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 ...
Fake but accurate?
Very interesting. Thanks for posting this. Certain quarters won't be satisfied until they've reduced Jesus to a common rabble-rouser. Once we've dumped the "Son of God" notion, we can get on with multiculturalism in earnest.
Mary Mapes long lost ancestors........
Laughed so hard my minidachs fell off my lap.
Fake but fake.
Just witness how enthralled the idiot press and those who follow them are, still, over The DaVinci Codes.
Katie Couric brought them up this morning, in a discussion about this silly Judas gospel.
One of the participants had to point out to her that "Katie, the DaVinci Codes are a work of fiction."
Gnostics (no matter what their stripe, or how Christian they seemed at first glance, and the philosophy predates the Christian faith) believed:The God of the world was more or less evil because he made things out of matter.
The True God is only spirit, and each level of being, is less spiritual and more contaminated by matter.
That you have to have the secret gnosis to get out of the matter realm and into the spirit realm.
The Christian sounding gnostics didn't believe that Jesus came here in a real body, because that would mean he was contaminated with Matter.
It gets weird and interesting, and farther and farther away from what most people think of as Christianity the more you get into it.
So why should we really care. There are a lot of gnostic texts out there, easy to get hold of. They have no more validity as scripture to Christians than the Golden Ass does, except that they use a framework of Christian names to spout off what has a lot in common with the Golden Ass and other mystery religions like the Orphic traditions.
Authentic Fabrication....does that mean Real Fake
National Geographic places their own desires for confirmation of THEIR presuppositions ahead of actual fact. That's why they got caught with their pants down a couple of years ago when they trumpeted a fossil that showed a flying dinosaur. They wanted to believe it was true, so they did. They got burned big time and issued a rather haughty mea culpa.
Too bad they didn't learn their lesson.
Translation of a copy of a fake............
Actually, they know the name of the Coptic monk who "found" the original manuscript in the early 4th century: Ratericos Danilos. It was revealed as a forgery because it was created using a stylus that hadn't been invented until AD 378.
Real Fake, as in those damn Rolex junk spam e-mails..........
It's as legitimate as "The Hitler Diaries."
It's just accepted as the Gospel truth. Amazing!
I don't think any of the New Testament is derived from first century documents or is an original.
Tempest in a teacup
Mountain out of a molehill
There are lots of addtional "gosepels"
see www.earlychristianwritings.com
The Bible in its current form is the Word of God. Always has been always will be.
Gnosticism sounds similar to Christian Science belief.
Mrs VS
Well, according to anyone who's ever done intensive work on the NT - be they Christian, Jewish, agnostic or what have you - all the NT documents except two absolutely date from the 1st century, and there is a good chance that the remaining two do date from the 1st century as well.
In addition to this unanimous scholarly opinion, there is the fact that early 2nd century writers (100-125 AD) reference the NT documents as if they were already well-known and established documents. Additionally there are substantial manuscripts of the NT existing from about the year 200 AD and fragments from before 125 AD, including a possible fragment from before 68 AD.
So the facts contradict you.
I was listening to a dj talk about this story this morning. The DJ said that the Judas Gospel dispels the story that Judas betrayed Christ of his own will, i.e. Christ asked Judas to drop the dime on him.
IIRC, Judas committed suicide the morning after he betrayed Christ. My question is this: When did Judas have time to write his Gospel if said Gospel includes events that took place only hours before his death?
Why is even FNC reporting the story as based on a true original rather than a fake copy.
The media should be screaming fromthe top.
I tend to think this is just an ancient version of the "Da Vinci Code"...or near equivalent.
Fiction has always been popular. ;)
Regards, Ivan
Genuine ancient fiction. Written by Danus Brownus.
MY first thoughts also. Bet that was common for many of us here on this site.
Yes, yes, we have the new christian doctrine being heaved upon us....
Jesus did not rise from the dead, he was only sleepy, and after some herbs and a nice nap he awoke to proclaim "Look dude's I'm back from the dead!!"
Jesus did not walk on water. It was cold, he walked on ice.
Jesus was in cahoots with Judas to have him betray him. The kicker being he must have also told him to kil himself-- just to make the cover up more believeable.
Pattern here?
Nah.
You would be in the extreme minority on your view. Even most secular scholars who do not believe the NT holds any divine significance agree that most all the books of the NT were written in the 1st century.
So what's the date of the earliest surviving manuscript of the canonical Gospels?
It's probably the Times font that gave it away.
"After being discovered in Egypt in the 1970s, National Geographic's manuscript was badly damaged, perhaps as a result of repeated attempts by earlier owners to sell it (sometimes at a high price, which it never fetched). As late as last February, National Geographic reports, "a missing half-page of the gospel resurfaced in New York City." This does not inspire confidence in the chain of custody or the document itself..."
There are original fragments of Paul's writings?
And it came to pass that afterwards I didst receiveth a tidy sum of 30 pieces of silver for doing my Lord's bidding. But, yea I was consumeth by guilt for not having asketh more to aideth in the production of my original screenplay: Jesus Christ Superstar and thus find myself about to steppeth off a chair with a rope around my nec
Really good heresies never go away, they just sort of recycle as part of someone's latest revelation.
ROFL!
Every year around Easter time, the MSM-Dinosaur Media hauls out some new reason why we can't trust the Bible or believe Christ was really who and what he said he was. Usually, it's trotted out in the guise of some wonderful new scholarship or historical research, and it's presented in a "stealthy" sort of way, to lure in genuinely curious Christians. The agenda is always the same - to gently demoralize and sow doubts. It's "almost" like they are working for the Enemy...
I'm no Bible expert but I think the Letters of Paul are from the 1st Century.
Has anyone noticed how the MSM always picks Christmas and Easter to release stories questioning the Gospels? I guess this is the only time they give the subject a passing thought, so it seems appropriate to them. They never stop to think that bringing this stuff up on the most important days of the religious calendar is an insult to believers.
I'm not saying they weren't written in the first century. I'm saying that the earliest copies of these texts don't themselves date to the first century.
And I don't think we have any of the originals.
I would love to be convinced otherwise.
Exactly. The fact that the the mosaic was truly 2,000 years old does not make it "true" but does make it archaeologically interesting. Imagine if 2,000 years from now archaeologists discovered the film collection of Oliver Stone and Michael Moore. I am sure it would be of interest, but not a representation of fact.
  |
That's why the First Church of Pamelatology recommends just two texts for anyone to read. They are approved and easy to acquire . . . |
There is nothing on the link you provided that exaggerates his claim at all.
all the NT documents except two absolutely date from the 1st century.
It's apparently genuinely from around 400 AD, regardless of its contents. Thus it's not "Fake but accurate", but rather genuine but innaccurate.
Rather like a thousand years from now finding a recording of the infamous "I did not have sex with that woman" speech by Clinton: It's an actual recording; Bill Clinton really said that; but the contents are of a falsehood being uttered.
The author also indicates that this includes a different spin on the story in John 13:21-30. Same basic facts, but different interpretation.
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.