NationStates Jolt Archive

What are the implications of a new gospel? For starters, Judas may have just been doing the bidding of Jesus when he turned him in. It makes the other disciples look a little jealous. But what else?
http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/

The Gospel of Judas gives a different view of the relationship between Jesus and Judas, offering new insights into the disciple who betrayed Jesus. Unlike the accounts in the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in which Judas is portrayed as a reviled traitor, this newly discovered Gospel portrays Judas as acting at Jesus' request when he hands Jesus over to the authorities.

3rd thread so far...

From what I've seen it's a very gnostic gospel.

Much as I agree that Judas was not th foul traitor he is made out to be I think it goes too far the other way.

What are the implications of a new gospel? For starters, Judas may have just been doing the bidding of Jesus when he turned him in. It makes the other disciples look a little jealous. But what else?
http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/

Actually, this has been the view of some biblical scholars have believed for years. The reason why is that the original term used wasn't "betray", it was more like "turn over", which led some to believe that Jesus had Judas turn him in.

Sorry, they must fade out pretty quickly. I looked back several pages without seeing anything.

What exactly do you mean by "authentic?"

What exactly do you mean by "authentic?"
It has, I believe, been confirmed to be from the appropriate time period. In other words, it is authentically old.

What exactly do you mean by "authentic?"

I believe that there was some concern initially that it could have been a modern fake.

Personally, I don't see the big deal. Apparently there are tonnes of early gospels that are at variance with the canonical view. I suppose however it's important if you are involved with the religion.

I tend to view the whole thing a bit like those star trek debates, where people argue about what consitutes "real" star trek lore.

What exactly do you mean by "authentic?"

The National Geographic Society were the ones who had it restored and checked it out. Mind you, they don't just publish the magazine, they finance alot a expeditions... like the search for the Titantic... funded by the NGS. Byrd's flight over the South Pole... also funded.

It's ironic, I was looking at their website last night because I was satire/parody/tribute/knockoff for my nation based off some magazine I saw in a game and they mentioned that Gospel. I didn't it was gonna become a big thing today.

But the questions remains.. will it remain Apocrypha or could it become part of the Bible. I never seen an uproar over this.

Dammit people, This means that any band name with the term Judas in it no longer is dark and evil. Can't you see what this will do to the metal world?

It has, I believe, been confirmed to be from the appropriate time period. In other words, it is authentically old.
That's what I figured. It's on my mind because I'm reading Misquoting Jesus right now, so the idea of anything from that time period being authentic as though it were an original text or even an accurate copy of an original text is mind-boggling to me.

That's what I figured. It's on my mind because I'm reading Misquoting Jesus right now, so the idea of anything from that time period being authentic as though it were an original text or even an accurate copy of an original text is mind-boggling to me.
Keep in mind, though, that we're dealing with a population of True Believers who have no trouble with the idea that an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful Creator Being was unable to come up with a better solution to sin than "Here, torture my son to death!"

Accuracy of documentation really isn't on the radar for most of these folks.

Dammit people, This means that any band name with the term Judas in it no longer is dark and evil. Can't you see what this will do to the metal world?

Definitely takes all the fun out of Judas Priest's!

When you get a chance, take a look at the comments from readers at the NG website. Amazing how many people see everything in black and white. You'd think that after 37 years, I'd be used to that.

Keep in mind, though, that we're dealing with a population of True Believers who have no trouble with the idea that an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful Creator Being was unable to come up with a better solution to sin than "Here, torture my son to death!"

Accuracy of documentation really isn't on the radar for most of these folks.
Oh, I know. Twelve years ago, I was one of them. My parents still are.

That's what I figured. It's on my mind because I'm reading Misquoting Jesus right now...

D'oH!

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-bart.html

If the gospels turn out to be true, then it certainly would play well with the theory that Jesus and Pontius Pilate arranged for The Messiah to pull an Elvis during the Crucifixtion.

The Bible is starting to read more like a Ludlum novel now.

Dammit people, This means that any band name with the term Judas in it no longer is dark and evil. Can't you see what this will do to the metal world?

If they're music is any good, they have nothing to worry about. Of course, if their renown hinges on their image rather than quality, that's their own fault.

D'oH!

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-bart.html
Sorry, but those objections don't hold water with the basic premise of the book which is this--there is no definitive New Testament. And that premise holds, even in spite of the reviewer's attempts to obfuscate it. And if there is no definitive New Testament, then any attempt to build a religion based on a "true text" is doomed to fail. It doesn't matter whether the passages Ehrman discusses the textual variants of are quotes directly from Jesus--what matters is that there are variants in the first place, and the reasons why those variations were inserted.

