Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Gospel of Judas' Called An Authentic Fabrication
The New York Sun ^ | April 7, 2006 | BRUCE CHILTON

Posted on 04/07/2006 6:38:55 AM PDT by presidio9

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151 next last
To: lepton
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.

No. More like find a copy of the CBS national guard memos 1000 years from now.

Judas never wrote that stuff. As someone else pointed out here, he hung himself before he had time to write a "gospel".

51 posted on 04/07/2006 7:34:44 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Not in the slightest.

First, the website you link to constitutes one man's opinion - and his opinion is definitely toward the anti-orthodox extreme. His use of evidence almost overwhelmingly cites Jesus Seminar associates and supporters - many of whom have never done professional work and who in total comprise less than one-tenth of one percent of NT scholars.

Second, even he admits that 22 of the 27 NT documents fall within a 1st century range of composition.

I'll also point out that the more work that is done, the earlier the dates seem to get - 30 years ago a significant minority of NT scholars dated Revelation to after 110 - now almost no one dates it later than 96.

Most of the arguments against the pastorals' 1st century provenance are based on the assumption that the Church had no hierarchy by the end of the 1st century - but research continues to confirm that the Church was well-organized from early on. Which makes good historic sense, since local synagogues indubitably had highly articulated structures of responsibility.

52 posted on 04/07/2006 7:34:53 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Angus MacGregor

The only canonical NT works that are unequivocally first century are some of the epistles, Matthew, Mark, and the Apocalypse of John. In contrast 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Peter are unequivocally second century.


53 posted on 04/07/2006 7:37:36 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Let me remind you what you wrote 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.

Whether or not you agree with the voluminous work referenced on the Early Christian Writings site, its existence clearly contradicts what you wrote.

54 posted on 04/07/2006 7:39:49 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
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

The more you study science - especially biology and dating methods - the more you realize that a great deal of it is science fiction and assumption...the primary assumption being "God, as portrayed and defined by orthodox Christianity, does not exist."
55 posted on 04/07/2006 7:41:56 AM PDT by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WKB

//'Gospel of Judas' Called An Authentic Fabrication//

I think we might have a DanRathersm in there somewhere.

W.


56 posted on 04/07/2006 7:42:20 AM PDT by RunningWolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

"So what's the date of the earliest surviving manuscript of the canonical Gospels?"

Most believe he oldest "new testament" writings are those by Peter (his letters), which are obvious near-contemporaneous writings, given Peter's well-documented (by Christian and non-Christian sources) execution by Rome not too long after Jesus.

Peter's letters clearly state, or require as knowledge to make sense, many or most of the accounts found in the gospel --- most notably the death and resurrection of Jesus.

In sum, my somewhat non-answer to your question is the gospels-written-long-after dispute is a bit of a red herring.


57 posted on 04/07/2006 7:42:43 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss
In the interests of truth in advertising, don't you think that it's time that Pamela Anderson replaced the images on these two texts?

Maybe with something like this:


58 posted on 04/07/2006 7:45:27 AM PDT by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Armando Guerra

As I understand it, the Gnostic spiritual movement predates Christ. Jesus just gave them a more current vehicle to spread their word. They didn't acknowledge the human flesh quality of Jesus. The Orthodoxy at that time felt that belief short circuited their teachings especially about the Eucharist.


59 posted on 04/07/2006 7:46:06 AM PDT by oyez (Appeasement is insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
In sum, my somewhat non-answer to your question is the gospels-written-long-after dispute is a bit of a red herring.

The point is that if the date of the 'Judas' manuscript is being raised, as it was, one should also point out that except for a few fragments, the canonical manuscripts date no earlier than the fourth century. And while Judas is younger than most of the canonical NT, it may well be within the range of the later books.

I do agree news coverage has been superficial and somewhat tendentious, and that this m/s is nothing new to anyone familiar with the gnostic gospels and other works.

60 posted on 04/07/2006 7:47:11 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

From another forum:

Around 180 A.D., Irenaeus of Lyon, in 'Against the Heretics,' I,31,1, warned about an apocryphal 'gospel of Judas' which was then circulating. Later, Epiphanius and a pseudo-Tertullian spoke of it.

