Let's hope the NYT vetted its 'Garbriel's Revelation' story
a little more than the Lost Gospel of Judas story
that it ran on its front page two years ago. But I doubt it. You do remember the Lost Gospel of Judas, right? The one that turned out to have minor 'mistranslations'
that called into question the hyped scholarship
surrounding it? ... RE 'Gabriel's Revelation': Once again it could 'shake our basic view of Christianity,' just like the Judas Gospel was supposed to do two years ago. Only this time there's no chance of a 'mistranslation' -- because a leading scholar instead just filled in the missing blanks to fit his theory. ... You'd think the NYT would at least mention the controversy over the Judas Gospel when writing about the latest biblical-era discovery. ...
Listen, I'm a Cafeteria Catholic, so I have no dog in this or any other theological dispute. I care about the words of Jesus. But I could do without organized religions' Little Bo Peep shafts, bible thumping, sacred walls, prayer healings, priests, pastors and rabbis etc. But there comes a point when you have to wonder about the motives of people who seem so eager to 'shake the view' of Christianity. It gets annoying and even insulting after a while -- even for a Cafeteria Catholic. ...