Sorry, but those objections don't hold water with the basic premise of the book which is this--there is no definitive New Testament. And that premise holds, even in spite of the reviewer's attempts to obfuscate it. And if there is no definitive New Testament, then any attempt to build a religion based on a "true text" is doomed to fail. It doesn't matter whether the passages Ehrman discusses the textual variants of are quotes directly from Jesus--what matters is that there are variants in the first place, and the reasons why those variations were inserted.

I'll let Ben Witherington defend himself before I take up his cause:

,here's a news bulletin.

It is absolutely false that we do not have any documents or parts of documents of the NT from before 430 A.D. This is a huge error. In fact we have papyri that go back to the second century, at a time when there were some around who knew the original second generation disciples of the apostles. For example we have a papyrus that contains John 18 from 125 A.D. We also have a papryus that has Acts 8 from the same century. There are many more from the third century. So, unfortunately it is a lie to say that we have no documents that date before 400 years after the time of Jesus. This is not even close to being correct.

And if you actually study the practices of ancient, not modern scribes, you will discover they are mostly not like copy editors at all. They are very conservative and stick to copying things verbatim as they were taught. This is all the more so when they thought they were copying a sacred text with words from God on it. They mostly labor away letter by letter copying things, unless they find something that can't clearly understand.

...And if you actually study the practices of ancient, not modern scribes, you will discover they are mostly not like copy editors at all. They are very conservative and stick to copying things verbatim as they were taught...

And the never, ever made a mistake, eh?

I'll let Ben Witherington defend himself before I take up his cause:

,here's a news bulletin.

It is absolutely false that we do not have any documents or parts of documents of the NT from before 430 A.D. This is a huge error. In fact we have papyri that go back to the second century, at a time when there were some around who knew the original second generation disciples of the apostles. For example we have a papyrus that contains John 18 from 125 A.D. We also have a papryus that has Acts 8 from the same century. There are many more from the third century. So, unfortunately it is a lie to say that we have no documents that date before 400 years after the time of Jesus. This is not even close to being correct.

And if you actually study the practices of ancient, not modern scribes, you will discover they are mostly not like copy editors at all. They are very conservative and stick to copying things verbatim as they were taught. This is all the more so when they thought they were copying a sacred text with words from God on it. They mostly labor away letter by letter copying things, unless they find something that can't clearly understand.
Ummm--Ehrman's book makes no such claim that there are no documents from before 430 AD. In fact, he mentions second and third century documents a number of times.

Ummm--Ehrman's book makes no such claim that there are no documents from before 430 AD. In fact, he mentions second and third century documents a number of times.

I'm sorry, I thought that was your claim of the book’s premise holding true... that there was no definitive NT to base a religion on. What then do you mean by the description, “Definitive NT?”

I'm sorry, I thought that was your claim of the book’s premise holding true... that there was no definitive NT to base a religion on. What then do you mean by the description, “Definitive NT?”
Well, simply that there are textual differences between even the oldest manuscripts of the books of what has been codified as the New Testament, and that they're more than simply spelling differences. There's also the fact that what is now known as the New Testament wasn't codified until the middle of the 4th century, and that the early church was as schismatic as Christianity is today, if not more so.

What Nazz said.

Also, there have been a lot of books left out of the NT because they did not comply with the "canon"

It only further entrenches a point already clear - that the only legitimate basis for assuming the truth of the official Gospels is taking it on faith that their writers were divinely inspired.

did y'all go to the national geographic page?

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/gospelofjudas/gallery_codex_gospel_judas_before_restoration.html

has a picture of what the thing looked like before they started work on it. its an enormous job.

its not that this gospel was unknown, there just hasnt been a copy of it found until now.

i took this quote from www.earlychristianwritings.com

H.-C. Puech and Beate Blatz write (New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1, p. 387):


Dating: the Gospel of Judas was of course composed before 180, the date at which it is mentioned for the first time by Irenaeus in adv. Haer. If it is in fact a Cainite work, and if this sect - assuming it was an independent gnostic group - was constituted in part, as has sometimes been asserted, in dependence on the doctrine of Marcion, the apocryphon can scarcely have been composed before the middle of the 2nd century. This would, however, be to build on weak arguments. At most we may be inclined to suspect a date between 130 and 170 or thereabouts.


so its a pretty late writing. its not known WHO wrote it or really when it was written. its probably from the purged gnostic branch of the church.

it will be an interesting thing to read through perhaps a picture into a branch of christianity that we have too little information on.

so its a pretty late writing. its not known WHO wrote it or really when it was written. its probably from the purged gnostic branch of the church.

Not too late. I think it still predates two of the gospels. Maybe one.

The more interesting question is: does this document lend any credence to the belief that Jesus actually existed?