Posted on 04/07/2006 6:38:55 AM PDT by presidio9
The National Geographic Society released the manuscript of what is called "The Gospel of Judas" yesterday. By National Geographic's own account, a team first assembled by the Maecenas Foundation has been working on the text since 2001. As a result of press releases tied to publication of the text, widespread coverage has repeated the claim that this is an authentic and unique representation of the historical relationship between Jesus and Judas, and that Jesus encouraged Judas to betray him.
Despite the careful work by scholars that has gone into a document of obvious interest, I have to express disappointment when I see National Geographic stoop so low into hyperbole as to distort the significance of this discovery.
In its release, National Geographic repeatedly states that it has "authenticated" the document. Several press outlets have simply repeated those claims. But "authentic" turns out to be a slippery term as used by the National Geographic Society. No scholar associated with the find argues this is a first century document, or that it derives from Judas. The release says the document was "copied down in Coptic probably around A.D. 300," although later that is changed to "let's say around the year 400." This amounts to saying that "The Gospel of Judas" is an authentic fabrication produced by a group of Gnostics in Egypt. Gnostics believed that their direct knowledge of heaven permitted them to understand what no one else knew, or could know by historical knowledge. For ancient Gnostics to believe in their own powers of divination is charming; for their flights of imagination to be passed off as historical knowledge in our time is dishonest or self-deceived.
During the second century, a theologian of the Catholic Church named Irenaeus referred to a writing named "The Gospel of Judas." Was that
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
You mean the Times New Roman font don't you? LOL
From what I hear, the Gospel of Judas has much the same story as Jesus Christ Superstar.
Gnosticism means belief in "secret knowledge." It is belief in New Age / Spiritualism / Divination. The adherents succumb to the temptation that they themselves are Christs (not merely "little Christs," or "Christians), and that they can "channel" the truth.
It would be perfectly consistent for one of them to channel a Gospel, and claim that Judas was - through spiritual connection - the true author.
Hence, the good bishop of the early church who denounced this particular gnostic cult and their Gospel, circa 180 AD, was probably reacting to a roughly contemporaneous event; i.e., a 2nd century event.
As to what this says about the canon, this document is further evidence that the books of the New Testament predate 180 AD, and therefore probably, as claimed, late 1st century or, at the very latest, early 2nd century in origin.
Now, just as this manuscript was in Coptic, circa 3 or 400 AD, but originally written in Greek, circa 200 AD, so too are our earliest versions of the canon, which date from about 300 AD, copies and perhaps even translations into the Greek of earlier documents. I would venture to say that if the original documents, lost to us, were not written, as claimed, by the disciples of Jesus (including Paul, who was called by Jesus in a vision), they were written by others who directly heard from these guys.
My own belief is that they were actually written by the claimed authors, although perhaps edited by others in the early 2nd century. But, I'm no real expert in these matters, so why should that matter to anybody else.
At least in the past she had co-hosts (other bulbs in the chandelier), now she's all alone and the world will truly see a dim bulb.
Katie Couric...LOL. What a better spokesmen for the left could they have. Too bad those daughters of hers have to grow up with that brain donor as their only parent. Her hubby was a good guy before his untimely demise. What will she do when she doesn’t have Matt's receding hairline to make fun of and talking about how Jenna Jameson has become mainstream.
Only parts of Christian faith is correct? Which parts?
Barry's, "The Third Secret" would have been better had it only to do with a married clergy. While the first half of the book is great, the second half can't even kindly be called tripe. It took many beliefs that predate Christianity and called them lies (pious and holy beliefs held by Jews and given down by God). Spoke of how Mary actually favoured allowing abortion and pre-marital sex.
Gnostics were sincere (for the most part) in their beliefs (even though they were wrong) and wrote Gospels to "validate" them (commonly in the 2 thru 4 centuries).
The Church (Catholics, Coptics & Orthodox still all being united) in the 3rd and 4th century got together at the Council of Hippo and the Synod of Carthage and clearly stated which books comprised the New Testament. In order to weed out false testimony they capped the writings to the first century. This however does not mean that many 2nd & 3rd century writings are untrue.
To counter untrue beliefs (Aryans and Gnostics, plus other wackjobs), the Church held Ecumenical Councils to dispell the untruths and cement the actual truth. It is out of these Councils that we have the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (commonly shortened to Nicene Creed or Confession of Faith)
I just dug up a piece of papyrus in my backyard. It looks really old. I think it says I'm related to Queen Victoria.
Or maybe it says Queen Latifah. It's smudged.
Definitions of Oxymoron on the Web:
A paradox reduced to two words, usually in an adjective-noun ("eloquent silence") or adverb-adjective ("inertly strong") relationship, and is used for effect, to emphasize contrasts, incongruities, hypocrisy, or simply the complex nature of reality. Examples: wise fool, ignorantly learned, laughing sadness, pious hate. Some others:
You might want to actually read that definition while you're at it. Feel free to attack Catholicism if that gets you off, but since it is defintely a "church" (whether you agree with what that church has to say or not) you look pretty foolish labling the term oxymoronic.
"This amounts to saying that "The Gospel of Judas" is an authentic fabrication produced by a group of Gnostics in Egypt."
The secret number for decoding this authentic Gnostic fabrication is located somewhere in P-M's tagline. He has promised to let all of you in on it for the, today only, low, low price of.... Wait, he will give it to you right after he gives me the power ball numbers for Saturday.
"There were many, many early Christian writings in existence. Many of them were contradictory.
The ones we find in the New Testament didn't magically appear one day at the end of a copy of the Old Testament.
It wasn't until much later that a committee met and decided which of the early writings would get that special honor.
I agree, this is much ado about nothing."
Thanks for that clarification. I'm not a seminarian, and am only generally familiar with this subject. It is interesting, but not earth shattering..
You might want to review all my postings on this thread. I have not attack the Catholic Church. If you find one instance where I have I will apologize. You might want to determine the origination of the accusation of oxymoron in this thread.
Oh, ok. I misunderstood what you were saying. You are absolutely right. The earliest copy is actually a fragment of the Gospel of John that dates to the 2nd or 3rd century and no actual original exists. But, that is also true of all ancient literature.
Tell it to the Catholic church. They would applicate your evaluation that they are oxymoron's.
Nobody who understood the definition that you posted could possibly say that unless he/she was drunk.
Well, to be fair, I could have been a whole lot more clear in my earlier post.
Only parts of Christian faith is correct? Which parts?
I have been arguing with people all day
and I don't feel like getting into another
with you about the Catholics.
Maybe next time.
Have a nice day.
I don't use the term except in a reply to someone's accusation that uses the term.
Actually, you seem to have invented a new term: "oxymoron's."
More pertinent to the debate on this thread, that amazing Afterword of Ms. Rice's documents her spiritual journey BY MEANS OF A LONG THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON THE RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT and her shock at realizing that the evidence supports the orthodox view.
That chapter by Ann Rice should be read aloud in every church on Easter morning.
Read it for her magnificent comments on the skeptical arguments; read it for her very perceptive list of recommended NT scholars. You know she has a good head on her shoulders solely from her respect for NT Wright.
I'm also reading "The Resurrection of the Son of God". Every generation has one scholar who destroys the skeptics of NT literature; Wright is ours.
And there is simply no reason to doubt that Paul of Tarsus wrote the pastoral epistles, other than the purely circular assumption that the church depicted therein didn't exist then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.