record.

Btw, in case I did not make this clear I have only limited knowledge of Greek, and write purely as an amateur.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

joedad

I'll second that.

And along those lines I'm hoping to make available a picture of Bede's "magical" crucifixion amulet from Kieckhefer's Magic in the Middle Ages. I'd simply attach it as a file if that were possible, but such is not the case. In the meantime, if anyone is interested, email me, and I can send you the image (JPG).

Bede

joedad,

Are you saying the amulet is or is not magical? Or do you take the view that if it is Christian it can't be magical?

Not sure what your problem with it is, but I would be interested in your take on the artifact.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

joedad

More the latter, if those are my choices, only adding that calling anything "magical" for this time period is simply to say it is not high christian. "Magical" is just not an important distinction.

But as stated previously, to see a 'christ crucified' in this amulet requires "seeing" through a christian lens.

Do you know of other similar crucifixion amulets?

Roger Pearse

I'm not certain that I understand, but what I'm hearing is the ideas that

1. Paganism and magic are the same thing in the eyes of pagans
2. That there were the same thing in the eyes of medieval Christian writers.

On these in turn:

1. Was not sorcery a capital crime under Roman law? (Which would sort of indicate a distinction). I seem to recall that obtaining the emperor's horoscope (or being accused of doing so) was a fatal mistake for ambitious senators. All this in the pagan period.

2. I seem to recall two positions on pagan religion, throughout the fathers. The first is that the pagan deities are demons (so Tertullian). The second is that they are nothing: just deified men (so Eusebius in the Praeparatio Evangelica). Will this picture fit with the idea of 'paganism=magic'?

Afterthought:

Christians of course might end up practising astrology, or wearing 'good luck' charms -- is that 'magic'? This would be particularly true from the 4th century on, when Christianity became rather diluted by an influx of nominal believers.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

joedad

No, and this is not Kieckhefer's assertion or conclusion. To use your words but make the statement historically accurate it should read:

• 1. Paganism and magic are the same thing in the eyes of 'high christian culture.'

Don't know yet. I've not read far enough into Kieckhefer's book. I'm talking about antiquity up until about the Theodosian Code. Typically, the Middle ages commence in the 700s. Bede's amulet is 3rd century, a time when paganism was alive and well, diverse, flourishing, etc.I do not know, but have no reason to believe such was not the case. I do not believe, however, that pagan Pagan Roman high culture ever held that all else is "magical," therefore rendering the word "magical" useless in so far as conveying specific information. The word "Barbarian" is frequently offered in the same useless manner.

Bede is maintaining that "magical," and from the perspective of high christian culture, has another meaning, involving chants and spells, and he has addressed this earlier in the thread. On this point his assertions are incorrect becuse they are historically innacurate, and it is he that is being anachronistic. "Magical" had an altogether different christian meaning in the times of Eusebius than we have of it today, or it did in the Middle Ages. Kieckhefer gives us this background information early in his book, as I attempted to indicate in earlier posts.

Toto

Roger, I can brush off your opinion that Elaine Pagels is a wacko since it is clearly opinion, and you have admitted your amateur status, but when you are going to accuse Bart Ehrmann of attempting to pass off falsehood, I think you should provide more supporting detail.

copernicus

Thank you. I can go back to my own post for the list. As for your abrupt dismissal of my statements, I can well understand your inability to come up with a better response.

Actually, I met Elaine early in her career, when we were both assistant professors at Barnard College. We used to talk about her work on the Gnostic Gospels during afternoon faculty teas. She is now the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University. So I am in a position to know a little more about her scholarly credentials than you are, Roger. Indeed, I suspect that Elaine has read quite a few more works on the subject of the history of religion than you have, and I suspect that she has even published a few more books and peer-reviewed scholarly articles on the subject. I'm sure that she would measure up even to your lofty standards, if you would give her work more than a sniff and a sneer.

What does this have to do with Elaine Pagels? That was before she was born. Moreover, the "political establishment" is not the people who have given her honors. It is the community of scholars who publish on the subject of religion, which you apparently need to study a little more carefully. You are not qualified to judge her academic credentials, and they are.

Given your credentials in the area, I'm not sure that you can risk judging lest ye be judged, Roger. Not only are you arrogant, but you aren't afraid to display your ignorance. In any case, the only real contribution you seem to be able to make here is to cast aspersions on the intelligence and the scholarship of those that you disagree with, even when you haven't the slightest idea of their work. BTW, Beyond Belief. The Secret Gospel of Thomas raises the fascinating hypothesis that John's Gospel was not a standalone work, but quite possibly written as a response to Thomas. This was one of the insights that Pagels claimed to have reached from her years of research into the Nag Hammadi documents. Oh yes. I forgot to mention. Unlike you or me, Elaine actually reads quite a few biblical languages, including Greek.

I believe that Elaine actually has read the original documents, whereas you are incapable of doing so. She writes from the perspective of a church-going theist, by the way. Perhaps that will do something to build her credibility in your eyes. I know that you prefer to judge people more on the basis of who they are and what their conclusions are than on the basis of how they reach their conclusions.

Thank you, Roger. I admit to no special expertise in this area either. Note that Elaine makes her living by her scholarship in this area, and I do not think that she was given tenure at one of America's most prestigious universities for her political skills alone. She is one of the best known researchers on Nag Hammadi documents, and you should be aware of that. It is a lot easier to make snide comments about the work of scholars than to actually say something of substance on the matter.

Rick Sumner

This book was bitterly disappointing. I wouldn't go so far as Pearse does, but I definitely wouldn't reccommend it to anyone. It was the Gnostic Gospels Redux, with autobiographical commentary by the author. Except, like all sequels, it was nowhere near as good as the original. I'd actually anticipated it for exactly the reason you outline above--I'd understood it to be about John and Thomas. At the time I had just finished Riley's _Resurrection Reconsidered_ and Charlesworth's _The Beloved Disciple_, and so was in a "John and Thomas" state of mind. Except the book wasn't about Thomas, excluding Ch.II. Once you parse away autobiographical information up to p.35, you're left with 38 pages about Thomas--out of a 185 p. book (not including notes). A book bearing the misleading subtitle "The Secret Gospel of Thomas" no less. It was, in essence, not only disappointing, but deceptive. I don't know that I'd be citing it as one of Pagels' accolades.

Regards,
Rick

Dean Anderson

So, having established that Eusebius found it acceptable for teachers to write/say things that were not 100% in accordance with historical truth (regardless of whether he did or did not do so himself) in order to make a theological point - can we simply agree to disagree on whether these 'Pseudos' should be translated as 'Lies', 'Parables', 'Fictions', 'Falsehoods', or 'Elephants' and get back to the original topic?

What other evidence is there for and against there being stories of the crucifixion of the mythical Dionysis?

Sorry to sound irritable, folks, but this was going way off topic with no sign of ever returning to it and I am interested in an answer to the original question...