According to these sources, the apocryphal gospel of Judas was a Greek text of Gnostic origin, written by the Cainites' sect, in the middle of the second century.

The Gnostic sect of the Caininites attributed a positive value to all the negative figures of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, such as the tempter serpent, Cain (where Caininites get their name )-- Esau and Judas.


61 posted on 04/07/2006 7:48:40 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

Comment #62 Removed by Moderator

To: Right Wing Professor

See also post 61.


63 posted on 04/07/2006 7:49:22 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
We even have one Gospel of Jesus written this century, by one Anne Rice, agnostic vampire chronicler, some credentials.
64 posted on 04/07/2006 7:49:49 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
clearly contradicts what you wrote

Not in the way you're claiming.

While it is true that people who have done intensive work on the NT some time in the past (Bultmann, etc.) have disputed these dates - serious contemporary scholarship no longer accepts that late-dating system.

Additionally, the contemporary scholars who gravitate toward the today's later date ranges (which are substantially earlier than the later dates assigned a generation ago) generally admit that the core document dates from the 1st century and that they are only arguing that the present text was later emended, not that it was composed from scratch in the 2nd century.

For example, someone who dates the Gospel of Luke to 130 will concede that 90% of Luke or more dates to the 1st century and that they are only arguing that certain short passages date to 130.

No contemporary scholar of any reputation claims that more than 3-5% of the canonical NT text dates from after 100 AD.

65 posted on 04/07/2006 7:49:52 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
As someone else pointed out here, he hung himself before he had time to write a "gospel".

He killed himself in a different fashion in Acts 1:18. But your point is still well taken.

Nobody believes that the disciple Matthew wrote the gospel of his name, either.

66 posted on 04/07/2006 7:50:38 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
How could Judas have written a Gospel when by all accounts he hung himself shortly after the crucifixion. It should be noted that this Gospel was known to the early church fathers and was considered to be heretical because of its Gnostic view i.e., the Gnostics did not view Christ as a human figure. Judas is presumed to be the agent by which Christ is freed from his earthly form in order to return to his father thus dieing and resurrecting to prove the truth of his message.The original Judas gospel was written in Greek and then translated to Coptic the language of ancient Egypt. It is likely that the Greeks put the Gnostic spin to the Gospel. Important point is that by all the evidence thats out there this Gospel is false. It is interesting how the MSM highlights this anti-christian view. It is like the belief that the Da Vinci code is factual when it is in fact fictional. Strange how the Muslim faith is not subject to all of this media distortion and effort to discredit traditional Christianity.
67 posted on 04/07/2006 7:50:56 AM PDT by Courdeleon02
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

A legitimate comparison.

Of course, this is from someone (me) that accepted the truth of gospels according to the Watergate principle.


68 posted on 04/07/2006 7:52:54 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I read this story in this morning's paper, and it seems to be an item of historical interest, but not necessarily historical significance.

The article I read said that it appeared to be a hand-written copy of "an original", and may be of more use as a tool for decyphering ancient Coptic, but there was nothing about this document redefining, confirming, or disproving anything in the Holy Gospels.

Move along....


69 posted on 04/07/2006 7:54:54 AM PDT by Bean Counter (Hope Springs Eternal...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Sad thing is -- Couric probably doesn't understand that.

I'm not sure she is capable of understanding that.


70 posted on 04/07/2006 7:55:41 AM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; MeanWestTexan
Judas is younger than most of the canonical NT, it may well be within the range of the later books.

That's a pipe dream.

Even your source admits that the Passion Narrative of the canonical Gospels dates from 30-60 AD and that narrative account gives the lie to this Judas text.

The very first mention of the Judas text is from 180 AD. That's a 100 year differential at best, if we assume that Irenaeus was not responding to a very current cult.

71 posted on 04/07/2006 7:57:55 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: joylyn
They never stop to think that bringing this stuff up on the most important days of the religious calendar is an insult to believers.

