Did Judas really betray Jesus?

[tlongII]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06cnd-judas.html?ei=5088&en=83f990ac468000df&ex=1301976000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1144441347-LdbEn6yrE4yx1vteAJWCoA

The Gospel of Judas seems to indicate otherwise.

[Spurminator]

Pretty fascinating.

[Extra Stout]

The study of Gnostic writings is interesting. The idea that this is something that will shatter orthodox theology is blown out of proportion, though.

It would be one thing if we had an epistle attributed to, say, the apostle John, saying this about Judas. But we don't. What we have is a book written by Gnostics, which we've already known for centuries, obviously long before it was discovered, was denounced by Irenaeus.

The NYT pulls its typical editorial BS, in what are supposed to be "news" stories, when it says that these texts have produced an entire "generation" of Christians who deny divine inspiration of the Bible. They're the typical liberals, with an agenda against evangelical Christianity to push, and they're using this newly discovered Gnostic text to push it.

[degenerate_gambler]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06cnd-judas.html?ei=5088&en=83f990ac468000df&ex=1301976000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1144441347-LdbEn6yrE4yx1vteAJWCoA

The Gospel of Judas seems to indicate otherwise.


What the hell else is he supposed to say?

[jochhejaam]

I wouldn't argue the documents authenticity but believing it to be an accurate and truthful accounting of events is another story.

[Phenomanul]

The study of Gnostic writings is interesting. The idea that this is something that will shatter orthodox theology is blown out of proportion, though.

It would be one thing if we had an epistle attributed to, say, the apostle John, saying this about Judas. But we don't. What we have is a book written by Gnostics, which we've already known for centuries, obviously long before it was discovered, was denounced by Irenaeus.

The NYT pulls its typical editorial BS, in what are supposed to be "news" stories, when it says that these texts have produced an entire "generation" of Christians who deny divine inspiration of the Bible. They're the typical liberals, with an agenda against evangelical Christianity to push, and they're using this newly discovered Gnostic text to push it.

Well said. :tu

[Oh, Gee!!]

Well said. :tu


Funny. You don't give credit to what the actual scholars who discovered and authenticated the text say, but some dude far removed from the discovery with little to no training in religious studies (but excellent googling skills nonetheless) on some message board calls it bullshit and you agree wholeheartedly.

[tlongII]

I think it certainly calls into question the manner in which the Bible was constructed.

[DarkReign]

I think it certainly calls into question the manner in which the Bible was constructed.

If one ever needed such a question posed to begin with.

Logic 101 here.


Man is fallable.
The Bible was written by man.

The Bible is therefore fallable.

[Oh, Gee!!]

If this newly discovered text were true, and Jesus did in fact ask Judas to betray him, would it change the validity of Christianity?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Funny. You don't give credit to what the actual scholars who discovered and authenticated the text say, but some dude far removed from the discovery with little to no training in religious studies (but excellent googling skills nonetheless) on some message board calls it bullshit and you agree wholeheartedly.
well said :tu

[101A]

If this newly discovered text were true, and Jesus did in fact ask Judas to betray him, would it change the validity of Christianity?


Ummmm. No.

[jochhejaam]

Funny. You don't give credit to what the actual scholars who discovered and authenticated the text say, but some dude far removed from the discovery with little to no training in religious studies (but excellent googling skills nonetheless) on some message board calls it bullshit and you agree wholeheartedly.
As I see it the credibility is with Judas not with those that authenticated the documents.
Authenticating the truthfulness of the content of the documents is the problem.

[smeagol]

The study of Gnostic writings is interesting. The idea that this is something that will shatter orthodox theology is blown out of proportion, though.

True. What's particularly interesting about the Gospel of Judas is that, although its existance was known to us, knowledge of it only came from quotes of Church Fathers such as Ireaneus and Tertullian (both lived in the second half of the 2nd Century, therefore scholars date this Gospel in the early to mid 2nd Century). Now we actually have a pretty complete copy which scholars are dating from the late 3rd Century.


The NYT pulls its typical editorial BS, in what are supposed to be "news" stories, when it says that these texts have produced an entire "generation" of Christians who deny divine inspiration of the Bible. They're the typical liberals, with an agenda against evangelical Christianity to push, and they're using this newly discovered Gnostic text to push it.

