The Gospel of Judas?

scribble · 6th April 2006, 12:12 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/sc...rtner=homepage

Quote:

An early Christian manuscript, including the only known text of what is known as the Gospel of Judas, has surfaced after 1,700 years. The text gives new insights into the relationship of Jesus and the disciple who betrayed him, scholars reported today. In this version, Jesus asked Judas, as a close friend, to sell him out to the authorities, telling Judas he will "exceed" the other disciples by doing so.

Nothing to add that most of you wouldn't find blindingly obvious.

UndercoverElephant · 6th April 2006, 12:26 PM

This is actually quite interesting. Christian thought before 315 CE was far more diverse than most modern-day Christians realise. By the time the contents of the Bible were decided upon it had already gone through a series of changes and branches, most of which were swiftly curtailed by the conference of Nicea, when all of the gnostic texts were eliminated from the Christian canon.

MWare · 6th April 2006, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by JustGeoff

This is actually quite interesting. Christian thought before 315 CE was far more diverse than most modern-day Christians realise. By the time the contents of the Bible were decided upon it had already gone through a series of changes and branches, most of which were swiftly curtailed by the conference of Nicea, when all of the gnostic texts were eliminated from the Christian canon.

The Catholic Church
proudly suppressing dissent for over 2000 years!!!

UndercoverElephant · 6th April 2006, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by MWare

The Catholic Church
proudly suppressing dissent for over 2000 years!!!

Well, strictly speaking (it was 325CE BTW, not 315CE) it's only been 1681 years.

Dr Adequate · 6th April 2006, 12:59 PM

Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha

Gospels of Matthias, Barnabas, James, Peter, Thomas, Bartholomaeus, and Nicodemus ... it only wanted Judas to complete the set.

Not to mention the Revelations of Peter, Paul, Sthephen and Thomas, or the Acts of Andrew, Thomas, Peter, Philip, Barnabas, Thaddaeus, Paul, John.

And I'm not even listing the ones which are obviously Gnostic.

We have to conclude that if it wasn't for the Third Synod of Carthage you'd need a wheelbarrow to hump the Bible about in.

jimmygun · 6th April 2006, 10:42 PM

Is it too soon to speculate that the 'new found text' be placed in the stone bone box of JC's brother Jimmy along with the Hitler diaries and the Howard Hughes wills?

clarsct · 6th April 2006, 11:10 PM

Hmmmmm.

I've always wondered about the apocrypha. I've always wanted more viewpoints on the story.

I guess it's a skeptic thing.

Dr Adequate · 7th April 2006, 01:56 AM

I'm doing a set of SkepticWiki articles on how the Bible was edited ... watch this space.

bobdroege7 · 7th April 2006, 03:29 AM

sllight derail, has anyone published a best guess as what was in "Q"?

Kiless · 7th April 2006, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

We have to conclude that if it wasn't for the Third Synod of Carthage you'd need a wheelbarrow to hump the Bible about in.

Currently watching the news - Dr Timothy Tull from the Uni of Arizona says it's real after doing some carbon dating (it appears, the news is zipping through talking heads on the topic). Prof. Elaine Pagels, 'gospels scholar' is quite excited too.

666 says - 'If there was a god, you'd think he'd not bother with a wheelbarrow for all the chapters; at least come up with some good digital storage device - And Moses came down from down from the mountain, saying "I have some early form of silicon technology. Does anyone have a CD Rom Drive? A dongly thing? Come on!!"

UndercoverElephant · 7th April 2006, 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

sllight derail, has anyone published a best guess as what was in "Q"?

YES.

http://www.cygnus-study.com/pageq.html

a_unique_person · 7th April 2006, 04:16 AM

Is there any gospel that has a snowballs chance in hell of portrayin anything vaguely accurate about Jesus? I am now at the stage that Jesus Christ Superstar appears to be the most reasonable representation of his life, and if that involves anything to do with ALW*, then I am in serious trouble.

Man is charismatic, believes the BS it all involves, and goes nuts. That happens all the time, which is why it is believable.

The gnostic BS is just that. Thanks for the link, Adequate, at least the 'accepted' gospels seem to have the vaguest foundation in some sort of fact, but the gnostic gospels have Jesus as a baby telling everyone he is the son of god. The Greek myths are more believable than that.

* Andrew Lloyd Weber

Kiless · 7th April 2006, 04:20 AM

Just saw ABC news. They interviewed an incensed Greek priest, read out a statement from the Vatican and popped in a talking head from a university theological teacher - all say it'll have little to no effect and is 'dangerous' (Catholic church) and 'won't be incorporated' (theological teacher). Waste of time, it appears. I'd have to read around more though, not just news reports.

