On Apr 5, 5:05 am, pearl <lilw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> benli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 1:09 pm, pearl <lilw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <..>
> > > > > The author of the piece at the link you posted.
>
> > > > Are you referring to James Patrick Holding, the first writer on
that
> > > > page, or Samuel Hopgood Hart, whose name appears at the end of the
> > > > lengthy quote which follows?
>
> > > Whoever attributed that "received translation" to Ouseley.
>
> > But you say (below) that he "received a transcription...".
>
> As opposed to an entire Gospel received in dreams...
>
> > Clearly he
> > had something to do with it. Maybe what you're objecting to is saying
> > that he was the _author_ of it, i.e. wrote it himself. I'm not sure
> > either of the above people actually says so in so many words, though
> > Holding is probably thinking as much.
>
> You apparently do.
Yes, but we were talking about who on that web page you were calling a
liar.
> > Interestingly, though, I came
> > across a web site (which I can't seem to find again) that had actual
> > photos of the covers/title pages of three editions, and one of them
> > had "_by_ Rev GJR Owseley" on the cover, as if he was the author.
>
> There are indeed various editions.
In looking around I've found references to at least 10 editions and
reprints.
Found the page with the covers again:
http://www.thenazareneway.com/ght_cover.htm
It's the 1956 edition whose cover says "By A Disciple of the Master
(Rev. G.J.R. Ouseley)".
> 'THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY TWELVE Rev G J Ouseley
>
> 'The Gospel of the Holy Twelve is one of the most ancient and
> complete of early Christian fragments, preserved in one of the
> Monasteries of the Buddhist monks in Tibet, where it was hidden
> by some of the Essene community for safety from the hands of
> corrupters and now for the first time translated from the Aramaic.'
> wrote Rev G J Ouseley in the original preface to his work. It is
> believed that it is from this 'Original Gospel' that the present
> Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were derived.
>
..http://www.cygnus-books.co.uk/the-gospel-of-the-holy-twelve-rev-g-j-o...
>
> > I think it may have been the 1952 edition, the one that Hart wrote
the
> > introduction to. So maybe Hart is the big liar? But why would
somebody
> > go to the trouble of re-publi****ng something and writing an
> > introduction if they thought it was just a fraud?
>
> Besides the obvious? But I retract those speculations.
>
> A search for Samuel Hopgood Hart reveals only a very
> close association with Maitland and Kingsford. At the
> Anna Kingsford site, there's a description of that article:
>
> 'This is a biographical essay about the Rev. Gideon Jasper
> Richard Ouseley, who was a great admirer of the work
> and the message of Anna Kingsford and Edward Maitland.
> We found this essay in the site created by Jim Brooks,
> where we also can read the Gospel of the Holy Twelve,
> which was presented to the world by the Rev. Ouseley,
> who affirms that he was helped (in dreams and visions)
> by Anna Kingsford and others (see the entry about the
> Gospel of the Holy Twelve).
>
..'http://www.anna-kingsford.com/english/Other_Related_Works/Texts/OOR-I...
>
> Help, as in perceived guidance or inspiration during a
> translation, is different to dreaming this entire Gospel.
Well the situation is still very unclear. Some accounts seem to refer
to Ouseley doing the translation. (How did he learn Aramaic? Or did he
have supernatural help, like Joseph Smith?) Others seem to say he
received the thing already translated.
> <..>
>
> > > Perilously close -http://www.ejpress.org/article/15698.
>
> Comment?
I don't understand.
> > > > Maybe it would be less confusing if you could state briefly what
you
> > > > regard as the true facts about Ousley and this gospel.
>
> > > Sure, all you need to do is ask. From what I've gathered,
> > > Rev. Ouseley received a transcription of this do***ent
> > > via some underground spiritual brotherhood. As it went.
>
> > ? this seems incomplete. What does "As it went." mean?
>
> Taken away for safekeeping.
So the Aramaic manuscript has not been seen by anyone before or since
Ouseley. Like Smith's golden plates. I'm sure you can see this doesn't
enhance the credibility of the whole story.
>
> > Do you mean "received" in some material sense?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Does your view of the true facts include Swedenborg, Placidus
>
> Does a perceived inspiration qualify as a "true fact"?
>
> > and the Tibetan monastery?
>
> Yes.