Expect the National Geography Special on Sunday night to be similar. They will probably claim this discovery will revolutionize religion, or maybe they'll claim that the Catholic Church has been hiding this document for Centuries because if it's ever exposed, the Church will lose all its power . . . Maybe Dan Brown can write his sequal.

[smeagol]

Funny. You don't give credit to what the actual scholars who discovered and authenticated the text say, but some dude far removed from the discovery with little to no training in religious studies (but excellent googling skills nonetheless) on some message board calls it bullshit and you agree wholeheartedly.
Most credible scholars say exactly what ES stated. What is your point, aside to trying to use anything you can against Orthodox Christianity?

And I doubt ES had to google much. He knows his shit when it comes to religion.

[smeagol]

I think it certainly calls into question the manner in which the Bible was constructed.
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Care to explain how?

[smeagol]

If this newly discovered text were true, and Jesus did in fact ask Judas to betray him, would it change the validity of Christianity?

If the text were to be true, probably. But as I said before, there are many apocryphal gospels. This one is simplyone more. Given that it is believed to have been written approx. 150 AD, it was certainly not written by Judas.

From what I've read, it has all the characteristics of a gnostic writting, a "christian" movement that claimed to have special knowledge (gnosis) about Christ (which only they had) and appeared in the early to mid second century.

Given that the Canonical Gospels were written between 60 and 90 AD, the Gospel of Judas is probably innacurate at best.

[smeagol]

well said :tu

Another clueless poster who will do anything to push his anti-Christian agenda.

Do you know how the canon of the Bible was compiled and why some books were included and some left out?

Do you what kind of doctrine the gnostic gospels, such as the newly "discovered" gospel of Judas, teach?

If you knew the answers to this questions, you would know why what ES wrote is pretty much true.

[Oh, Gee!!]

If the text were to be true, probably. But as I said before, there are many apocryphal gospels. This one is simplyone more. Given that it is believed to have been written approx. 150 AD, it was certainly not written by Judas.

From what I've read, it has all the characteristics of a gnostic writting, a "christian" movement that claimed to have special knowledge (gnosis) about Christ (which only they had) and appeared in the early to mid second century.

Given that the Canonical Gospels were written between 60 and 90 AD, the Gospel of Judas is probably innacurate at best.


oh, I see. It has to be discredited by the evangelicals so the followers don't start acting all crazy and questioning authority. pwnt.

[Neuromancer]

It seems like Corso is a Coptic heathen.

[Guru of Nothing]

Christianity = moving target.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Another clueless poster who will do anything to push his anti-Christian agenda.

Do you know how the canon of the Bible was compiled and why some books were included and some left out?

Do you what kind of doctrine the gnostic gospels, such as the newly "discovered" gospel of Judas, teach?

If you knew the answers to this questions, you would know why what ES wrote is pretty much true.
damn, all I said was "well said", meaning I thought OG had made an interesting point. Regardless of what you might think, I'm not out to get the Christian religion, so chill the fuck out!

[Extra Stout]

Funny. You don't give credit to what the actual scholars who discovered and authenticated the text say, but some dude far removed from the discovery with little to no training in religious studies (but excellent googling skills nonetheless) on some message board calls it bullshit and you agree wholeheartedly.

From a scholarly standpoint, finding this text is a big deal. They've been aware of its existence for a long time because church fathers have referred to it and denounced it. Discovering it must be very exciting. But it's still a Gnostic text, and Gnostic theology is well understood.

The past few years, Gnosticism has been popular in scholarly circles. It's kind of a fad. As heresies go, it's really interesting, in part because it emerged so early. Even in the New Testament, some of the episltes preach against a form of proto-Gnosticism. But it's not a new tack on Christianity, but rather a very, very old deviation from it.

So how can this "revolutionize" Christian theology? Gnosticism isn't new. These ideas might be new to journalists, but even I was exposed to them, as a very young man, years ago, before they became trendy. The progression of canon development isn't new, either. You can go even to a conservative Baptist seminary and learn that stuff.

