Skip to comments.Scholars reveal how they scrambled to authenticate Gospel of Judas
Posted on 04/08/2013 8:06:25 PM PDT by caldera599
A long-lost gospel that casts Judas as a co-conspirator of Jesus, rather than a betrayer, was ruled most likely authentic in 2006. Now, scientists reveal they couldn't have made the call without a series of far more mundane documents, including Ancient Egyptian marriage licenses and property contracts.
The Gospel of Judas is a fragmented Coptic text, traced back to Egypt, which portrays Judas in a far more sympathetic light than did the gospels that made it into the Bible. In this version of the story, Judas turns Jesus over to the authorities for execution upon Jesus' request, as part of a plan to release his spirit from his body. In the accepted biblical version of the tale, Judas betrays Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.
As part of a 2006 National Geographic Society investigation of the document, microscopist Joseph Barabe of McCrone Associates in Illinois and a team of researchers analyzed the ink on the tattered gospel to find out if it was real or forged. Some of the chemicals in the ink raised red flags until Barabe and his colleagues found, at the Louvre Museum, a study of Egyptian documents from the third century A.D., the same time period of the Gospel of Judas.
(Excerpt) Read more at science.nbcnews.com ...
One of much trash.
It’s definitely Gnostic, as is much of the so called “lost Gospels”.
I feel like people would be far less interested if academics were blunter about what they are, forgeries and fabrications concocted often centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection.
Don Imus recently tried to use the so-called Gospel of Judas to make the blasphemous accusation that Jesus was homosexual. My first though was, “Imus is going to Hell”, but my second though was “Why would you take ANY writings by the man who betrayed Jesus as being useful?” I question the authenticity of this ‘discovery’ anyway.
If anyone wants to learn how to be a good socialist or communist, MSNBC can offer a lot of insight. But if anyone wants to become acquainted with sound biblical doctrine and the basis for what is received as scripture by the church, MSNBC has little useful to offer.
Sorry y’all ‘scholars’ — the council of Nicea has had the final word on this subject.
All you latecomers are, er....late. We definitely do not need your advice.
From Wikipedia, Pope Francis’ Education. I fear it’s going to come out in bad format.
Anyway, point is, most people, Catholics included, don’t have any idea about the scholarship of the average Cardinal or bishop.
They see “scholars say” blah blah or some stupid novelist (Dan Brown) says what ever and they buy it.
They don’t think to check credentials. And they’re raising kids - or leaving that to some leftist group of friends and teachers.
I’d say the Pope could say a final on this heretical load of trash, but what silly Oprah Catholic former coed would take his word over Oprah’s book of the month?
Bergoglio studied at the archdiocesan seminary Inmaculada Concepción in Villa Devoto, Buenos Aires City, and humanities in Santiago, Chile.
In 1960, Bergoglio obtained a licentiate in philosophy from the Colegio Máximo San José in San Miguel. In 1964 and 1965, he taught literature and psychology at the Colegio de la Inmaculada, a high school in the Province of Santa Fe, Argentina, and in 1966 he taught the same courses at the Colegio del Salvador in Buenos Aires City.
In 1967, Bergoglio finished his theological studies . . . He attended the Facultades de Filosofía y Teología de San Miguel (Philosophical and Theological Faculty of San Miguel), a seminary in San Miguel. He served as the Master of novices for the Province there and became a professor of theology
In 1980 he was named the rector of the Philosophical and Theological Faculty of San Miguel in San Miguel, and served in that capacity until 1986. He spent several months at the Sankt Georgen Graduate School of Philosophy and Theology in Frankfurt, Germany, while considering possible dissertation topics, before returning to Argentina to serve as a confessor and spiritual director to the Jesuit community in Córdoba.
He often woke up hours before his classmates so that he could celebrate Mass with Czmil.
If, 1700 years from now, an archaeologist finds a text written in Vancouver in 1985 explaining that John Wilkes Booth was a personal friend of Abraham Lincoln and that Lincoln wanted to commit suicide and hired Booth to do the job - well, they may be able to prove that it really was written in Vancouver in 1985 and is thus "auhentically" an ancient document, it still will not be an authentic account of Lincoln's life.
So what if it dates to 300? Authentic Scripture was written during the life of the Apostles, and there were hundreds, if not thousands of copies circulating. Not this rubbish.
If you were a writer of fiction in AD 200 or so, and wanted to come up with your own story, you might be inclined to create your own gospel, and put a disciple’s name on it. Especially if you had an agenda.
Gee he was helping Jesus. I guess that is why he hanged himself.
Maybe I'm looking over something, but I don't remember reading about the Gospel of Judas in my "The Bible for Dummies".
I'll recheck. <8^)
Excellent juxtaposition to this nonsense.
And there really was a lot of nonsense going on in the first few centuries after Christ, people trying to justify themselves. Someone estimated that, with all the "pieces" of the Cross of Christ available in medieval Europe, the Cross had to have been the size of a Sequoia tree.
I give the FReepers two thumbs up on this. Sure, the age of the document can be proved. It’s going to be much harder to prove the information in it.
It’s a gnostic text. It’s of genuine historical interest in that it tells you about gnostic beliefs in the third century. But for telling you anything about Jesus, the Apostles, or the real Judas, it’s historically worthless.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
how long before they tell us that Jesus and Judas were married or something?
B.S. and I don’t mean Bible Study
I watched a show on TV about this last weekend. I wasn’t convinced of anything. The “scholars” involved were out to prove Judas was a nice guy who conspired with Jesus to help get Jesus crucified. BS.