Bikewer · 7th April 2006, 04:50 AM

An excellent book on the diversity of early Christianity is Lost Christianities:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019...Fencoding=UTF8

The author goes into great detail on the process whereby some 127 known "gospels" were winnowed down to a mere four.

Darat · 7th April 2006, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

I'm doing a set of SkepticWiki articles on how the Bible was edited ... watch this space.

I'll watch the SkepticWiki for that. Are you going to try and address the whole picture so to speak e.g. the political and social issues that also influenced the decisions as well as the "merely" religious issues?

UrsulaV · 7th April 2006, 08:12 AM

I always figured that the early Christian writings mostly amounted to Jesus fanfic, and at some point, the early church got together and started saying "Jesus/Judas is totally not canon!" and throwing it out.

Human nature being what it is, if some day they find an ancient gospel where Jesus turns into a teenage girl with a telepathic pet unicorn, I will not be in the least surprised...

ceo_esq · 7th April 2006, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by JustGeoff

This is actually quite interesting. Christian thought before 315 CE was far more diverse than most modern-day Christians realise. By the time the contents of the Bible were decided upon it had already gone through a series of changes and branches, most of which were swiftly curtailed by the conference of Nicea, when all of the gnostic texts were eliminated from the Christian canon.

I don't think it's accurate to suggest that the Council of Nicaea "eliminated" texts from the canon. As I've written elsewhere, insofar as the scriptural canon is concerned, the outcome of the Council did not determine post-Nicene orthodoxy so much as pre-Nicene orthodoxy determined the outcome of the Council.

Correa Neto · 7th April 2006, 01:25 PM

How long untill some backyard or garage preacher says its a sign of the end of times, when a false church will rise, everyone will attend to it, receive the mark of the beast and blah blah blah blah blah blah?

FFed · 7th April 2006, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

How long untill some backyard or garage preacher says its a sign of the end of times, when a false church will rise, everyone will attend to it, receive the mark of the beast and blah blah blah blah blah blah?

When's Jack Van Impe on? Everything is a sign of the end of times to that fool.

Huntster · 8th April 2006, 02:04 AM

Originally Posted by jimmygun

Is it too soon to speculate that the 'new found text' be placed in the stone bone box of JC's brother Jimmy along with the Hitler diaries and the Howard Hughes wills?

Yes, it is.

Huntster · 8th April 2006, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Is there any gospel that has a snowballs chance in hell of portrayin anything vaguely accurate about Jesus?...

Yup.

Consider the four in current liturgy.

They haven't changed for nearly 1,700 years.

Quote:

... I am now at the stage that Jesus Christ Superstar appears to be the most reasonable representation of his life, and if that involves anything to do with ALW*, then I am in serious trouble....

Your troubles are not much of a concern to the rest of us.

Quote:

...Man is charismatic, believes the BS it all involves, and goes nuts. That happens all the time, which is why it is believable...

Speak for yourself, please.

Quote:

...The gnostic BS is just that. Thanks for the link, Adequate, at least the 'accepted' gospels seem to have the vaguest foundation in some sort of fact, but the gnostic gospels have Jesus as a baby telling everyone he is the son of god. The Greek myths are more believable than that....

Do you worship Mt. Olympus?

Huntster · 8th April 2006, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

How long untill some backyard or garage preacher says its a sign of the end of times, when a false church will rise, everyone will attend to it, receive the mark of the beast and blah blah blah blah blah blah?

It has already happened.

But, then, you knew that, didn't you?

That's why you blah, blah, blah.................

clarsct · 8th April 2006, 02:17 AM

SO, what IS your viewpoint, Huntster?

You do a vague job of shredding other folks' point of view but offer nothing to the discussion. Is it possible that there are kernels of truth in the apocrypha?

I am asking honestly.

yanit · 8th April 2006, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Is there any gospel that has a snowballs chance in hell of portrayin anything vaguely accurate about Jesus? I am now at the stage that Jesus Christ Superstar appears to be the most reasonable representation of his life, and if that involves anything to do with ALW*, then I am in serious trouble.

* Andrew Lloyd Weber

Bad news, mate; Jesus Christ Superstar was one of ALW's earliest efforts, circa 1970.

Take heart, though; I too like the portrayal of both Jesus and Judas as reluctant and unwilling pawns in the great plan.

Correa Neto · 8th April 2006, 06:43 AM

Judas and the pharaoh from the Exodus are two key characters from the Bible that show how unfair and tyrannical is the semitic God. They are actually anti-heroes, puppets, unjusticed, the guys who did God's dirty work.

