Note: this topic was posted 04/16/2006. Thanks formercalifornian.
Posted on 04/16/2006 8:35:09 PM PDT by formercalifornian
Many years ago, a Christian friend excitedly shared with me a document collection he had found. The front cover proclaimed the collection to be "Historical Court Records Concerning JESUS the CHRIST, Found in the Libraries at Rome and Constantinople."
And, sure enough, there they were: Caiphas' reports to the Sanhedrin on the execution and resurrection of Jesus, Pilate's report to Tiberius on Jesus' arrest, trial and crucifixion, Herod Antipas' letter to the Roman Senate justifying the execution of John the Baptist, and a series of letters from Rabbi Hillel describing his reaction to the preaching and teaching of Peter and the other apostles.
To these records, the compiler had added a preface describing the difficult process whereby, at great expense and trouble, he had managed to find these tremendously important manuscripts, manuscripts that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the accuracy of the New Testament descriptions of Jesus and his apostles.
Now the original 19th century compiler of these documents was probably no charlatan. As scholars of that era poured over the libraries of the world, they really were turning up some remarkable stuff - including many works once thought forever lost. A report from Pilate? Letters from Hillel? Well, stranger things had been discovered. Further, the manuscripts the compiler looked at really were many centuries old.
But, old or not, none of these writings were genuine. They were, without exception, what ancient historians call pseudepigrapha: works that claim authorship by someone other than the true author.
Now quite a few pseudepigraphal works have survived from the ancient world. We've got Pseudo-Xenophon, Pseudo-Plato and Pseudo-Aristotle. But most of the surviving pseudepigraphal works tried to pass themselves off as written by one Biblical figure or another.
Many of these pseudepigraphal works try to do nothing more than fill in the gaps in the Biblical stories. One book gives us an account of Jesus' boyhood, while another elaborates on the ministry of Paul and yet another tells us about the martyrdom of the prophet Isaiah.
But pseudepigraphal works were often more than just attempts at historical fiction: Many were attempts to manufacture proof for doctrines that aren't clearly stated in the canonical scriptures.
Is it legitimate to use such works as if they were reliable historical sources? Most of the time, the scholarly community would laugh at the thought. If my excited Christian friend had tried to use the Acts of Pilate to prove to one of his professors the validity of the Gospel story, his whole argument would have been met with no more than a patronizing smile and perhaps the advice to be a bit less credulous. And then there is the warning in the Apocalypse of Peter that those who slay unborn children will be tortured forever. Cite that as evidence of apostolic doctrine and you'll get the same patronizing smile and an immediate dismissal of your argument. And if you champion a second century forgery like the Gospel of Judas as a legitimate historical source, claim that Judas was really a good guy, and insist that Judas alone of the disciples really understood what Jesus was all about, academics will smile patronizingly and ... no, wait!
The academic world will hail you as a star. You'll get a prestigious professorship. The media will gush over your work. Your books will make the best-seller lists. National Geographic will do a special on your findings - and play it on Palm Sunday.
The healthy skepticism essential to solid academics and solid reporting? Gone in a heartbeat if there's any chance to slander the Gospel. At Christmas and Easter especially one can count on every major media outlet to feature one story or another hyping the latest "scholarly" alternative to the traditional understanding of Jesus. And a story that turns things around so much that Judas is now a hero - well, that's got to be worth at least 30 pieces of silver to somebody.
Some time ago I read "The mask of sanity" by Dr. Hervey Cleckley, which is considered the definitive work on sociopathy and the makeup of the sociopath.
When I read the description of what constitutes a sociopath the scriptures you cited about the character of people in the last days came to mind: it matches almost exactly the clinical definition of sociopathy and sociopaths.
> only the anti-Christian ones get any attention.
Hardly.
That pretty much sums up their view, all right.
I believe he said it to counter a charge that he was on the same side as the demons. I don't think he was necessarily saying that the demons' house was divided.
You have yet to learn atomic physics, fermions(pauli exclusion)and bosons(love-inclusion)and how a "house divided" is rooted in Quantum Mechanical effects(hate-exclusion). The devil knows it only too well, and that his days are numbered.
Note: this topic was posted 04/16/2006. Thanks formercalifornian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