So why was Judas vilified and driven to suicide?
Judas could've repented & been forgiven, but he didn't repent and seek forgiveness. He committed suicide on his own account.
A piece of trash it is but it will produce reams of silliness about it was repressed because it reveals the “true” story.
The book sounds more like something someone under orders from Caiaphas or another High Priest would write. Remember there was an ongoing effort to discredit Christ. I haven’t read it and sure don’t intend to.
John ch 17 v 9-12 makes things clear about Judas.
I’ve always believed Judas did what was asked of him. When Jesus was asked who would betray him and He responded “The one who dips his bread when I dip mine”, all Judas had to do was not dip the bread. It’s my belief that Jesus was leaving it up to Judas as to whether or not to be known throughout eternity as a traitor.
I also believe when Jesus said “You betray the Son of Man with a kiss”, He was acknowledging that He knew Judas loved Him.
Finally, the Priests and Romans who crucified Him went to Heaven. Jesus asked that His Father forgive them. He interceded on their behalf just like He interceded on our behalf.
I don’t wish to get into heated arguments. It’s my beliefs and has been as long I’ve known the story.
Amen! And the Gospels were not written during the time of the Apostles or even by the Apostles. With the exception of John.
Why do you trust 'scholars' appointed by a Roman emperor 300 years after Christ lived to be the "final word"?
Hard to write a gospel with insides all over the ground after hanging oneself.
Every story needs a heavy. Judas refused to leave tips, so ....
It will help you understand what a small sect called the Cainites, and Gnostic Egyptians believed, but was rejected as early as 180 AD by Iraenaeus. So ‘new’ only in the sense that it surfaced in the ‘70s, a Coptic translation from Greek. It says Judas was actually Jesus’ best buddy and ratted him out at his request, it contradicts the biblical story of creation and suggests that after death we journey to some different star system.
I think Robert Heinlin wrote it, during one of his reincarnations.
If this helps, it’s all argument ad ignoratio. All of them. Believe what you want.
I believe it’s bedtime.
Why would he have to repent of something he was asked?meant to do? If God selected him for that part of Christs mission. Judas should have been welcomed in to heaven and given a hearty well done.
as an old monk explained to me long ago, Juda’s big mistake wasn’t in betraying Christ—it was in being so arrogant that he took it on himself and killed himself. She should have rushed to the cross and asked Jesus for forgiveness. Then, maybe , he would have become the greatest of all the apostles.
Scholars have proven the Gospel of Judas was written by him after his suicide.
That always puzzled me.
I haven’t looked up the passages about it, but I kind of thought that the ones who gave him the 30 pieces of silver strung him up and gutted him like a fish, because he felt horrible for his betrayal, and the silver givers didn’t want him spilling the beans so they did him in themselves. I don’t understand how one can hang and gut themselves at the same time, unless maybe they left him hanging in the hot sun for days and nature just took its toll.
As a matter of faith, I believe the Holy Spirit put the Bible together. An unsaved person might say something like "men wrote the Bible". If men wrote it, then it's not worth spit. If God wrote it, it's eternal life! I would not try to add or subtract anything.
I believe he “confessed” his sins to the Pharasees when he returned the silver By giving it back he was showing that he didn’t do it for money. He did it out of obedience to someone much higher than they.
As for committing suicide one account is he hung himself and another is that he “fell headlong into a field”.
One other point, Judas was the treasurer of the group. He would have been the one to take the money.
I also think Pilate got a back rap. He washed his hands of the whole affair. And by law he had to do what the Jews wanted.
Clearly it’s gnostic.
The article says”authenticate” but really what they’ve shown is that it’s not a RECENT fake but a 1700 year old fake.
I’ve always found it interesting that evangelicals which reject almost anything Catholics believe so strongly embrace that bible that the Catholics assembled.
Were someone, today to pretend to author the autobiography of their great, great, great, great, great grandfather would these same experts not be just a little bit skeptical?
Gnosticism. Their belief that the soul of each of us is pure but trapped in a body which is inherently corrupt and hateful, sinful by it's very nature. Of course God would not create a corrupt world so Gnostics felt there was some other godlike entity that really created earth. In other words, they felt there were essentially two gods, not one. Furthermore Gnostics generally denied the humanity of Christ because divinity would not allow itself to coexist within a corrupt body (i.e. to live within the world created by that "other" god). So he was purely spiritual and his body was just an illusion; consequently, they say, Jesus never really died for us because he was never really alive in human form. This was heresy of the highest sort in the eyes of the early Catholic Church. Dual gods and Jesus was never resurrected? There's no way to fit that into the orthodox christian theology and they aggressively stamped out Gnostic heresies which found homes even up to the middle ages with the Cathars in France.
Now if you have an axe to grind against the Catholic Church it's fashionable to point to that "persecution" as unjust, and as evidence that the church was trying to usurp the "true" faith. They never say "the truth is that there are two gods, one good and one evil and the evil one made earth and all of our bodies so the good one came to earth in spiritual form pretending to be human and just pretended to die" because most people would say "wait, what? dude, that's not christian". And that's not good for book sales.
It’s the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ effect.
And you claim that you should have the final word? Please go have at it.
The Catholic Church has only one Pope and we accept him as our leader in faith and morals. The Protestant churches seem to have many popes and are creating more every day.
Note: this topic was posted 04/08/2013. Thanks caldera599.