Professor Francis Moloney is incensed that Dan Brown can get away with his Da Vinci Code nonsense without an equally popular rejoinder from orthodox scholarship, so has teamed up with convicted perjurer Jeffrey Archer to popularize the way gospels “really were written”. (See earlier posts in the Judas category.)
Nothing like the services of a convicted perjurer to get The Truth out there!
The tired old nonsense of “4 witnesses”
Francis Moloney has no doubt about the fact of Judas’ existence. The record is “too consistent across the four gospels” and apocryphals to be nonhistorical, he says. Hoo boy! So this is the level of scholarship that comes from the top ranks of biblical scholarship that is to take on Dan Brown! When will the falsehood of this tired yet so oft repeated “scholarly” argument ever sink through academe, let alone the public? Of course the “tradition is strong across the gospels” — Mark was the source gospel which the others ‘redacted’. 4 gospels accounts are not 4 “consistent” witnesses. They are one witness repeated 3 times.
The nonsense of the “definitive proof” of the existence of the Twelve
But worse, or more of the same. Francis Moloney also dogmatically states that it has been as good as “definitively proven” that there really were Twelve disciples of Jesus. I have reviewed one detailed article by one leading scholar (Meier) widely seen as “proof” of the existence of the Twelve in one of my section review of Bauckham’s Eyewitness book. Scroll about a third to half of the way down this post for my detailed review of this “definitive proof”.
And I see on one web site selling this “Gospel of Judas”, jointly authored by Archer and Moloney, that none other than Archbishop Desmond Tutu has prepared an audio book version.
Back to medieval level debates
What a way to experience the early years of the twenty-first century: the Dan Browns and Michael Baigents and co on the one side facing off this apparent “best” of orthodox biblical scholarship on the other! One can only hope it is true that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
Because the money-making sham from both sides is really worthy of a much much earlier darker millennium than this one, surely!
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- Getting History for Atheists Wrong (Again) — #3 - 2021-05-07 23:25:23 GMT+0000
- more little gems from a Hillsong ex-insider — including some Christianese - 2021-05-04 22:22:42 GMT+0000
- The Mind of a Hillsong Insider — Both Inside and Out - 2021-05-03 21:01:17 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!