The idea that the Bible isn't divinely inspired but rather is a politically developed tome of men who maybe interacted with with God isn't a new idea, either. Liberal theologians have been arguing that for a hundred years.

And there are Biblical scholars from every spectrum of belief, from fundamentalist to evangelical to moderate to liberal to agnostic to atheist.

But yet you have the New York Times presenting its usual slanted perspective that this is a "groundbreaking" text that will "shatter" traditional Christian belief. Why, exactly? These are liberal journalists. In no way are they Biblical scholars. How is this different from other Gnostic writings that we've known about for 1800 years? How is it different from the Gospel of Thomas in that regard?

It's interesting to think about how God may have used Judas, even from an evangelical perspective. We believe Jesus CHOSE to die for the sins of mankind, that it was the Father's will, that Jesus as man struggled with his charge in the Garden of Gethsemane but ultimately submitted to the will of the Father. Romans 9 presents the idea that God uses even lost sinners for his purposes.

But this text preaches dualism. It preaches that the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ were separate. This is a very basic and very old heresy. Claiming that it is something new and revolutionary is every bit as stupid as if I were to present to you a drinking glass as a new invention.

[smeagol]

oh, I see. It has to be discredited by the evangelicals so the followers don't start acting all crazy and questioning authority. pwnt.
Who are the "evangelicals" discrediting the text? ES and myself?

Look, it's not that difficult to understand. A text that claims to be written by Judas (or at least written by somebody who recieved the gnosis from Judas of Jesus' secret teachings) written more 100 years after these events occured, cannot be compared with the accuracy of the 4 Canomical Gospels, which were written by people who knew Jesus, Matthew and John, or were close acquaintances of people who knew Jesus, Luke and Mark, only 30 to 60 years after Jesus' Crucifixion.

And another thing. This particular text (and all other gnostic text) were being denounced by the disciples of the Disciples as heretic. The latter were the guys who knew Jesus and his teachings, remember? And they were the guys who teached the true doctrine to St. Ireaneus, for example, who denounced this particular gospel 1,835 years ago.

So it's not just "evangelicals" (which I am not one of) discrediting the text but any form of Christianity, from Roman Catholics to Fundamentalists, from Greek Orthodox to Calvinists.

[smeagol]

damn, all I said was "well said", meaning I thought OG had made an interesting point. Regardless of what you might think, I'm not out to get the Christian religion, so chill the fuck out!

Interesting point?

All he did was downplay ES' post, which happens to be pretty accurate.

Maybe you can explain to me what's so interesting about OG's post, because he hasn't been able to explain it yet.

[smeagol]

Christianity = moving target.
Catholic Church = not moving at all

[Spurminator]

Hasn't anyone seen or read "The Last Temptation of Christ"?

It is cool that they found actual written documents... But these are not new ideas.

[gtownspur]

OmG! So if the bible is fallable because it is written by man, then the Judas manuscripts, who were written by man, consequently shed infallable evidence against the fallable manly written bible, by the fallable Judas Manuscripts.


Wow!! after a few bong hits, Oh Gee's and Dark Reign's logic makes perfect sense. :smokin

[zeleni]

OmG! So if the bible is fallable because it is written by man, then the Judas manuscripts, who were written by man, consequently shed infallable evidence against the fallable manly written bible, by the fallable Judas Manuscripts.


Wow!! after a few bong hits, Oh Gee's and Dark Reign's logic makes perfect sense. :smokin

Gtown who owns in a academic battle about things done almost 2000 years ago. :spin

Shame on me for not having an opinion on such an obvious fact before us. :depressed :angel

[smeagol]

Gtown who owns in a academic battle about things done almost 2000 years ago. :spin

Shame on me for not having an opinion on such an obvious fact before us. :depressed :angel
I agree that given that these documents were written almost 2000 yrs. ago, discussing about them not always yields clear cut answers.

Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence to discredit the Gospel of Judas and other gnostic writtings (please, do your reasearch, you'll find that there are plenty of these kind of documents and thier contents have been known for a long time).

When I say discredit, I'm not saying they are not historical or original. What I'm saying is that their premises are false.

[Phenomanul]

Funny. You don't give credit to what the actual scholars who discovered and authenticated the text say, but some dude far removed from the discovery with little to no training in religious studies (but excellent googling skills nonetheless) on some message board calls it bullshit and you agree wholeheartedly.


