Comments on: “Are we. . . to listen to her?”: The Gospel of Mary Magdalene (NT Apocrypha 7) http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2005/09/02/are-we-to-listen-to-her-the-gospel-of-mary-magdalene-nt-apocrypha-7/ Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean houses my podcast, websites, blog, and publications, providing an entryway into social and religious life among Greeks, Romans, Jews, Christians, and others in the Roman empire. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:14:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean » Judas Iscariot as the “good guy”?: The Gospel of Judas http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2005/09/02/are-we-to-listen-to-her-the-gospel-of-mary-magdalene-nt-apocrypha-7/comment-page-1/#comment-553 Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean » Judas Iscariot as the “good guy”?: The Gospel of Judas Sun, 16 Apr 2006 17:55:14 +0000 http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/?p=58#comment-553 [...] Still, even with some familiarity with other gnostic writings, there is something very odd about this writing. We have many examples of “gnostic” authors presenting the secret teachings of Jesus in the form of a dialogue between the Christ and one of the disciples, with different authors choosing different apostles as their favourite (see, for instance, my earlier discussion of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene). Still what is absolutely astounding, in some ways, is the choice of Judas Iscariot as the favourite of Jesus! There seems to be no precedent for choosing Judas Iscariot, who “betrayed” Jesus, as the favourite disciple who received the secret revelation of the Saviour. [...] [...] Still, even with some familiarity with other gnostic writings, there is something very odd about this writing. We have many examples of “gnostic” authors presenting the secret teachings of Jesus in the form of a dialogue between the Christ and one of the disciples, with different authors choosing different apostles as their favourite (see, for instance, my earlier discussion of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene). Still what is absolutely astounding, in some ways, is the choice of Judas Iscariot as the favourite of Jesus! There seems to be no precedent for choosing Judas Iscariot, who “betrayed” Jesus, as the favourite disciple who received the secret revelation of the Saviour. [...]

]]> By: Phil Harland http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2005/09/02/are-we-to-listen-to-her-the-gospel-of-mary-magdalene-nt-apocrypha-7/comment-page-1/#comment-55 Phil Harland Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:55:25 +0000 http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/?p=58#comment-55 2 Comments Laura said... So i'm gonna break the ice and ask a stupid question. (Keep in mind I have only just read Chapter 1 of Lost Christianities). If almost all of the "lost" scriptures from early christianity are forgeries, then what can we really learn from them? Maybe i just have to read the rest of the book to answer this, but i'll throw it out there anyway. 3:58 PM Phil Harland Phil Harland said... I think Laura is really onto something here about the (problematic) way in which Ehrman uses the term "forgery", which we'll explore further in our discussions in the coming class. But setting aside that problem for the moment, there is a sense in which it matters not who exactly wrote a document (as long as its not a _modern_ forgery, as some think the Secret Gospel of Mark is). A writing by an author (regardless of who s/he claims to be, such as James, John, or Paul) can still reveal to us something about what a specific person (and perhaps community) believed and did (though not what the real James, John, or Paul believed or did). We'll talk more about this both here and in class, I'm sure. This is part of the whole issue of pseudonymous (literally "false-name") writings in antiquity, and Ehrman's view on this issue is questionable. 6:16 PM 2 Comments

Laura said…

So i’m gonna break the ice and ask a stupid question. (Keep in mind I have only just read Chapter 1 of Lost Christianities).
If almost all of the “lost” scriptures from early christianity are forgeries, then what can we really learn from them?
Maybe i just have to read the rest of the book to answer this, but i’ll throw it out there anyway.

3:58 PM
Phil Harland
Phil Harland said…

I think Laura is really onto something here about the (problematic) way in which Ehrman uses the term “forgery”, which we’ll explore further in our discussions in the coming class. But setting aside that problem for the moment, there is a sense in which it matters not who exactly wrote a document (as long as its not a _modern_ forgery, as some think the Secret Gospel of Mark is). A writing by an author (regardless of who s/he claims to be, such as James, John, or Paul) can still reveal to us something about what a specific person (and perhaps community) believed and did (though not what the real James, John, or Paul believed or did). We’ll talk more about this both here and in class, I’m sure. This is part of the whole issue of pseudonymous (literally “false-name”) writings in antiquity, and Ehrman’s view on this issue is questionable.

6:16 PM

]]>