Theologists, priests, preachers et al. as far as I know fail to provide a resonable explanation for why they should be seen as evil and worthy of punishment. Some loose incoherent babble on "free will"? Oh please...

No wonder Lucifer rebelled...

Huntster · 10th April 2006, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by clarsct

SO, what IS your viewpoint, Huntster?.....

One of (nearly) complete distrust.

Quote:

...You do a vague job of shredding other folks' point of view but offer nothing to the discussion. Is it possible that there are kernels of truth in the apocrypha?....

Yes, it is possible.

It is also possible that there are not "kernels of truth" in the apocrypha.

At this point, I'll settle for how the Council of Nicea ruled.

Darat · 10th April 2006, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster

One of (nearly) complete distrust.

Yes, it is possible.

It is also possible that there are not "kernels of truth" in the apocrypha.

At this point, I'll settle for how the Council of Nicea ruled.

So you are a Roman Catholic? (If it's not a personal question to you.)

Huntster · 10th April 2006, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

So you are a Roman Catholic? (If it's not a personal question to you.)

Yes.

kuroyume0161 · 10th April 2006, 05:37 PM

And what were Irenaeus' amazingly logical reasons for there to be four gospels? Not three. Never two. Just say no to one or five.

And might I add that the Gospel of Judas hasn't changed in nearly 1800 years. Might I also add that the canonical gospels have indeed changed since then. They have been copied with errors, had slight alterations, insertions, bad interpretations that have caused them to change all the way up to the present. I suggest reading "Misquoting Jesus", Brother Huntster.

kuroyume0161 · 10th April 2006, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster

So?

So, you implied that the four canonical gospels have remained somehow pristine for 1700 years. You are incorrect (see below).

The Gospel of Judas is 'pristine' (as pristine as we can get for a document from between 295 and 315 C.E. whose original introduction are sketchy at best - the earliest mention being in 180 C.E. by Irenaeus). Since this document dates to an early time period and it has been lost since then, it could not have changed by any means since then. The only 'change' is that deterioration has robbed us of the gospel in its entirety.

Quote:

Again, so?

Would you expect anything else from a document that has been reprinted in countless languages so many times for so long?

Ummm, I was talking about the early days when the transcription was done either by 'stand-in' copyists or a little later by slightly more accomplished copyists - as far back as the 1st century when christianity was a diverse set of cults just spreading around the Mediterranean.

One, most of the books of the NT have no originals from which we can guarantee the original text (and whether or not the copyists had anything close to the originals is highly disputed).

Two, it is well known that the texts that were in circulation were copied imprecisely a lot (that's many many times - you can't count that on two hands, even including toes). These imprecise copies were circulating for hundreds of years, being recopied and recirculated, and, yes, sometimes being translated into different languages of the region. The permutation of how much could have changed is not good for the text that you read (even if you can read the most original transcriptions that exist for them) to be the text that was originally written.

Three, we are also aware that omissions, insertions, changes of meaning, and a myriad other purposeful (but sometimes mistaken) edits were made to these documents over the several hundred years before and after they were canonized and put together in the official bible. For the most part, these existed in only several languages, mainly Greek or Coptic - eventually all were transcribed into Latin. So, your idea of all of those language translations is partially a coptic out (bah-dah-bum).

My point is that the Nag Hammadi and Gospel of Judas are very good original documents - we at least have something going back to near the original time period which puts stock in their having had possibly less error introduced from copyists than documents that can only be traced to more recent times. We have nothing of the sort for the four gospels - what we do know is that the NT reads much differently if careful examination of available documents is used to reconstruct plausible original text (exegesis).

Robert

jjramsey · 11th April 2006, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161

most of the books of the NT have no originals from which we can guarantee the original text (and whether or not the copyists had anything close to the originals is highly disputed).

AFAICT, we don't have the originals of any NT book, but that makes them no different than most (all?) of the first-century texts.

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161

My point is that the Nag Hammadi and Gospel of Judas are very good original documents - we at least have something going back to near the original time period which puts stock in their having had possibly less error introduced from copyists than documents that can only be traced to more recent times.

How do you know that these copies fared any better or worse that the NT manuscripts? We know about the problems in the text transmission of the NT because there are so many copies of it and we can cross-check them. By contrast, the Gospel of Thomas "is extant in three Greek fragments and one Coptic manuscript." AFAIK, there is one one copy of the Gospel of Judas.

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161

We have nothing of the sort for the four gospels - what we do know is that the NT reads much differently if careful examination of available documents is used to reconstruct plausible original text (exegesis).

