The Gospel according to Judas

[ernie]

Not sure this is a Fata but i didn't see it.

A 300 AD text believed to be the only surviving copy of the biblical book the Gospel according to Judas has been translated by a National Geographic team. A Bibilical Scholar from Acadia University was part of the team so it is front page news today in Nova Scotia. According to the story in the local paper today it is a book believed to be a part of early Christianity and was believed to be removed from the bible around that 300 AD date.

Basically, it portrays Judas as the hero apostle. That Jesus asked and essentially conspired with Judas to have Judas "betray" him so Jesus could get done what he needed to get done.

It will be an interesting discussion for years to come among the Christian faith.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060406/...ion_judas_dc_2

The NG Channel site:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...gospelofjudas/

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by ernie

Not sure this is a Fata but i didn't see it.

A 300 AD text believed to be the only surviving copy of the biblical book the Gospel according to Judas has been translated by a National Geographic team. A Bibilical Scholar from Acadia University was part of the team so it is front page news today in Nova Scotia. According to the story in the local paper today it is a book believed to be a part of early Christianity and was believed to be removed from the bible around that 300 AD date.

Basically, it portrays Judas as the hero apostle. That Jesus asked and essentially conspired with Judas to have Judas "betray" him so Jesus could get done what he needed to get done.

It will be an interesting discussion for years to come among the Christian faith.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060406/...ion_judas_dc_2

The NG Channel site:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...gospelofjudas/

What? A lie? A conspiracy? Non truth?

[FireFly]

Actually Cheese, it's still so similar to the version in the Bible you could swap them out and get the same meanings. Instead of feeling so much pain over betraying Jesus, Judas feels pain for obeying him. Sometimes what you have to do hurts. Actually, I like this version better. It makes more sense.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Actually Cheese, it's still so similar to the version in the Bible you could swap them out and get the same meanings. Instead of feeling so much pain over betraying Jesus, Judas feels pain for obeying him. Sometimes what you have to do hurts. Actually, I like this version better. It makes more sense.

LOL..if only there was a proof of a proof..you know..the proof!

[evman150]

Arguing over a story book. LOL.

What's next? New found evidence that the hare did in fact win?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cheese

LOL..if only there was a proof of a proof..you know..the proof!

Well even if you look at is as a story, as you like to do, does this new addition really change the story?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Well even if you look at is as a story, as you like to do, does this new addition really change the story?

It changes the doctrine of many Christian practises who portrayed Judas as the betrayer of Jesus Christ. Will they now change their view to include the Gospel of Judas...Priest? LOL
Supposedly there is something else written on that parchment that also defies what modern Christianity has been teaching...should be fun watching them backpeddle on that too when released.

[Savvy27]

I think the purposeful deception of his closest friends by Jesus himself is fairly interesting... the benefit of this misdirection eludes me though.

It's also confusing that Judas would be so overcome with grief after following the directions of his lord and saviour that he would commit suicide.

Nevertheless, this is certainly good discussion material for believers and non-believers alike.

[Cheese]

The naysayers in the Christian movement start with their articles...

Arguments...

The text released Thursday by the National Geographic Society, will not change the perception of Judas. The idea that Jesus asked Judas to betray him is "completely fiction," said the Rev. Daniel Callam, associate professor of theology at the University of St. Thomas, a Catholic university in Houston.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cheese

It changes the doctrine of many Christian practises who portrayed Judas as the betrayer of Jesus Christ. Will they now change their view to include the Gospel of Judas...Priest? LOL
Supposedly there is something else written on that parchment that also defies what modern Christianity has been teaching...should be fun watching them backpeddle on that too when released.

He still is 'the betrayer' if only in his own eyes. Because he did it when Jesus asked doesn't change his guilt. Why would he still commit suicide? He just killed his God! You'll note that Judas doesn't wait the three days as Jesus directed, he kills himself almost immediately.

Jesus didn't ask Judas to 'betray him' as per the article; He asks Judas to release Him from the body that clothes Him. Judas does, not necessarily understanding the consquences, feels the guilt at the treatment of Jesus and kills himself.

I don't know, perhaps I'm blind to how this changes things so drastically. To me it actually makes more sense that Judas would do it because Jesus asked rather than on his own. After all, what's a few silver peices when you travel with someone who can feed you at will?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FireFly

He still is 'the betrayer' if only in his own eyes. Because he did it when Jesus asked doesn't change his guilt. Why would he still commit suicide? He just killed his God! You'll note that Judas doesn't wait the three days as Jesus directed, he kills himself almost immediately.

Jesus didn't ask Judas to 'betray him' as per the article; He asks Judas to release Him from the body that clothes Him. Judas does, not necessarily understanding the consquences, feels the guilt at the treatment of Jesus and kills himself.

