Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cellardoor
I read this article about it a few days ago. Be warned: Cynicism ahead.  |
Read the article you posted. The word specious comes to mnd. The writer uses what I call circular thinking, that is, he has a point of view and then ignores any evidence that contradicts it.
Some points:
The author insinuates that the document was copied (gasp!) which calls the name on it into question. Ok. Since when is any gospel that we have an original one? It was my recollection that all of the supposed canon are copies.
The author also asserts that, because we've know about it for a long time (from an adversarial source by the way) and that invalidates it as well. Gee. I didn't know that it had been translated before. (It hasn't.)
The author also posits that, because it can't conform to his view of early christianity- he has the 'right' view it seems, this invalidates it as well. Too bad he ignores the very words under his nose.
And so what that National Geographic brings this out before Easter? I don't see any harm in that. I think they call that marketing. Of course the author won't be doing that for his next- if ever- book. (OK- mea cupla- I've lapsed into cynicism.)
Now this isn't a defense of Gnosticism per se, but throwing out the tub before even stepping into the water is, well, stupid.
Circular Thinking Ahead. Danger Will Robinson!