Actually, what you describe is called textual criticism, not exegesis. Other than seeing the differences between the King James Version and more modern translations which make use of older manuscripts and do a better job of noting textual variants, I can't see how the NT "reads much differently" if textual criticism is taken into account.

kuroyume0161 · 11th April 2006, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by jjramsey

AFAICT, we don't have the originals of any NT book, but that makes them no different than most (all?) of the first-century texts.

Sure it does. The longer the texts were in circulation and the later the documents we do have, the better the probability that more errors were introduced. Now, I'll agree that textual criticism (thanks) has resolved a good deal of these errors, but there is still no way to know the entire history of these documents.

Quote:

How do you know that these copies fared any better or worse that the NT manuscripts? We know about the problems in the text transmission of the NT because there are so many copies of it and we can cross-check them. By contrast, the Gospel of Thomas "is extant in three Greek fragments and one Coptic manuscript." AFAIK, there is one one copy of the Gospel of Judas.

We don't know. But we do know that this version (and it is the only version in existence so far) could not have changed since it was written. So it shows an uncorrupted text from between the second and third century. It may be one of many variations, none of which exist any longer, but so be it. If at some time another Gospel of Judas is unearthed, it would invaluable in making the determination as to the faithfulness of each copy as well as a means of cross-reference.

Yes, we have many copies of other texts which have aided in removing a good deal of errors by cross-reference and chronology, but it is not as much a science as an art. And as I said, it appears there were tons of errors that could be detected - we have no way of knowing how many more predate our earliest documents and were affixed before then.

Quote:

Actually, what you describe is called textual criticism, not exegesis. Other than seeing the differences between the King James Version and more modern translations which make use of older manuscripts and do a better job of noting textual variants, I can't see how the NT "reads much differently" if textual criticism is taken into account.

Ah yes, that was the term I was looking for. My main concern, as voiced in Ehrman's book, is that after all of the textual criticism is complete, one gets the feeling that not all is well with how literal one can take the bible. That and the knowledge that errors/omissions still exist which cannot be accounted for unless earlier or better documents are found (iow, one cannot know about somethng that is not there).

He differs a little on how the NT reads to some extent - at least to literalism and dogmatic adherence to texts that have changed significantly. It won't affect faith if it is based on the spirit of the religion, only if it is based on the inerrancy of the religion's book.

Robert

UrsulaV · 13th April 2006, 08:13 PM

Not to change the subject, but I just watched the National Geographic special they churned out on the Gospel of Judas.

I have only one insight, and that is "Dude. The guy playing Judas Iscariot was hot."

I meant to be a good skeptic and keep track of the program, but I kept getting distracted by that bit. Dude. Casting. Raowr.

I have no idea whether this will do anything for or to Christianity, but if any teenage girls are up watching the Discovery channel this evening, I could see some grassroots rehabilitation goin' on.

(Hey, at least my observation was at least tangentially related to the topic!)

Huntster · 13th April 2006, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by UrsulaV

.....I just watched the National Geographic special they churned out on the Gospel of Judas.

I have only one insight, and that is "Dude. The guy playing Judas Iscariot was hot."....

......Raowr......

Did you see "The Passion of the Christ"? Was this Judas a finer hunk than James Caviezel?

(I didn't see "The Passion" or the NGS special. I don't watch much TV.)

UrsulaV · 13th April 2006, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster

Did you see "The Passion of the Christ"?

Nah, my tastes don't run to snuff...

Darat · 14th April 2006, 12:35 AM

Off topic/Inappropriate posts moved to AAH.

Posted By:Darat

Dr Adequate · 14th April 2006, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I'll watch the SkepticWiki for that. Are you going to try and address the whole picture so to speak e.g. the political and social issues that also influenced the decisions as well as the "merely" religious issues?

Biblical Textual Issues^SW

6th April 2006, 12:12 PM	#1
scribble Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,696	The Gospel of Judas? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/sc...rtner=homepage Quote: An early Christian manuscript, including the only known text of what is known as the Gospel of Judas, has surfaced after 1,700 years. The text gives new insights into the relationship of Jesus and the disciple who betrayed him, scholars reported today. In this version, Jesus asked Judas, as a close friend, to sell him out to the authorities, telling Judas he will "exceed" the other disciples by doing so. Nothing to add that most of you wouldn't find blindingly obvious.
scribble Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,696	__________________ "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson "I was thinking about painting my house, but I was worried about how well the latex paint we bought would bond to the existing siding. So I got on the Interweb and searched for latex bondage."

