[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.