>
> > And what would convince us that your account is more true than the
> > others we've seen?
>
> You, the historical and theological context plus rational
> thought;
No, doesn't seem to work on me.
a relevant quote from another gospel recorded
> by an early Christian scholar, which I've already posted;
>
> 'In Lection 46 Verse 17, of the Gospel Of The Holy
> Twelve, that was translated in 1892, the term "Teachers
> Of Righteousness" is used, a term that was not known
> until the Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1n 1947.
>
> 17. Ye shall revere your fathers and your mothers on
> earth, whose care is for you, and all the Teachers of
> Righteousness.
> ..'http://www.mcleanministries.com/NTA/gospel_of_the_holy_twelve.txt
This hardly seems beyond the range of coincidence.
> Also,
>
> 'Far more than the Biblical Gospels, this work has the feel
> of having been written by actual witnesses to the events it
> describes. The detail is often both more natural and more
> explicit, and a great many theological, social, and political
> issues come out making a great deal more sense.
>
> Often during the reading of this work, one feels that one is
> simply reading the Bible, for many passages are, indeed,
> virtually identical to that found in the canon. The familiar old
> stories are told again, and either the working is identical,
> or, when expanded upon or alternate wording is used, the
> stories come out making rather more sense than before,
> clearing up many questions left hanging in the authorized
> version. Never does it seem that the unfamiliar material is
> actually out-of-place, as if it had been pasted-in by editors
> after the fact. Rather, in virtually every instance the fresh
> material seems an integral component of the narrative, and,
> as one reflects anew upon the more familiar wording of the
> authorized Bible, the absence of this unfamiliar material
> seems now to stand out as a lacking:
>
> "And Herod with his men of war set him at naught, and
> mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe and sent
> him again to Pilate. And the same day Pilate and Herod
> were made friends, for before they were at enmity between
> themselves." - Nazirenes 81:17
>
> Nice detail.
Which detail? What's here that isn't in Luke 23:11-12?
Its inclusion in the narrative doesn't seem
> necessary for any theological content or other long-term
> significance, but it is nonetheless precisely the sort of detail
> a group of 12 friends might see fit to include in their narrative.
> Similar details occur throughout the text. In the authorized
> Bible, for example, at Jesus' death it merely re****ts that the
> "veil of the Temple was ripped" by a powerful earthquake.
> But in what is seemingly the more original, and detail-rich
> work, "Nazirenes" elaborates convincingly:
>
> "And behold there was great thunder and lightning, and
> the partition wall of the Holy place, from which hung the
> veil, fell down, and was rent in two, and the Earth did
> quake, and the rocks also were rent." - Nazirenes 82:26
>
> Seemingly minor yet colorful and narratively enriching
> details like this run throughout this text, giving the
> compelling impression that this is indeed an original
> eyewitness narrative, not a bland, confused, or glossed-
> over retelling of a dusty tradition repeatedly handed down
> orally for 30 years of more before finally being committed
> to writing. Traditional scriptural teachings maintain that
> the mighty works recorded in the New Testament went
> unwritten for some 30 years or more before being put
> down in writing, but this seems to make no sense. At
> least some of the apostles were, re****tedly, quite literate
> and learned men, and it seems likely, even prior to
> encountering a text such as this, that an already close-
> knit group of 12 learned friends would have quickly pooled
> and compared their memories in an effort to compose a
> definitive version of their recollections of the man,
> teachings, and works of Jesus, before anything of im****t
> could be forgotten.
>
> And this text, now available for all to read, constitutes
> evidence that such a collective testimony not only WAS
> composed (just as reason suggests it would have been),
> but successfully survived the centuries after all, even in
> spite of whatever political forces that might at one time
> have been aligned against it.
>
> It seems very much as if the authorized Gospels in the
> present-day Bible were all various edited versions of
> this "Gospel of the Nazirenes". Some material originating
> in "Nazirenes", it seems, even found its way into the
> Biblical books of Acts and Revelations.
> ..'http://www.freeread.com/archives/81.phpt
Sorry, none of this is at all convincing. Of course if somebody has a
"feeling" that it must be authentic, there is no way to argue them out
of it. Much of what the writer seems to like would result from just
combining the narratives of the canonical gospels and adding a detail
here and there from the writer's imagination.
Ross Clark
|