6th April 2006, 12:26 PM	#2
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	This is actually quite interesting. Christian thought before 315 CE was far more diverse than most modern-day Christians realise. By the time the contents of the Bible were decided upon it had already gone through a series of changes and branches, most of which were swiftly curtailed by the conference of Nicea, when all of the gnostic texts were eliminated from the Christian canon.
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

6th April 2006, 12:31 PM	#3
MWare Muse Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 666	Originally Posted by JustGeoff This is actually quite interesting. Christian thought before 315 CE was far more diverse than most modern-day Christians realise. By the time the contents of the Bible were decided upon it had already gone through a series of changes and branches, most of which were swiftly curtailed by the conference of Nicea, when all of the gnostic texts were eliminated from the Christian canon. The Catholic Church proudly suppressing dissent for over 2000 years!!!
	__________________ “The plural of anecdote is not evidence." --George Stigler "I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment." --Steven Weinberg

6th April 2006, 12:43 PM	#4
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	Originally Posted by MWare The Catholic Church proudly suppressing dissent for over 2000 years!!! Well, strictly speaking (it was 325CE BTW, not 315CE) it's only been 1681 years.
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

6th April 2006, 10:42 PM	#6
jimmygun Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 1,589	Is it too soon to speculate that the 'new found text' be placed in the stone bone box of JC's brother Jimmy along with the Hitler diaries and the Howard Hughes wills?
	__________________ Jimmygun I have been referred to as a non-believer. I prefer the term 'Non-pretender'

6th April 2006, 12:59 PM	#5
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha Gospels of Matthias, Barnabas, James, Peter, Thomas, Bartholomaeus, and Nicodemus ... it only wanted Judas to complete the set. Not to mention the Revelations of Peter, Paul, Sthephen and Thomas, or the Acts of Andrew, Thomas, Peter, Philip, Barnabas, Thaddaeus, Paul, John. And I'm not even listing the ones which are obviously Gnostic. We have to conclude that if it wasn't for the Third Synod of Carthage you'd need a wheelbarrow to hump the Bible about in.

6th April 2006, 11:10 PM	#7
clarsct Humor Impaired Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The Cultural Desert Posts: 4,910	Hmmmmm. I've always wondered about the apocrypha. I've always wanted more viewpoints on the story. I guess it's a skeptic thing.
	__________________ When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics. Oh nonsense. Still not hugging you. -Kiless Forum Tosser and Skirt Chaser

7th April 2006, 01:56 AM	#8
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	I'm doing a set of SkepticWiki articles on how the Bible was edited ... watch this space.

7th April 2006, 03:29 AM	#9
bobdroege7 Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 1,039	sllight derail, has anyone published a best guess as what was in "Q"?

7th April 2006, 04:07 AM	#10
Kiless Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,103	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate We have to conclude that if it wasn't for the Third Synod of Carthage you'd need a wheelbarrow to hump the Bible about in. Currently watching the news - Dr Timothy Tull from the Uni of Arizona says it's real after doing some carbon dating (it appears, the news is zipping through talking heads on the topic). Prof. Elaine Pagels, 'gospels scholar' is quite excited too. 666 says - 'If there was a god, you'd think he'd not bother with a wheelbarrow for all the chapters; at least come up with some good digital storage device - And Moses came down from down from the mountain, saying "I have some early form of silicon technology. Does anyone have a CD Rom Drive? A dongly thing? Come on!!"
Kiless Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,103

7th April 2006, 04:11 AM	#11
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	Originally Posted by bobdroege7 sllight derail, has anyone published a best guess as what was in "Q"? YES. http://www.cygnus-study.com/pageq.html
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

7th April 2006, 04:16 AM	#12
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,331	Is there any gospel that has a snowballs chance in hell of portrayin anything vaguely accurate about Jesus? I am now at the stage that Jesus Christ Superstar appears to be the most reasonable representation of his life, and if that involves anything to do with ALW, then I am in serious trouble. Man is charismatic, believes the BS it all involves, and goes nuts. That happens all the time, which is why it is believable. The gnostic BS is just that. Thanks for the link, Adequate, at least the 'accepted' gospels seem to have the vaguest foundation in some sort of fact, but the gnostic gospels have Jesus as a baby telling everyone he is the son of god. The Greek myths are more believable than that. Andrew Lloyd Weber
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes Last edited by a_unique_person; 7th April 2006 at 04:22 AM.

7th April 2006, 04:20 AM	#13
Kiless Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,103	Just saw ABC news. They interviewed an incensed Greek priest, read out a statement from the Vatican and popped in a talking head from a university theological teacher - all say it'll have little to no effect and is 'dangerous' (Catholic church) and 'won't be incorporated' (theological teacher). Waste of time, it appears. I'd have to read around more though, not just news reports.
Kiless Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,103	Last edited by Kiless; 7th April 2006 at 04:23 AM.