I don't know, perhaps I'm blind to how this changes things so drastically.

read the link i provided above or simply google Judas articles...theres about 50000000000 now.

Regardless, its a story typical to the Easter Bunny....

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by ernie

Not sure this is a Fata but i didn't see it.

A 300 AD text believed to be the only surviving copy of the biblical book the Gospel according to Judas has been translated by a National Geographic team. A Bibilical Scholar from Acadia University was part of the team so it is front page news today in Nova Scotia.

The biblical scholar in question would be Dr. Craig A. Evans, I presume. Can this be confirmed? He was the second reader for my M.A. thesis defense in 2002.

Originally Posted by ernie

According to the story in the local paper today it is a book believed to be a part of early Christianity and was believed to be removed from the bible around that 300 AD date.

Here is a misnomer about "the Bible" that persists ad nauseum in circles Christian and otherwise. Prior to the first Church Council at Nicea in the fourth century, there was no such thing as a "Bible", only collections of authoritative pieces of literature circulated among a variety of individual Christian communities. the Bible was a result of a process of canonization, which was intended to quell "heresy" in favour of a defined, monolithic standard of theological and spiritual observance that became the Christian faith. One of my colleagues actually suggests that the use of the word "scripture" and related terms in patristic literature (first to early fourth century C.E.) never actually refers to anything resembling modern concepts of the Bible.
The events were somewhat similar to the process of "canonization" which took place in the second century C.E. under the guidance of the early rabbinic Jews, who conferred the distinction of "scripture" once for all upon the Masoretic Text. Prior to 200, there probably dozens of religious collections of books whcih were deemed with similar divine authority; one such example is found in the Dead Sea Cave surrounding Qumran.

Originally Posted by ernie

Basically, it portrays Judas as the hero apostle. That Jesus asked and essentially conspired with Judas to have Judas "betray" him so Jesus could get done what he needed to get done.

This is nothing new. The Gospel of Judas is in line with the theology presented in many other products from the Nag Hamadi library, and was itself alluded to by Irenaeus before 200 C.E.

Originally Posted by ernie

It will be an interesting discussion for years to come among the Christian faith.

Discussion, yes. But in the end, the Gospel of Judas is useful in only two regards:
1) It provides more evidence for the diversity of theology in the pre-Constantinian Church, and provides additional context for the "gnostic controversies" which were so prevalent in the first three centuries of the Christian era.
2) It provides much needed new material for studies in the history of the early Church and the development of theology. I very seriously doubt that any long-term effects of the findings in the Gospel of Judas will register in any branches of mainstream Christianity.
The newly discovered Gospel will take its (proper) place among the other pieces of gnostic literature such as the Secret Sayings of Thomas Didimus, and the Gospels of Mary and Phillip. All of these compositions continue to function within the discipline of Biblical Studies as auxiliaries to other discussions related to history, theology, biblical interpretation, and sociological developments within the early Church communities. It will not be added to anyone's Bibles; while it is an interesting piece of ancient literature, it remains one whose substance is very much historically dubious.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

It changes the doctrine of many Christian practises who portrayed Judas as the betrayer of Jesus Christ. Will they now change their view to include the Gospel of Judas...Priest? LOL

As the prior post has indicated, the Gospel of Judas almost certainly will not be added to anyone's Bible. There is a much stronger case for wider acceptance in early Christian Circles for the Secret Sayings of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermes, and the Epistle of Barnabas; all compositions which pre-date Judas, and which have been in circulation for decades (centuries in some instances!); and yet none of these have been added to any of the traditional Christian canons of scripture.

Originally Posted by Cheese

Supposedly there is something else written on that parchment that also defies what modern Christianity has been teaching...should be fun watching them backpeddle on that too when released.

The Christian faith—much like Early and Rabbinic Judaism, and Islam—has proven through its history to be remarkably adaptable. Regardless of what is uncovered among the other writings included with the Gospel of Judas, I am convinced that the Church will continue to conduct business as usual. As a Christian, I for one relish the opportunity to investigate yet another piece of ancient literature which informs the history of my faith's origins and development.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The biblical scholar in question would be Dr. Craig A. Evans, I presume. Can this be confirmed? He was the second reader for my M.A. thesis defense in 2002.



