1500 Year Old Bible Claims Jesus Christ Was Not Crucified(higherperspective.com)
higherperspective.com
1500 Year Old Bible Claims Jesus Christ Was Not Crucified
http://higherperspective.com/2014/05/1500-year-old-bible-claims-jesus-christ-crucified-vatican-awe.html
4 comments
This is not at all a good source for a submission on the broad topic announced in the headline. The tendentious language of the submission should be enough to alert readers that this is basically a press release, not a scholarly article about the various early texts from various places and times that mention claims about Jesus.
Well said. I had the same conclusion - it's not research, it's confident sounding speculation.
Can somebody find the original press release?
I'd love to know more about this supposedly new manuscript of Gospell of Barnabas.
I'd love to know more about this supposedly new manuscript of Gospell of Barnabas.
I can't believe this is being upvoted so much. I have several issues here.
1. There's so little meat in this article about anything.
2. It treats the Gospel of Barnabas as a new and groundbreaking discovery that will challenge the faith and beliefs of religious people, while also claiming that it supports the Muslim version of events. What are they saying, that Muslims aren't religious?
3. The Gospel of Barnabas is not a new thing, has been analyzed to death, and is not considered to be high-quality source material by many high-profile scholars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas
If it were any other topic, I bet it'd be flagged really easily. But there are a lot of people who just eat up anything anti-religious without using the same logical analysis that they would for any other topic. :(
1. There's so little meat in this article about anything.
2. It treats the Gospel of Barnabas as a new and groundbreaking discovery that will challenge the faith and beliefs of religious people, while also claiming that it supports the Muslim version of events. What are they saying, that Muslims aren't religious?
3. The Gospel of Barnabas is not a new thing, has been analyzed to death, and is not considered to be high-quality source material by many high-profile scholars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas
If it were any other topic, I bet it'd be flagged really easily. But there are a lot of people who just eat up anything anti-religious without using the same logical analysis that they would for any other topic. :(
Hey, you beat me with the wiki link by 13 minutes :-)
Unlikely. Afaik [1], the crucification of Jesus, is one of the few events of his life we can account for historically.
Anyway, as far as the description of this "bible" goes, even wikipedia has much better information on Gospel of Barnabas :)
I believe this discovery is valuable to you mostly in two instances, first, if your secret passion are old manuscripts, and second, if you are interested in 5-10 century muslim-christian syncretics :)
[1] known from several talks of B. Ehrman, but mostly from this lecture of Dale B. Martin http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-13
[edit, removed wiki link]
Anyway, as far as the description of this "bible" goes, even wikipedia has much better information on Gospel of Barnabas :)
I believe this discovery is valuable to you mostly in two instances, first, if your secret passion are old manuscripts, and second, if you are interested in 5-10 century muslim-christian syncretics :)
[1] known from several talks of B. Ehrman, but mostly from this lecture of Dale B. Martin http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-13
[edit, removed wiki link]
The original source is http://www.nationalturk.com/en/1500-year-old-syriac-bible-fo... - could we please change the link due to blogspam?