7th April 2006, 04:50 AM	#14
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,535	An excellent book on the diversity of early Christianity is Lost Christianities: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019...Fencoding=UTF8 The author goes into great detail on the process whereby some 127 known "gospels" were winnowed down to a mere four.

7th April 2006, 05:05 AM	#15
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,795	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate I'm doing a set of SkepticWiki articles on how the Bible was edited ... watch this space. I'll watch the SkepticWiki for that. Are you going to try and address the whole picture so to speak e.g. the political and social issues that also influenced the decisions as well as the "merely" religious issues?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

7th April 2006, 08:12 AM	#16
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957	I always figured that the early Christian writings mostly amounted to Jesus fanfic, and at some point, the early church got together and started saying "Jesus/Judas is totally not canon!" and throwing it out. Human nature being what it is, if some day they find an ancient gospel where Jesus turns into a teenage girl with a telepathic pet unicorn, I will not be in the least surprised...
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957

7th April 2006, 08:41 AM	#17
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Originally Posted by JustGeoff This is actually quite interesting. Christian thought before 315 CE was far more diverse than most modern-day Christians realise. By the time the contents of the Bible were decided upon it had already gone through a series of changes and branches, most of which were swiftly curtailed by the conference of Nicea, when all of the gnostic texts were eliminated from the Christian canon. I don't think it's accurate to suggest that the Council of Nicaea "eliminated" texts from the canon. As I've written elsewhere, insofar as the scriptural canon is concerned, the outcome of the Council did not determine post-Nicene orthodoxy so much as pre-Nicene orthodoxy determined the outcome of the Council.
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940

7th April 2006, 01:25 PM	#18
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,183	How long untill some backyard or garage preacher says its a sign of the end of times, when a false church will rise, everyone will attend to it, receive the mark of the beast and blah blah blah blah blah blah?
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

7th April 2006, 02:24 PM	#19
FFed Muse Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Smithers, BC Posts: 888	Originally Posted by Correa Neto How long untill some backyard or garage preacher says its a sign of the end of times, when a false church will rise, everyone will attend to it, receive the mark of the beast and blah blah blah blah blah blah? When's Jack Van Impe on? Everything is a sign of the end of times to that fool.

8th April 2006, 02:04 AM	#20
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by jimmygun Is it too soon to speculate that the 'new found text' be placed in the stone bone box of JC's brother Jimmy along with the Hitler diaries and the Howard Hughes wills? Yes, it is.

8th April 2006, 02:08 AM	#21
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by a_unique_person Is there any gospel that has a snowballs chance in hell of portrayin anything vaguely accurate about Jesus?... Yup. Consider the four in current liturgy. They haven't changed for nearly 1,700 years. Quote: ... I am now at the stage that Jesus Christ Superstar appears to be the most reasonable representation of his life, and if that involves anything to do with ALW*, then I am in serious trouble.... Your troubles are not much of a concern to the rest of us. Quote: ...Man is charismatic, believes the BS it all involves, and goes nuts. That happens all the time, which is why it is believable... Speak for yourself, please. Quote: ...The gnostic BS is just that. Thanks for the link, Adequate, at least the 'accepted' gospels seem to have the vaguest foundation in some sort of fact, but the gnostic gospels have Jesus as a baby telling everyone he is the son of god. The Greek myths are more believable than that.... Do you worship Mt. Olympus?

8th April 2006, 02:10 AM	#22
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by Correa Neto How long untill some backyard or garage preacher says its a sign of the end of times, when a false church will rise, everyone will attend to it, receive the mark of the beast and blah blah blah blah blah blah? It has already happened. But, then, you knew that, didn't you? That's why you blah, blah, blah.................

8th April 2006, 02:17 AM	#23
clarsct Humor Impaired Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The Cultural Desert Posts: 4,910	SO, what IS your viewpoint, Huntster? You do a vague job of shredding other folks' point of view but offer nothing to the discussion. Is it possible that there are kernels of truth in the apocrypha? I am asking honestly.
	__________________ When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics. Oh nonsense. Still not hugging you. -Kiless Forum Tosser and Skirt Chaser

8th April 2006, 04:52 AM	#24
yanit Scholar Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 96	JCS by ALW Originally Posted by a_unique_person Is there any gospel that has a snowballs chance in hell of portrayin anything vaguely accurate about Jesus? I am now at the stage that Jesus Christ Superstar appears to be the most reasonable representation of his life, and if that involves anything to do with ALW, then I am in serious trouble. Andrew Lloyd Weber Bad news, mate; Jesus Christ Superstar was one of ALW's earliest efforts, circa 1970. Take heart, though; I too like the portrayal of both Jesus and Judas as reluctant and unwilling pawns in the great plan.