:lol :lol :rolleyes
I don't believe that's what Extra Stout said.... learn how to read.

[TDMVPDPOY]

you cant handle the truth!

[spurster]

The Gospel of Judas won't be a revolution, but adds a little bit to the doubt about early Christian texts and how some made it into the NT and lots didn't, and about how Early Orthodox Christianity did a pretty good job of suppressing whoever they thought were heretics.

[smeagol]

The Gospel of Judas won't be a revolution, but adds a little bit to the doubt about early Christian texts and how some made it into the NT and lots didn't,

No it doesn't. It's crystal clear why texts such as the gospel of Judas and other gnostic texts already mentioned in this thread did not make it into the NT.

It makes more sense to discuss why other texts, such as Clement of Rome's Epistle, the Sheperd or Hermas or the Epistle of Barnabas, did not make it into the NT given that many early churches viewed these texts as insipired (some of our earliest complete Bibles, dating from the fourth Century, include some of these texts).

It also would meake more sense to ask why some others did make it when not all the Church Fathers were sure of their autenticity, such as 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John and the Apocalypse.

But it is very easy to see why the Gospel of Judas, of Thomas, of Peter, etc did not make it into the NT.



and about how Early Orthodox Christianity did a pretty good job of suppressing whoever they thought were heretics.

This is true.

[Oh, Gee!!]

As I see it the credibility is with Judas not with those that authenticated the documents.
Authenticating the truthfulness of the content of the documents is the problem.

Same can be said of the Bible, Christianity, and the religious dogma associated therewith. pwnt.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Who are the "evangelicals" discrediting the text? ES and myself?

Look, it's not that difficult to understand. A text that claims to be written by Judas (or at least written by somebody who recieved the gnosis from Judas of Jesus' secret teachings) written more 100 years after these events occured, cannot be compared with the accuracy of the 4 Canomical Gospels, which were written by people who knew Jesus, Matthew and John, or were close acquaintances of people who knew Jesus, Luke and Mark, only 30 to 60 years after Jesus' Crucifixion.

And another thing. This particular text (and all other gnostic text) were being denounced by the disciples of the Disciples as heretic. The latter were the guys who knew Jesus and his teachings, remember? And they were the guys who teached the true doctrine to St. Ireaneus, for example, who denounced this particular gospel 1,835 years ago.

So it's not just "evangelicals" (which I am not one of) discrediting the text but any form of Christianity, from Roman Catholics to Fundamentalists, from Greek Orthodox to Calvinists.

Did Jesus himself denounce the writings? It seems that only he and Judas would know what Jesus did or did not ask of Judas. pwnt.

[Oh, Gee!!]

The Gospel of Judas won't be a revolution, but adds a little bit to the doubt about early Christian texts and how some made it into the NT and lots didn't, and about how Early Orthodox Christianity did a pretty good job of suppressing whoever they thought were heretics.


or even that the message may have been God-inspired, but the inclusion/excluion of some elements was tainted by humanity

[smeagol]

Did Jesus himself denounce the writings?

Jesus died before any Christian writtings were penned. What is your point?


It seems that only he and Judas would know what Jesus did or did not ask of Judas.

Again, what does this have to do with anything? Where is the proof that Jesus ever told Judas what this manuscript claims.

In case you did not read my other posts, this document was written between 130 - 150 AD. What it says contradicts other Gospels and Epistles that were written between 50 and 90 AD by the followers of Christ themselves. And the followers of the disciples of Christ already were discrediting the document in 170 AD.

Which document has more credibility? You tell me.



pwnt.

Junior, you haven't pwnt anything or anyone. You haven't brought any thought which I have not refuted with historical facts.

[smeagol]

Same can be said of the Bible, Christianity, and the religious dogma associated therewith. pwnt.
Correct. But it's much more difficult to say the Bible is a fabrication than this "new" gospel is a fabrication.

I can try to explain this to you, but you don't seem willing to debate the point, but simply through your one liners with little substance attached to them.

[DarkReign]

OmG! So if the bible is fallable because it is written by man, then the Judas manuscripts, who were written by man, consequently shed infallable evidence against the fallable manly written bible, by the fallable Judas Manuscripts.


