Did Judas really betray Jesus?

[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

From Traitor to Hero? Responding to “The Gospel of Judas”

[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

From Traitor to Hero? Responding to “The Gospel of Judas”

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 do ents, 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 do ents, 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 do ents.

[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 do ent in such a way that seems factual. Again, Im not trying to say anything specific about this Judas do ent. 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 for eternity being the standard punishment for diverging.

You are so ing 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