On Friday, I posted an interview about New Testament canon formation. Today, I bring you a post from Dr. Dan Wallace discussing one of the things that came up in that podcast, that is, the Gnostic gospels. Dr. Wallace briefly discusses the authenticity of the Gospel of Judas. We should remember that the Gnostic gospels like this one have been around for a long time. They have never been accepted by the Church universal as authentic scripture. They are sort of like the fan fiction of their day, except that some people tried to form a religion around them.
Recently, I taught a series in my church called “How We Got The Bible.” I know, it’s an awesome and creative title. The other day I listened to this 49 minute interview of Jonathan Morrow at Think Christianly interviewing Dr. Michael Kruger as he explained the basic questions around the formation of the Christian canon. If you are at all interested in this sort of thing, take a listen.
Follow the link above to the Parchment and Pen Blog where Rob Bowman outlines 14 evidences from scripture that indicate the likelihood of the truth of the bodily/physical resurrection of Christ.
Following up on this post about Dorothy Sayers, I read an article this morning on the CNN Religion Blog, and I made the mistake of glancing at the comment thread. This is something I almost never do because the comment threads of poorly monitored websites are typically a mess of name calling and drive-by insults. Anyway, one comment caught my attention.
A respondent said, “The problem that Christianity has is that it has to convince normal healthy people that they are fundamentally broken.”
I certainly know that most people want to deny the reality of their own brokenness and typically want to make excuses for it, but I’ve never found it particularly difficult to demonstrate the sinfulness of humanity. Once we establish that, I don’t think it is a big jump to demonstrate the sinfulness of individuals. Of course, as in the Sayer’s quote, we would really rather find a way to put the blame on someone or something else.
So, what do you think? How hard is it to convince people of their basic brokenness?
OK. Apparently the situation surrounding the Coptic fragment is complicated, and maybe a little political. It looks like the research paper will be published, and though several key scholars think the fragment is a fake, the issue is not settled.
I’ll post this so to avoid being accused of bias, and then I’m going to let this drop until something more conclusive is decided.
Wow! This is big. Dr. Dan Wallace is reporting that according to his colleagues in the field of textual studies that the Coptic fragment mentioning Jesus’ wife is most likely a fake.
Dan Wallace, professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary is considered to be one of the foremost scholars in the area a biblical textual studies. The guy knows a whole bunch about ancient manuscripts.
He’s weighed in on the Coptic fragment in question with a really thorough explanation of what the fragment is, what it says, and what it is likely to mean or not mean to our understanding of the historical Jesus.
If you’re interested in this sort of thing, you should read it. For apologetic purposes, knowing the facts about this fragment can help you know how to talk about it to those you know who’ve bought all the hype surrounding it this week.