8th April 2006, 06:43 AM	#25
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,183	Judas and the pharaoh from the Exodus are two key characters from the Bible that show how unfair and tyrannical is the semitic God. They are actually anti-heroes, puppets, unjusticed, the guys who did God's dirty work. Theologists, priests, preachers et al. as far as I know fail to provide a resonable explanation for why they should be seen as evil and worthy of punishment. Some loose incoherent babble on "free will"? Oh please... No wonder Lucifer rebelled...
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

10th April 2006, 01:30 PM	#26
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by clarsct SO, what IS your viewpoint, Huntster?..... One of (nearly) complete distrust. Quote: ...You do a vague job of shredding other folks' point of view but offer nothing to the discussion. Is it possible that there are kernels of truth in the apocrypha?.... Yes, it is possible. It is also possible that there are not "kernels of truth" in the apocrypha. At this point, I'll settle for how the Council of Nicea ruled.

10th April 2006, 03:10 PM	#27
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,795	Originally Posted by Huntster One of (nearly) complete distrust. Yes, it is possible. It is also possible that there are not "kernels of truth" in the apocrypha. At this point, I'll settle for how the Council of Nicea ruled. So you are a Roman Catholic? (If it's not a personal question to you.)
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

10th April 2006, 03:30 PM	#28
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by Darat So you are a Roman Catholic? (If it's not a personal question to you.) Yes.

10th April 2006, 05:37 PM	#29
kuroyume0161 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Loveland, CO, USA Posts: 1,628	And what were Irenaeus' amazingly logical reasons for there to be four gospels? Not three. Never two. Just say no to one or five. And might I add that the Gospel of Judas hasn't changed in nearly 1800 years. Might I also add that the canonical gospels have indeed changed since then. They have been copied with errors, had slight alterations, insertions, bad interpretations that have caused them to change all the way up to the present. I suggest reading "Misquoting Jesus", Brother Huntster.

10th April 2006, 09:47 PM	#30
kuroyume0161 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Loveland, CO, USA Posts: 1,628	Originally Posted by Huntster So? So, you implied that the four canonical gospels have remained somehow pristine for 1700 years. You are incorrect (see below). The Gospel of Judas is 'pristine' (as pristine as we can get for a document from between 295 and 315 C.E. whose original introduction are sketchy at best - the earliest mention being in 180 C.E. by Irenaeus). Since this document dates to an early time period and it has been lost since then, it could not have changed by any means since then. The only 'change' is that deterioration has robbed us of the gospel in its entirety. Quote: Again, so? Would you expect anything else from a document that has been reprinted in countless languages so many times for so long? Ummm, I was talking about the early days when the transcription was done either by 'stand-in' copyists or a little later by slightly more accomplished copyists - as far back as the 1st century when christianity was a diverse set of cults just spreading around the Mediterranean. One, most of the books of the NT have no originals from which we can guarantee the original text (and whether or not the copyists had anything close to the originals is highly disputed). Two, it is well known that the texts that were in circulation were copied imprecisely a lot (that's many many times - you can't count that on two hands, even including toes). These imprecise copies were circulating for hundreds of years, being recopied and recirculated, and, yes, sometimes being translated into different languages of the region. The permutation of how much could have changed is not good for the text that you read (even if you can read the most original transcriptions that exist for them) to be the text that was originally written. Three, we are also aware that omissions, insertions, changes of meaning, and a myriad other purposeful (but sometimes mistaken) edits were made to these documents over the several hundred years before and after they were canonized and put together in the official bible. For the most part, these existed in only several languages, mainly Greek or Coptic - eventually all were transcribed into Latin. So, your idea of all of those language translations is partially a coptic out (bah-dah-bum). My point is that the Nag Hammadi and Gospel of Judas are very good original documents - we at least have something going back to near the original time period which puts stock in their having had possibly less error introduced from copyists than documents that can only be traced to more recent times. We have nothing of the sort for the four gospels - what we do know is that the NT reads much differently if careful examination of available documents is used to reconstruct plausible original text (exegesis). Robert