Wow!! after a few bong hits, Oh Gee's and Dark Reign's logic makes perfect sense. :smokin

Youre right, actually.

good post

[gtownspur]

Gtown who owns in a academic battle about things done almost 2000 years ago. :spin

Shame on me for not having an opinion on such an obvious fact before us. :depressed :angel


an oppinion based on some obscure writer whose text was penned 400 yrs after the fact. Yeah, stick your sarcasm somewhere else.

You may not realize, but you giving credence to the Judas writings, is like me giving credence to a literary work NBAdan wrote a day ago, casting doubt about the accounts of the Lincoln assasination, when quite frankly, he wasn't there to witness the Lincoln assasination 150 years ago.

[gtownspur]

Youre right, actually.

good post


You must think Clifford the Big Red Dog also discredits the whole bible. :rolleyes

[boutons_]

So all these Biblical and early Christianity writings a man-written, with definite, undoubtable political agendas to include/exclude ideas and people, are all fallible?

OK, then Genesis as scientific cosmology is total bullshit.

[smeagol]

So all these Biblical and early Christianity writings a man-written, with definite, undoubtable political agendas to include/exclude ideas and people, are all fallible?

Well, up to now we were discussing the veracity/accuracy of what these documents say, the Canonical Gospels on one side and the gnostic ones on the other. I've been claiming that the gnostic gospels, given that they were not wrtitten in the first century by Apostles or people who were closely acquainted with the Apostles, are mostly fabrications. The opposite is true for the Canonical Gospels, written by the people who walked with Christ during his (Christ's) minister on Earth.

You, OG, DR and other hand, with little knowledge of early Christianity, are trying to push for the veracity of the Gospel of Judas.

If you introduce fallability into the equation, then we will get nowhere because believing the Holy Spirit guided the Church in deciding which writtings were inspired and which were not, requires faith, something neither you, OG nor DR have.


OK, then Genesis as scientific cosmology is total bullshit.

Genesis should not bee taken literally.

[chode_regulator]

dont feel like reading everything but the article in the usatoday was pretty interesting
kinda sucks that a whole religion is based off whata few people decided is "right" way back when

[smeagol]

dont feel like reading everything but the article in the usatoday was pretty interesting
kinda sucks that a whole religion is based off whata few people decided is "right" way back when
If you read the whole thread (two pages, not that long) you will find reason explaining why your comment is innacurate at best.

[smeagol]

Now that I watched the National Geographic special on this subject, I can see how evil the Orthodox (led by Bishop Ireaneu of Lyon) are not allowing this gospel to make it into the Bible :rolleyes

[DarkReign]

You must think Clifford the Big Red Dog also discredits the whole bible. :rolleyes

I cant believe I am going to enter into a direct conversation with you, but here goes...

Now, I dont think Clifford proves or disproves anything. But if some weird sect of people found Clifford's book and somehow drew allegorical refrences from it, worshipped his stories as some sort of divine plight, then yeah...it certainly could for that small group of people.

Now, what if those Cliffordites grew in number? Would their "religion" be furthered or more credible?

Not to me. No matter how popular, they still worship a gigantic fictional dog.

And what I meant by your previous post...


OmG! So if the bible is fallable because it is written by man, then the Judas manuscripts, who were written by man, consequently shed infallable evidence against the fallable manly written bible, by the fallable Judas Manuscripts.


Wow!! after a few bong hits, Oh Gee's and Dark Reign's logic makes perfect sense.

...was that you were very right. Every single sentence in your quote is not only possible, but very true. I wasnt purporting that this Judas revelation means shit. I dont know if it does or doesnt. That depends on the individual reading said document.

Point is, this is all a matter of faith. No amount of documents are going to change your mind. Good for you! Seriously. You wont be swayed from your scripture so easily.

But, some may. SOME might. Some will question. And that was the aim of the article, IMO.

I think you were reaching too far with the conotation of your previous post, though. I will say though, history was written by the winners up until this century. Man is fallable, dude. Bible was written by man. The Bible is fallable. That is a true, logical statement. Doesnt mean its CORRECT, but it is logical and considered a true statement.