Bingo. If we were Muslims, we'd be screaming in the streets for heads to roll, literally. But, by God's grace, Christians don't need or want to react that way. Praying for those who persecute us is more our style.

72 posted on 04/07/2006 7:58:30 AM PDT by LikeLight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"Authentic fabrication"

:-)

Where can I buy a copy?

73 posted on 04/07/2006 7:59:58 AM PDT by manwiththehands (I will remember in November.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
No contemporary scholar of any reputation claims that more than 3-5% of the canonical NT text dates from after 100 AD.

Do you claim the pastoral epistles date to the first century?

74 posted on 04/07/2006 8:00:07 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Nobody believes that the disciple Matthew wrote the gospel of his name, either.

If you're saying that few people believe that Matthew actually sat down and physically wrote out the text of Matthew in Greek, then sure.

But there is no reason to doubt that the Gospel of Matthew was originally composed by amanuenses of the disciple Matthew.

75 posted on 04/07/2006 8:01:40 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The very first mention of the Judas text is from 180 AD.

Indicating it existed well before 180, since Ireneaus was inveighing against a text which had some currency among the Gnostics.

76 posted on 04/07/2006 8:02:26 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Bean Counter

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.


77 posted on 04/07/2006 8:03:23 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Yep.

I recently read Anne Rice's "Christ the Lord," and while the eminent novelist is not herself a biblical scholar, in the afterward she details her extensive research - which supports your post. I'm reading NT Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God" right now...


78 posted on 04/07/2006 8:03:38 AM PDT by karnage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

My point is, regardless of date, the simple fact that this is a known writing from a known Gnostic Cainites' sect --- who thought the tempter serpent was good guy --- completely discredits this fake "gospel."

An old lie is still a lie.


79 posted on 04/07/2006 8:04:09 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib

Sounds like Scientology, doesn't it? New Age = Old Lies.


80 posted on 04/07/2006 8:04:20 AM PDT by 50sDad (ST3d: Real Star Trek 3d Chess: http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~abartmes/tactical.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

There was a funny interview yesterday with a "Church spokesman." The reporter breathlessly asked if the Church was "suppressing" the Gnostic "gospels" out of "fear" that they would "undermine" the faith. The priest answered: "Not really. You can buy them in any Catholic bookstore."

heh heh heh


81 posted on 04/07/2006 8:05:42 AM PDT by karnage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Do you claim the pastoral epistles date to the first century?

Absolutely. The evidence against their 1st century provenance is extremely tenuous, consisting of quibbles over vocabulary, the perceived "tone" of the letter and circular reasoning - i.e. "They must have been written later because my preconceived timeline of Paul's career excludes them from being written earlier, and my timeline of Paul's career is based on my assumptions about the dating of the Pauline corpus."

The historical argument that the community addressed is too "organized" to be a 1st century community is easily refuted, as I pointed out earlier.

82 posted on 04/07/2006 8:07:49 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
The Real Judas
83 posted on 04/07/2006 8:09:57 AM PDT by joesnuffy (This 'Guest Worker Program' Is To Border Security as 'Campaign Finance Reform' Is To Free Speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
In contrast 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Peter are unequivocally second century.

This does not support your accusation of "gross exaggeration."

84 posted on 04/07/2006 8:11:06 AM PDT by presidio9 ("Bird Flu" is the new Y2K virus -only without the inconvenient deadline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

I think you are referring to Ms. Rice's current bestseller, "Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt." Ms. Rice has undergone a profound conversion experience, returning to the Catholic faith of her youth. Her Afterward in the novel chronicles her journey to Christ. It's quite inspiring.


85 posted on 04/07/2006 8:11:23 AM PDT by karnage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
Precisely - it was recognized as a fabrication more than 17 centuries ago by a guy who was instructed by Polycarp who in turn was instructed by John the Apostle.

No contemporary scholar is closer to the situation than Irenaeus was.

86 posted on 04/07/2006 8:11:28 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

No, real but inaccurate. Just more gnostic BS.


87 posted on 04/07/2006 8:12:24 AM PDT by stop_fascism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Indicating it existed well before 180, since Ireneaus was inveighing against a text which had some currency among the Gnostics.