Here is a misnomer about "the Bible" that persists ad nauseum in circles Christian and otherwise. Prior to the first Church Council at Nicea in the fourth century, there was no such thing as a "Bible", only collections of authoritative pieces of literature circulated among a variety of individual Christian communities. the Bible was a result of a process of canonization, which was intended to quell "heresy" in favour of a defined, monolithic standard of theological and spiritual observance that became the Christian faith. One of my colleagues actually suggests that the use of the word "scripture" and related terms in patristic literature (first to early fourth century C.E.) never actually refers to anything resembling modern concepts of the Bible.
The events were somewhat similar to the process of "canonization" which took place in the second century C.E. under the guidance of the early rabbinic Jews, who conferred the distinction of "scripture" once for all upon the Masoretic Text. Prior to 200, there probably dozens of religious collections of books whcih were deemed with similar divine authority; one such example is found in the Dead Sea Cave surrounding Qumran.



This is nothing new. The Gospel of Judas is in line with the theology presented in many other products from the Nag Hamadi library, and was itself alluded to by Irenaeus before 200 C.E.



Discussion, yes. But in the end, the Gospel of Judas is useful in only two regards:
1) It provides more evidence for the diversity of theology in the pre-Constantinian Church, and provides additional context for the "gnostic controversies" which were so prevalent in the first three centuries of the Christian era.
2) It provides much needed new material for studies in the history of the early Church and the development of theology. I very seriously doubt that any long-term effects of the findings in the Gospel of Judas will register in any branches of mainstream Christianity.
The newly discovered Gospel will take its (proper) place among the other pieces of gnostic literature such as the Secret Sayings of Thomas Didimus, and the Gospels of Mary and Phillip. All of these compositions continue to function within the discipline of Biblical Studies as auxiliaries to other discussions related to history, theology, biblical interpretation, and sociological developments within the early Church communities. It will not be added to anyone's Bibles; while it is an interesting piece of ancient literature, it remains one whose substance is very much historically dubious.

No Mention of Mr Evans anywhere...
another link

Always interesting to hear anothers viewpoint....many here have stated your views on other occasions. Interesting how you have learned that there is no real proof...yet you suggest you believe?

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The biblical scholar in question would be Dr. Craig A. Evans, I presume. Can this be confirmed? He was the second reader for my M.A. thesis defense in 2002.

Indeed it is Evans. Just couldn't remember the name off hand before.

Here is a misnomer about "the Bible" that persists ad nauseum in circles Christian and otherwise. Prior to the first Church Council at Nicea in the fourth century, there was no such thing as a "Bible", only collections of authoritative pieces of literature circulated among a variety of individual Christian communities....

I was going to put Bible in quotes then didn't for some reason. you are of course correct. Anyone not completely indoctrinated by the current Christian church knows this which is why I will find all the outrage humourous. Though of course you seem to know it in much more detail than most including me.

This is nothing new. The Gospel of Judas is in line with the theology presented in many other products from the Nag Hamadi library, and was itself alluded to by Irenaeus before 200 C.E.

Indeed. But tell me how many regular run of the mill Christians know this? At most it would be a teeny tiny percentage. Most will be freaking out. I agree it isn't much of a departure and we shouldn't expect to be. but it does paint things in a different light to how the current church paints things. There is no doubt that the current church(es) are completely different from 1500 years ago. Heck, many have changed significantly over the past 25 years.

Discussion, yes. But in the end, the Gospel of Judas is useful in only two regards:
1) It provides more evidence for the diversity of theology in the pre-Constantinian Church, and provides additional context for the "gnostic controversies" which were so prevalent in the first three centuries of the Christian era.
2) It provides much needed new material for studies in the history of the early Church and the development of theology. I very seriously doubt that any long-term effects of the findings in the Gospel of Judas will register in any branches of mainstream Christianity.
The newly discovered Gospel will take its (proper) place among the other pieces of gnostic literature such as the Secret Sayings of Thomas Didimus, and the Gospels of Mary and Phillip. All of these compositions continue to function within the discipline of Biblical Studies as auxiliaries to other discussions related to history, theology, biblical interpretation, and sociological developments within the early Church communities. It will not be added to anyone's Bibles; while it is an interesting piece of ancient literature, it remains one whose substance is very much historically dubious.

Well i'm certainly not saying "add it to the bible" it's history isn't much more dubious that any other writings at the time...including what constitutes the bible today. The problem with the mainstream Christian churches is that it will not be treated how you say it should be treated and how it should stimulate discussion. It will simply be dismissed as "something of the devil" or some other nonsense as all things that challenge the church(es) preached beliefs tend to get dismissed until they can no longer get ingnored. There is some "respect" that it should be given as all these writings should be given. Just as the churches fail to give any of scholarly work to do with the writings of that era the time of day unless of course it fits neatly into what they are already saying. That's the shame of much of todays christian faith. Atleast IMO.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

No Mention of Mr Evans anywhere...
another link

I had noticed DR. Evans in an interview yesterday; he is the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament Studies at Acadia University. Since the original posted from Nova Scotia and mentioned the involvement of a "biblical Scholar from NS", I assume that Prof. Evans is the link.