The other half is always left to the reader. Do you believe?

That question is posed to every reader of every document everyday. Just because the NYT writes an article about Iraq / the President / deforestation / etc doesnt make it correct.

That was my point.

[spurster]

When the canonical gospels were written and who wrote them is not clear. Probably between 60 and 90 AD and probably by second-hand information, but who knows. My recollection is that none of the surviving manuscripts are even close to that old. Christianity was persucuted off and on for a few hundred years, making it difficult to maintain an archive.

It's clear that anything non-orthodox was suppressed. We are lucky to have any surviving manuscripts. Whether right or wrong, it's interesting/unsettling to find out more about a significant early Christian community who believed things quite different from the orthodox view.

[boutons_]

"NYT writes an article .... doesnt make it correct."

But the NYT writers don't claim to be inspired by God and therefore infallible, and don't ever persecute and suppress the rabble-rousers writing different news, eg, for Faux News, nor claim that The One True Way to heaven is reading and believing the NYT.

What's considered orhodox Bible writings now was written by the winners in early Christianity who beat out other writers who were probably as "true" and accurate as the winners, but were for many non-Godly reasons, were excluded by the winners.

A key objective of the early Christians was to define Christianity as different and better than whatever else was around, pure politics, to make Christianity unchallengeable, and to amass blind followers who hued closely to the party line, with going to hell for eternity being the standard punishment for diverging.

I think the Bible is "true" in its moral and spiritual lessons and guidelines (as are the sacred core writings of all the worlds major religions), but is in no way to be taken scientifically or literally "true".

[Yonivore]

When the canonical gospels were written and who wrote them is not clear. Probably between 60 and 90 AD and probably by second-hand information, but who knows. My recollection is that none of the surviving manuscripts are even close to that old. Christianity was persucuted off and on for a few hundred years, making it difficult to maintain an archive.

It's clear that anything non-orthodox was suppressed. We are lucky to have any surviving manuscripts. Whether right or wrong, it's interesting/unsettling to find out more about a significant early Christian community who believed things quite different from the orthodox view.
Actually, there are portions of the Gospel of John that survive from the 1st Century. Enough so that later writings have been authenticated by the remainder.

The "Gospel" of Judas -- at least the National Geographic codex -- date from the 2nd or 3rd Century.

Here's a couple of good articles on the most recent stories of this book:

The Gospel of Judas -- A Special Report (http://www.markdroberts.com/#apr906)

From Traitor to Hero? Responding to “The Gospel of Judas” (http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-04-07)

[DarkReign]

But the NYT writers don't claim to be inspired by God and therefore infallible, and don't ever persecute and suppress the rabble-rousers writing different news, eg, for Faux News, nor claim that The One True Way to heaven is reading and believing the NYT.

Agreed. I was just using it as an example. Maybe not the best one, but an example nonetheless.

more or less, its the same argument you will always get. Discredit the source.

When in actuality, it has nothing to do with the source. It has to do with your believing or not believing. Especially in the matters of religion.

[DarkReign]

Actually, there are portions of the Gospel of John that survive from the 1st Century. Enough so that later writings have been authenticated by the remainder.

The "Gospel" of Judas -- at least the National Geographic codex -- date from the 2nd or 3rd Century.

Here's a couple of good articles on the most recent stories of this book:

The Gospel of Judas -- A Special Report (http://www.markdroberts.com/#apr906)

From Traitor to Hero? Responding to “The Gospel of Judas” (http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-04-07)

Am I incorrect if I assume your 2 sources are complete right-wing, neocon-ish type sources?

You know, the kind of individuals not so much interested in the truth, but in keeping the status quo?

I ask because I skipped to the end of both for their conclusions. More or less, it was the same thing...Bible was never intended to be revised or added onto to.

How about just a factual, non-partisan take on the documents, what they mean, etc.

[Yonivore]

Am I incorrect if I assume your 2 sources are complete right-wing, neocon-ish type sources?
I wouldn't characterize them as such.


You know, the kind of individuals not so much interested in the truth, but in keeping the status quo?
I don't think you could say that about Mark Roberts. I don't know the other guy.


