You really can't take all the canonized gospels for fact when all we have of the originals are these fragments.
You really can't take all the canonized gospels for fact when all we have of the originals are these fragments.
This does actually interest me a great deal . After-all could Jesus have set his own death in motion by ordering Judas to pick him out of the many with a kiss ?
There's no knowledge if this thing is even canonical, or even written by Judas. Heck, it may be way off. Also, there is more than one Judas in the 12 Disciples of Christ.
You are right though , the debate on it authenticity is currently underway. The main scrutiny is that although it seems to have been translated from a type of greek (what the original bibles were written in) their is no way to tell if it is what it says to be.
Also , their are more Judases ? I'm not very 'big' on the bible info but i thought judas was the only disciple to be named that.
Originally posted by Thunderstrike
There's no knowledge if this thing is even canonical, or even written by Judas. Heck, it may be way off. Also, there is more than one Judas in the 12 Disciples of Christ.
I think you should know that none of the New Testament was written by the apostles. Paul is the only literal author in the New Testament, and not only did he never meet Jesus in person, he never even hints at the existence of previous writings, much less the Gospel. Also, there were dozens of Gospels, not just four. Look up the name "Irenaeus of Lyon". Probably the most influential of the hundreds of thousands of editors of the Bible.
the word canonical here is pretty meaningless since the discussion is about coptic, gnostic, and apocryphal works. the only thing that separates canonic text from apocryphal is what a few rabbis and later preists decided at two meetings over the centuries. It's real easy to control what's canonical when you suppress supposed "heretics" like the arians, the gnostics, and the cathars with the edge of a sword.
Here's a translation of the text, for anyone who cares.
Not all that interesting; if it had been found with the NH library, it wouldn't have been paid much mind by most people.
First, this "gospel" dates to between the third and fourth century. According to National Geographic's own website, "The results allowed lab experts to confidently date the papyruses to between A.D. 220 and 340." That is early. The only problem is, we have fragments from the gospel of John that are as much as 200 years earlier (using the higher end of NG's range). And, given that the other gospels are largely quoted by second century church fathers, they precede this new wonderful gospel by at least one hundred years.
Second, Judas would have to have been about 250 years old -- at the NG's low range -- to have written this copy of the gospel. Two possibilites exist, then: it is either Pseudepigrapha, a genre of literature that was understood by its nature to be less than facutal, or it was a copy of an early document. This is further borne out by the fact that the text was in Coptic; the New Testament writers wrote in Greek. The gospels of the New Testament were likely already being written and circulated by the time Coptic began to be used to write about matters of the New Testament church. Therefore, if it is Psuedepigrapha, it is likely fiction.
Third, while it is possible that this text is earlier, and what was found was a coptic copy of an earlier text, ask a simply question: "If, out of five eyewitnesses, one of them tells a widely divergent story about events, do you beleive the four, or the one?" Any cop, lawyer, judge, jury or reasonable thinker has an answer for that.
Which is exactly why the church might have ignored the "gospel", had it existed in the first century. Assuming it existed, they knew enough to reject it out of hand.
So why don't we? Why the fascination with this "wonderful discovery"? Why has every broadcast network done a news special on this text? I think the answer is fairly simple: it's more exciting to believe a text that, on its face (and with the media's help) seems to turn Christianity on its head. It is a repudiation of all that I have been told about a sovereign God, final judgment and eternal punishment. It frees me to do what I want, what I see as right "in my own eyes." It is the declaration of freedom, and a validation of self-determination. I LIKE THAT!
Here's the problem, though: approaching the claims about this text don't reasonably hold up under any scrutiny at all. Judas wasn't a hero, unless you want to believe one (possible) eyewitness over the four other earlier accounts (and the one writes from a position of self-interest, if you believe the authorship), or unless you want to believe a document that was more likely written a century or two later than the other gospels, by a person claiming to be someone else (that doesn't sound good for "truth," does it?), or unless you simply can't help but accept a document rejected by the church within a few generations of Jesus' sojourn on the earth.
But, then again, why would you?
Bits and pieces of fragments..........yep.........all the early fathers of the church are the ones who really influenced what the scriptures say....and only the most popular ones were used.....
http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible2.htm
Please read at your own risk!!
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ it was a copy of an older book, and none of the gospels were written by the people who's names they bare.
I'm well aware, of that. However the gospel of Judas simply holds the last supper and the Crucifixion. It entails little to no detail on the life and ministry OTHER than the fact that one detail changed. It holds no "inerrant truths" worth mimicking, and it is omitted from the other gospels not just because it is "blasphemous" but really it would be a waste of paper.
Besides, the image of Judas changes throughout all four gospels, not to mention Mary Magdalene, was never a prostitute, but that's for another time....
Originally posted by AOR
I'm well aware, of that. However the gospel of Judas simply holds the last supper and the Crucifixion. It entails little to no detail on the life and ministry OTHER than the fact that one detail changed. It holds no "inerrant truths" worth mimicking, and it is omitted from the other gospels not just because it is "blasphemous" but really it would be a waste of paper.Besides, the image of Judas changes throughout all four gospels, not to mention Mary Magdalene, was never a prostitute, but that's for another time....
All we really know is that there were all these books (~30) and someone, for what ever reason, picked some to keep, and some to get ride of. This choice had nothing to do with what really happened; it had to do with what people believed.