Originally Posted by Cheese

Always interesting to hear anothers viewpoint....many here have stated your views on other occasions. Interesting how you have learned that there is no real proof...yet you suggest you believe?

Faith necessarily precludes the dependance on "proof" (Certainly any kind of evidence which is close to objective and abides withing the canons of scientific research). I learned a long time ago that in order for my faith to maintain its depth and meaning, it must remain in the realm of mystery. I am well aware of the many historical and scientific implausibilities within almost any religious convictions, but none of them have yet compelled me to abandon my belief in the divine and unknowable.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Faith necessarily precludes the dependance on "proof" (Certainly any kind of evidence which is close to objective and abides withing the canons of scientific research). I learned a long time ago that in order for my faith to maintain its depth and meaning, it must remain in the realm of mystery. I am well aware of the many historical and scientific implausibilities within almost any religious convictions, but none of them have yet compelled me to abandon my belief in the divine and unknowable.

Interesting. Seriously.
So what implausible event would make you change your mind? I find faith in the implausible difficult to believe. For me irrefutable proof is required.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by ernie

Well i'm certainly not saying "add it to the bible" it's history isn't much more dubious that any other writings at the time...including what constitutes the bible today.

Certainly, the historicity of much of the Bible is legitimatley questioned, but the massive amounts of textual evidence to support the orthodox collections of scripture do suggest that the vast majority within the early Church held nothing but the highest regard for the "traditional" gospel accounts. The contents of the Gospel of Judas point to a long-standing tradition for Judas' betrayal of Jesus; whether or not he was incited to do so by the Christ is another matter entirely. It would not surprise me if the Judas version was in some respects literally closer to the actual events, but I am also quite sure that most of the parallel traditions in Mark, Luke, Matthew and perhaps John are much older, and probably more "historically" reliable.
On that note, it is important to realize that "history" and "fact" in the ancient world were both very different concepts from our modern notions of such things. The Jewish historian Josephus declared that he had "neither added nor ommitted anything from his account" of Israel's history, and yet he ommitted much and added more than his sources presented! He was almost not certainly trying to decieve his audience, but was rather practicing historiography as it was regularly practiced in the pre-literate world.

Originally Posted by ernie

The problem with the mainstream Christian churches is that it will not be treated how you say it should be treated and how it should stimulate discussion. It will simply be dismissed as "something of the devil" or some other nonsense as all things that challenge the church(es) preached beliefs tend to get dismissed until they can no longer get ingnored. There is some "respect" that it should be given as all these writings should be given. Just as the churches fail to give any of scholarly work to do with the writings of that era the time of day unless of course it fits neatly into what they are already saying. That's the shame of much of todays christian faith. Atleast IMO.

I might challenge your characterization of "mainstream Christian churches." I have preached in my own from a variety of works outside of the Bible, including the Hodayot from Qumran, and 11QApocryphal Psalms. I understand your frustration with the highly visible fundamentalist branches of Christianity, but in my experience, these sorts are still in the minority (especially outside of the United States and Northa America).
Also, I should say that I personally do not believe the Church is the appropriate place for such discussion, which have taken place almost exclusively in academic circles for centuries now. The mandate of the Church should be spiritual fulfillment, growth and communion; as such, the Church is completely within its rights to dismiss on doctrinal grounds the theology contained in the Gospel of Judas. I lament the fact that many in pockets of the Christian community remain ignorant, but I do not believe a change in preaching policies will rectify this problem.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

So what implausible event would make you change your mind? I find faith in the implausible difficult to believe. For me irrefutable proof is required.

Ouch!
I cannot think of anything that would convince me otherwise. My faith has provided me understanding and guidance in so many many areas, an abandonment of my convictions just makes no sense on any level. Your challenge is akin to "what could happen to convince you to stop breathing?"
I should make a clarification between implausible and unreasonable. It is implausible that the events of the Old Testament took place as they were recorded, but I do not believe it to be unreasonable to accept that there is a God whose activity and impact is perceptible, and has been interpretted through circumstances in time, which have resulted in the Old Testament.
Is there any such thing as irrefutable proof? I suppose if you trust your senses to provide you a completely accurate and infallible presentation of the world, the universe and everything. If you otherwise believe that there is something beyond perceiving and knowing, then there really can be no such thing as "irrefutable proof." Such a thing for me is only useful in terms of the physical world; but spirituality is a different thing altogether, and it is irrefutably un-provable.

[White Doors]

Science believed the earth was the centre of the universe then changed it's mind, do you stop believing in Science when they modify long held beliefs?