I ask because I skipped to the end of both for their conclusions. More or less, it was the same thing...Bible was never intended to be revised or added onto to.
I went back and re-read the last paragraph of Roberts article and did not arrive at that characterization. Where, exactly, do you draw this to be his conclusion?


How about just a factual, non-partisan take on the documents, what they mean, etc.
I think Roberts' article is just that. But, just as with the Dead Sea scrolls and other such writings, analysis of the "Gospel" of Judas will probably take years before anyone arrives at a concensus.

[spurster]

You might try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_judas

for a different view. Of course, articles in Wikipedia are living documents.

[DarkReign]

Yonivore,

Im not going to quote your retort. Basically, the 2nd linked article (after reading the whole thing) comes off pretty factual, then ends with the typical rhetoric.

The Roberts article is most definately a slanted view in that you have a guy who lists his credentials as such...


If you're not familiar with me, let me say that I'm a full-time pastor and a part-time professor of New Testament with a Ph.D. in New Testament from Harvard, where I studied Gnosticism in depth. - Roberts

This man's interest is not in the furthering of knowledge. Its in the keeping of the status quo. Thats like going to the President for accurate info on the Iraq fiasco...it would behoove him to cite any shortcomings seeing as it is his principle interest.

Although, Roberts does present the document in such a way that seems factual. Again, Im not trying to say anything specific about this Judas document. It would seem these Gnostics were a seedy bunch at worst or very different from early Christianity at best.

No conclusion, I guess. I have neither the interest or the endeavor to care.


But, just as with the Dead Sea scrolls and other such writings, analysis of the "Gospel" of Judas will probably take years before anyone arrives at a concensus.

Agreed.

[smeagol]

When the canonical gospels were written and who wrote them is not clear. Probably between 60 and 90 AD and probably by second-hand information, but who knows.

Tradition from the earliest Church fathers says the Canonical Gospels were written by Mathew and John, the Apostles, and by Luke, Paul’s friend, and Mark, Peters friend. Modern scholars doubt this is true.


My recollection is that none of the surviving manuscripts are even close to that old.

There are some pretty old papyri that contain parts of the Canonical Gospels. As Yoni said, there is a small fragment of the Gospel of John (not larger than a credit card) which has been dated to the first half of the second century (125 AD). There are two more famous manuscripts, which predate the newfound Gospel of Judas codex by 150 years. They are called the Bodmer and Chester Beaty papyrus and both date from 150 – 200 AD.


Whether right or wrong, it's interesting/unsettling to find out more about a significant early Christian community who believed things quite different from the orthodox view.

Why is it unsettling? I’d say it’s interesting, but certainly not unsettling. Christianity is not going to change because of these discoveries. And again, this is nothing new (maybe it is new to some). Gnostic text which claim gnosis is held by a few chosen ones has been around for ever and scholars have in their possession dozen of texts which are very similar to the Gospel of Judas.

[smeagol]

What's considered orhodox Bible writings now was written by the winners in early Christianity

There has to be a reason why there were “winners” and “losers” in early Christianity. Think boutons, think!


who beat out other writers who were probably as "true" and accurate as the winners, but were for many non-Godly reasons, were excluded by the winners.

Man you are clueless.

How can you say that the proto-Orthodox Christians were as right as the Gnostic Christians? They professed doctrines that were completely opposites. It’s either one or the other.



A key objective of the early Christians was to define Christianity as different and better than whatever else was around, pure politics, to make Christianity unchallengeable, and to amass blind followers who hued closely to the party line, with going to hell for eternity being the standard punishment for diverging.

You are so fucking clueless it isn’t even funny. So Christianity in the first and second Century, when most of the doctrines were being cemented, was pure politics. The Christians were being killed by the thousands left and right, persecuted by the roman emperors, local governors and centurions, and you think they had plenty of time for politics.


I think the Bible is "true" in its moral and spiritual lessons and guidelines (as are the sacred core writings of all the worlds major religions), but is in no way to be taken scientifically or literally "true".

You probably think Jesus was a good teacher, a moral professor, a nice guy.

As I said, clueless, but always willing to chip in when there is an opportunity to be anti-Christian.

[mikejones99]

Spurster wins this post. HOrry for 3