Quote:
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.