Found: Gospel of Judas

I have elsewhere in these fora described in detail the significant differences between the English-language version of Camus's l'Étranger and the original French text. I won't go into that here, but the point is that translations of documents can create a very different version of text within a few years, let alone within many decades.

Added to that, one finds that the doctrinal canon contains gross errors of historical description (the alleged census, which ridiculously implies that any Roman census ever sought to count those who were not Roman citizens; the completely inaccurate description of Pontius Pilate) as well as geographical errors and numerous contradictions (the geneologies being the most glaring example). When one considers the career of Saul of Tarsus, and his conflicts with "church fathers" in his day, and then considers the entire course of scriptural redaction and the large body of "gospels" and other accounts which once were prevelant, it becomes obvious that the doctrinal canon represents a concerted effort to elevate one body of heavily edited texts over all others. Even prior to any of the fragments which are now dubiously asserted to confirm the accuaracy of the doctrinal canon, the proliferation of texts, and their redaction, was well under way.

One can assume that the doctrinal canon is a reliably accurate version of earlier texts, but one must willfully ignore the amount of time which passed before any version of the canon appears to assert that they remain unchanged since the days in which the putative Jesus was alleged to have lived. On the basis of historiography, the texts are at best dubious, the more so from the absence of any reliable substantiation from non-Chrisitian sources, never mind the inaccuracies and contradictions.

It is of course understood that these objections are nugatory to you. I also assume that you understand, Neo, that to me, they make the entire dog and pony show implausible.

Hardly nugatory, my friend. Just not deal breakers.

Which shows that the fears were misplaced. Or that when Jesus did not call his followers and the masses forward to establish his Messianic credentials, people turned against him.

They are nugatory objections to the extent that they do not lead you to reject any portion of the doctrinal canon--at least, i know of no evidence that you do.

But not ignored

Without doubt, the two historic persons most formative of and responsible for Christianity were Saul of Tarsus/Paul and The Emperor Constantine. Beside those two, everyone else involved in the production, including the star of the show, are little beyond bit players and stage hands.

Bravo . . . excellent image . . .

Constantine:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html

Of course, I think it was Gore Vidal who stated that the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, Roman nor an Empire. We all know what happened to that supposed Empire and what happens to the civilized world in the next 600 or so years.

Quite illuminating to compare the ascendence of Christianity and its role in the affairs of Western civilization and cultural development over the period from the fall of the Roman Empire to the Rennaisance, then to compare Christianity's relationship with the secular world and role in the development of Western civilization and culture as time progresses from the Rennaisance to the present day. Real hard message to miss.

LW, the Holy Roman Empire (of the German Nation) didn't start before 843 :wink:

If one looks at the Avignon Papacy, the Great Schism, and the Renaissance Papacy in general, one has a classic example of an institution shooting itself in the foot.

... and lasted till 1803/6

(I wanted to add before hidding the wrong button)

Yes, I wrote those two sentences in haste without delineating between Constantine's Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. That as a lable it is a misnomer, it might have well begun in 1803 and lasted until today (with the influence the Catholic church has today after Luther produced the schism and created Protestanism).

I would have thought it started on Christmas Day of 800, when Pope Leo Crowned Charlemagne in St. Peter's.

Whatever. . .

Didn't the title Kaiser last until the early 1900's?

CONSTANTINE is the reason Christianity has survived as it has.
None of Jesus apostles understood him at the time, although
his preachings became popular enough over the years, and
Constantine - being a political animal - knew which side HIS
bread was butterered on, made the wise decision to please
ALL of his people therefore he decided therefore to
MERGE CHRISTIANITY WITH THE CURRENTLY POPULAR
WORSHIP OF THE SUN.
Thus making Christianity far more palatable to those of
his people who weren't so crazy about this Christian business.
YOU MUST NOTICE THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT STILL
REMAINS HIDDEN AWAY IN THERE, IT IS IN WHAT WE
TODAY CALL THE HALO. This has become something else.
The original intention was mixing WORSHIP OF THE SUN with
the growing popularity of CHRISTIANITY....which he did well
enough apparently, since both his halos and his christianity
have survived far longer than HE ever would have dreamed
possible.

Book Review
Julian
by Gore Vidal

Publisher: Ballantine
ISBN: 0345329082

Reminiscent of Robert Grave's Claudius books, Gore Vidal's imperial memoirs, Julian, is a well-researched, informative, and engaging piece of historical fiction about the nephew of the Emperor Constantine, best known for converting Rome to Christianity. Julian, more familiar with his epithet, the Apostate, tried to stem the tide of monotheism once he came to power, but his term in office was too short to effect any lasting change.

Before he came to power, the pose of an intellectual would-be cleric probably saved him from political assassination. Julian's early life was that of a prince with all that entails; including close supervision, limited access to people besides his brother, and strict regulation of behavior. In addition to these, the ordinary shackles of royalty, the policies of Julian's cousin, the reigning emperor, Constantius, included judicious murder of anyone who threatened his supremacy. Having first witnessed his father's murder and then his brother's, Julian had reason to be wary of his cousin. Seeking the life of a bearded philosopher, Julian hoped to escape his cousin's notice. But Constantius needed him to act as puppet head of Gaul and so Julian was dragged away from his dialogues and books, given Constantius' sister to wed, and sent away from the intellectual centers of the empire.

Julian quickly rejected the role of puppet, and since he had a military knack he soon had the command and respect of the local forces. When Constantius ordered them elsewhere, they revolted, proclaiming Julian emperor. Luck was with him when the sudden death of Constantius precluded an otherwise inevitable civil war.

Just as he took well to the position of imperial underling in Gaul, so he quickly learned to rule, before turning his attention to reviving Paganism and subduing the Christians, whom he dismissively calls Gallileans. War with Persia continued giving him an opportunity to shine by flexing his military muscle, until he was felled by a weapon that, according to Gore Vidal, belonged to one of his own men.

Interjected into the memoirs are the notes of two contemporaries who show other sides of the story and interspersed in Julian's narrative are humorous bits of social commentary only superficially about the times:

"In every city there is a special class whose only apparent function is to gather in public places and look at famous men.... An elephant would have pleased them most, but since there was no elephant, the mysterious Prince Julian would have to do."
Putting himself into the narrator's persona for a moment, Vidal writes:
"One of the faults of most historians is that they take too much for granted. They assume that the reader must know; therefore, they tell only the uncommon things...one can see the author hovering on the verge of explaining some important fact and then shying away out of fear of dullness."
Obviously Vidal took great care here -- an excellent bibliography is given in an appendix. While enlightening, this biography of Julian is anything but dull.

Vidal must be a thread ender. I haven't read that particular book, but I do love and respect his writing.

Yes, Vidal has ended many an argument with a resounding thud -- that's the sound of the opponent's ego hitting the floor.

Saw a debate between Vidal and Wm. F. Buckley years ago - not sure I even recall the topic or circumstance. It was sorta like an intellectual version of a WWF Death Match - with no decision; they mutually proclaimed victory, and decried the opponent's scurilous tactics.

Sounds a likely scenario. He he.