11th April 2006, 09:37 AM	#31
jjramsey Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,436	Originally Posted by kuroyume0161 most of the books of the NT have no originals from which we can guarantee the original text (and whether or not the copyists had anything close to the originals is highly disputed). AFAICT, we don't have the originals of any NT book, but that makes them no different than most (all?) of the first-century texts. Originally Posted by kuroyume0161 My point is that the Nag Hammadi and Gospel of Judas are very good original documents - we at least have something going back to near the original time period which puts stock in their having had possibly less error introduced from copyists than documents that can only be traced to more recent times. How do you know that these copies fared any better or worse that the NT manuscripts? We know about the problems in the text transmission of the NT because there are so many copies of it and we can cross-check them. By contrast, the Gospel of Thomas "is extant in three Greek fragments and one Coptic manuscript." AFAIK, there is one one copy of the Gospel of Judas. Originally Posted by kuroyume0161 We have nothing of the sort for the four gospels - what we do know is that the NT reads much differently if careful examination of available documents is used to reconstruct plausible original text (exegesis). Actually, what you describe is called textual criticism, not exegesis. Other than seeing the differences between the King James Version and more modern translations which make use of older manuscripts and do a better job of noting textual variants, I can't see how the NT "reads much differently" if textual criticism is taken into account.
	__________________ "One criticism I have with freethought publications in the field of religion is that so often they are wrong; they are inaccurate. . . . The point I am trying to make is that to be authentic freethinkers, to be authentic truth seekers, we must draw on the best information available to substantiate our claims." -- Gerald LaRue, Freethinkers United! Conference 1997, Orlando, Florida

11th April 2006, 12:58 PM	#32
kuroyume0161 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Loveland, CO, USA Posts: 1,628	Originally Posted by jjramsey AFAICT, we don't have the originals of any NT book, but that makes them no different than most (all?) of the first-century texts. Sure it does. The longer the texts were in circulation and the later the documents we do have, the better the probability that more errors were introduced. Now, I'll agree that textual criticism (thanks) has resolved a good deal of these errors, but there is still no way to know the entire history of these documents. Quote: How do you know that these copies fared any better or worse that the NT manuscripts? We know about the problems in the text transmission of the NT because there are so many copies of it and we can cross-check them. By contrast, the Gospel of Thomas "is extant in three Greek fragments and one Coptic manuscript." AFAIK, there is one one copy of the Gospel of Judas. We don't know. But we do know that this version (and it is the only version in existence so far) could not have changed since it was written. So it shows an uncorrupted text from between the second and third century. It may be one of many variations, none of which exist any longer, but so be it. If at some time another Gospel of Judas is unearthed, it would invaluable in making the determination as to the faithfulness of each copy as well as a means of cross-reference. Yes, we have many copies of other texts which have aided in removing a good deal of errors by cross-reference and chronology, but it is not as much a science as an art. And as I said, it appears there were tons of errors that could be detected - we have no way of knowing how many more predate our earliest documents and were affixed before then. Quote: Actually, what you describe is called textual criticism, not exegesis. Other than seeing the differences between the King James Version and more modern translations which make use of older manuscripts and do a better job of noting textual variants, I can't see how the NT "reads much differently" if textual criticism is taken into account. Ah yes, that was the term I was looking for. My main concern, as voiced in Ehrman's book, is that after all of the textual criticism is complete, one gets the feeling that not all is well with how literal one can take the bible. That and the knowledge that errors/omissions still exist which cannot be accounted for unless earlier or better documents are found (iow, one cannot know about somethng that is not there). He differs a little on how the NT reads to some extent - at least to literalism and dogmatic adherence to texts that have changed significantly. It won't affect faith if it is based on the spirit of the religion, only if it is based on the inerrancy of the religion's book. Robert

13th April 2006, 08:13 PM	#33
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957	Not to change the subject, but I just watched the National Geographic special they churned out on the Gospel of Judas. I have only one insight, and that is "Dude. The guy playing Judas Iscariot was hot." I meant to be a good skeptic and keep track of the program, but I kept getting distracted by that bit. Dude. Casting. Raowr. I have no idea whether this will do anything for or to Christianity, but if any teenage girls are up watching the Discovery channel this evening, I could see some grassroots rehabilitation goin' on. (Hey, at least my observation was at least tangentially related to the topic!)
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957

13th April 2006, 09:22 PM	#34
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by UrsulaV .....I just watched the National Geographic special they churned out on the Gospel of Judas. I have only one insight, and that is "Dude. The guy playing Judas Iscariot was hot.".... ......Raowr...... Did you see "The Passion of the Christ"? Was this Judas a finer hunk than James Caviezel? (I didn't see "The Passion" or the NGS special. I don't watch much TV.)

13th April 2006, 09:34 PM	#35
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957	Originally Posted by Huntster Did you see "The Passion of the Christ"? Nah, my tastes don't run to snuff...
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957