There is no indication it existed "well before" - since we know from external sources that many of Irenaeus' criticisms in the Adversus Haereses were directed at newly-minted groups as well as older ones.

For all we know the Cainites were just as likely the hot new cult on the scene.

88 posted on 04/07/2006 8:17:15 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

While we are on the subject of "fake but accurate" Bill Berkett has a bull for sale.

We're looking for one, my husband came across this on the interent. Bill Burkett in Baird TX. Didn't want to take the chance that he had forged the register papers.


89 posted on 04/07/2006 8:17:36 AM PDT by Conservative Texan Mom (Some people say I'm stubborn, when it's usually just that I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; Angus MacGregor; presidio9
The only canonical NT works that are unequivocally first century are some of the epistles, Matthew, Mark, and the Apocalypse of John.

Add Acts and Luke to that list, which you have no good reason not to, and you have roughly 88% of the NT right there.

90 posted on 04/07/2006 8:20:52 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Just witness how enthralled the idiot press and those who follow them are, still, over The DaVinci Codes.

Dontcha know that any book that sells 40 million copies turns into non-fiction ?

Perception is 90% of reality...


BUMP

91 posted on 04/07/2006 8:24:45 AM PDT by capitalist229 (Keep Democrats out of our pockets and Republicans out of our bedrooms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; Right Wing Professor
By 100 AD all of the New Testament that we have today had been written.
92 posted on 04/07/2006 8:25:42 AM PDT by Angus MacGregor (Wars are fought in the will...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: 7evens

bttt


93 posted on 04/07/2006 8:29:52 AM PDT by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Is this the Gospel where Jesus warns against global warming, and denounces Bush?


94 posted on 04/07/2006 8:31:26 AM PDT by Jim Noble (And you know what I'm talkin' 'bout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angus MacGregor
I agree with that assessment.

The case for dating any document later than 100 AD is predicated on debates over vocabulary, the exactly nuanced meaning of words in certain contexts, etc.

There is not one piece of hard evidence to the contrary.

95 posted on 04/07/2006 8:31:52 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Angus MacGregor; Right Wing Professor
Hmmmm.....seems to me Judas didn't have a lot of time time pen his gospel after betraying Jesus.
96 posted on 04/07/2006 8:40:46 AM PDT by BIGLOOK (Order of Battle: Sink or capture as Prize, MS Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Fake but accurate?

It's written in proportional Coptic - they didn't have the ability to do that back then!

97 posted on 04/07/2006 8:43:09 AM PDT by Mannaggia l'America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
"Jesus wanted me to betray him"

Sounds like something Judas would say.

98 posted on 04/07/2006 8:48:14 AM PDT by sportutegrl (People who say, "All I know is . . ." really mean, "All I want you to focus on is . . .")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone; 7evens

"Nobody believes that the disciple Matthew wrote the gospel of his name, either." ~ Dog Gone

Being dubious about the "written directly" claims is one thing, but when some of them question the "authorship" of the canonical gospels, that's where they go off the deep end.

"With these general considerations http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html , we now offer these mini-essays on each Gospel."

Matthew http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.html

Mark http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/markdef.html

Luke http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/lukedef.html

John http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.html


99 posted on 04/07/2006 8:53:30 AM PDT by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ejroth

I agree, that this truly is a tempest in a teapot. There have always been gnostic gospels and I've been amazed at recently so many fiction writer have been doing mysteries that "seek to twist and claify Christian values". The Da Vinci Code--everyone knows is fiction, but what does it do to belief systems. Dave Barry's The Third Secret does a smiliar thing that attacks the Catholic Church's belief that priests cannot marry. I just call tomes like these Today's Gnostics. I read some of these gnostic texts years ago. My favorite one to snicker about was the one where it was purported Judas and Jesus played together as children in Egypt. There's also a Gnostic gospel devoted to Mary Magdalene. Take it with a grain of salt.


100 posted on 04/07/2006 9:08:14 AM PDT by Ptaz (Take Personal Responsibility--it's not fun, but it's the right thing to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson