Worthy News: 'Gospel of Judas' is heresy & unreliable hist

[George]

The newly published “Gospel of Judas” contains teaching that is completely foreign to the New Testament, according to the assessment of several Union University professors.

http://www.worthynews.com/news/bpnews-net-...y-asp-ID-23009/

[JamieW]

[amor]

[amor]

[nebula]

One of the DJ's at my local Christian radio station sent this Letter to the Editor of the Baltimore Sun concerning the article they printed about this:

Reasons to doubt 'Gospel of Judas'

While the discovery of the "Gospel of Judas" may have some historical significance ("Gospel of Judas rattles beliefs" April 7), I don't see how it could possibly be a serious challenge to the Christian faith. Just a historic fact or two, a little math and a bit of common sense can show why this is the case.

According to history, the early Catholic Church rejected the "Gospel of Judas" in 180 A.D., which has caused modern scholars to speculate that the very earliest date of authorship could be about 130 A.D. with the latest possible date being the year it was rejected.

Now for the math: Since Judas Iscariot committed suicide at the time of Jesus' crucifixion (30 or 36 A.D.) that would mean the author of this "Gospel" was dead for 100 to 150 years before it was written. Obviously this casts serious doubts on the accuracy of the text's claim of authorship and content.

Compare this with the four Gospels of the New Testament, which were written while the authors and their disciples were still alive (perhaps between 68 and 110 A.D.).

They were also written much closer in time to the events that they relate.

With that in mind, it's easy to see why the early church rejected the "Gospel of Judas" and other Gnostic "Gospels" like it.

Think of it this way: If you were a history teacher, would you accept the authenticity of a book titled The Autobiography of George Washington if it were written in 1899 - 100 years after Washington's death?

Would you abandon what you've learned about Washington because of such a bogus book?

Of course not - and for the same reason my Christian faith will hold firm as well.

Jeff Atherholt

Catonsville

Source

[Cyrrylia]

In reply to the reasons to doubt the Gospel of Judas:

While the discovery of the "Gospel of Judas" may have some historical significance ("Gospel of Judas rattles beliefs" April 7), I don't see how it could possibly be a serious challenge to the Christian faith. Just a historic fact or two, a little math and a bit of common sense can show why this is the case.

This is true. This gospel will not cause any real problem to any Christian.

According to history, the early Catholic Church rejected the "Gospel of Judas" in 180 A.D., which has caused modern scholars to speculate that the very earliest date of authorship could be about 130 A.D. with the latest possible date being the year it was rejected.

Now for the math: Since Judas Iscariot committed suicide at the time of Jesus' crucifixion (30 or 36 A.D.) that would mean the author of this "Gospel" was dead for 100 to 150 years before it was written. Obviously this casts serious doubts on the accuracy of the text's claim of authorship and content.

Compare this with the four Gospels of the New Testament, which were written while the authors and their disciples were still alive (perhaps between 68 and 110 A.D.).

No Gospel is held by the majority of scholar to be writen by the people they are atributed do. In fact, there is only one where it is considered to even be a possibility, and it is still doubted upon. The main reason for this is that if you were in ancient times trying to write a gospel, you must attribute it to somebody who was there, or who would know, or else you would look like a fool and your gospel would not be taken seriously.

They were also written much closer in time to the events that they relate.

While this is true, it is misleading, as it implies that the gospels in canon where writen close in time to the events. At least 3 generations had already passed by the time the first one was authored.

With that in mind, it's easy to see why the early church rejected the "Gospel of Judas" and other Gnostic "Gospels" like it.

Think of it this way: If you were a history teacher, would you accept the authenticity of a book titled The Autobiography of George Washington if it were written in 1899 - 100 years after Washington's death?

Would you abandon what you've learned about Washington because of such a bogus book?

Of course not - and for the same reason my Christian faith will hold firm as well.

The "modern" church rejected it, because it did not agree with their statement of faith. Undoubtedly some other gnostic sect accepted it. The church accepted gospels and such, not on any real valid reason, just on what agreed with them.

And nobody would actualy believe that Judas wrote the gospel of Judas. I find this argument funny, because 3 of the gospels of canon were writen long after the names attributed to them should have died.

This is no different than the numerous other gnostic texts that have been discovered. I have a large book called "The Other Bible" that contains a large number of non-canonical books attributed to members of the early church. Some of these books are interesting to read and don't contradict scripture. Others are clearly in total opposition to the teachings of the Bible.

I would agree. It is amazing how radical some of the gnostic texts are. And yet, the Gospel of Thomas in particular is interesting in that not only was it writen very very early, it seems to have been based on some of the canonical gospels, or the same thing they were based on, as the Gospel of Thomas has passages and ideas that are similar, if not identical to the other 4.

No, this book doesn't bring any doubt to the validity of the canonical text of the Bible. It would be no different than if I were to write my own heretical gospel and attribute it to one of the early members of the Christian Church, like perhaps, the lost gospel of Lazarus. I could concoct a story of how he had never really died, but just ate something that made him appear dead. I would further claim that it was a contrived scheme by Jesus and the apostles to create a phony miracle. There would be some who would believe this piece of garbage just because they wanted to since it fits their agenda.

I agree.

The gnostics wrote many books and attributed them to the early apostles, but they are nothing but lies. Are they old? Yes. But an old lie is no better than a new one.

Everybody wrote early books and attributed them to early apostles. Even the ones we have in canon were not writen by those who they are atributed.

Also, I must say that these other crazy gospels are just their version of what they beleived to be the truth. Who knows, maybe they are right. That would be very bad though.

[apothanein kerdos]

*sigh* Ignorance...

This is true. This gospel will not cause any real problem to any Christian.

If it was the truth it would cause a problem. It would legitimize Gnosticism. As it is, since it is not the truth, there is nothing to worry about.

No Gospel is held by the majority of scholar to be writen by the people they are atributed do. In fact, there is only one where it is considered to even be a possibility, and it is still doubted upon. The main reason for this is that if you were in ancient times trying to write a gospel, you must attribute it to somebody who was there, or who would know, or else you would look like a fool and your gospel would not be taken seriously.

Most scholars worth their weight have rejected the notion that tradition is incorrect on who composed the Gospels. For one, none of the Gospel writers, with the exception of John, were big names in the early church. Matthew is a footnote disciple whose story is only told in his own book, and both Mark and Luke weren't even disciples; they relied on second hand information. If someone was attempting to fake a Gospel and use big names, that person miserably failed. We look to the Gnostic gospels of Mary, Thomas, Philip, etc., all of whom were huge names, and see when a fake Gospel was attempted, a big name was used. In three of the four Gospels, "no names" are used.

While this is true, it is misleading, as it implies that the gospels in canon where writen close in time to the events. At least 3 generations had already passed by the time the first one was authored.

This is verfiably false. If we count each generation as 40, you are telling me that no one wrote the Gospels until about 160AD. The problem with this is we have historical writers, though Church Fathers, refering to the Gospels in the first century AD. This puts the original composition of the Gospels around 40-70AD (allowing time for duplicates to reach these Church Fathers, and to be so well known that a mere reference sufficed and it was assumed the reader had read it). If we accept tradition, that Jesus died when He was 33 and that the disciples were in their late teens to early twenties at this time, this means they would have been able to write these Gospels within the allotted time.

The "modern" church rejected it, because it did not agree with their statement of faith. Undoubtedly some other gnostic sect accepted it. The church accepted gospels and such, not on any real valid reason, just on what agreed with them.

Have you even studied the issue (that's rhetorical, I know you haven't)? There were many tests to see the validity of a scripture. If it failed just one aspect of the test, it was no longer considered for scripture. Likewise, many went with the oral traditions of the apostles. In other words, a book would validate what they had already heard, and therefore was accepted as inspired. Though official cannon was not established until the 4th century, this was off hundreds of years of tradition and sound teaching.

And yet, the Gospel of Thomas in particular is interesting in that not only was it writen very very early, it seems to have been based on some of the canonical gospels, or the same thing they were based on, as the Gospel of Thomas has passages and ideas that are similar, if not identical to the other 4.

You've never read it, have you? In passage 140 "Jesus" says, "...everyone who seeks truth from true wisdom will fashion wings to fly, fleeing from the passion that inflames human spirits."

This is found in a passage that refers to the human body being as an animal and lesser than the spirit, that the body traps us. The Gospel of Thomas does not match the other Gospels at all in that it is purely Gnostic in nature.

[Cyrrylia]

If it was the truth it would cause a problem. It would legitimize Gnosticism. As it is, since it is not the truth, there is nothing to worry about.

How...in...the...world...did you do this? How could you have possibly misinterpreted what I wrote so drasticaly? I am not even going to bother to clarify. Just go back, and read what I responded to, and what I wrote. I am sure you can do it yourself. I have faith in you.

Most scholars worth their weight have rejected the notion that tradition is incorrect on who composed the Gospels.

That is simply not true.

In three of the four Gospels, "no names" are used.

The writers themselves claim to be anonomys, but the gospels are still named what they are named. Again, you somehow misread what I say.

This is verfiably false. If we count each generation as 40, you are telling me that no one wrote the Gospels until about 160AD. The problem with this is we have historical writers, though Church Fathers, refering to the Gospels in the first century AD. This puts the original composition of the Gospels around 40-70AD (allowing time for duplicates to reach these Church Fathers, and to be so well known that a mere reference sufficed and it was assumed the reader had read it). If we accept tradition, that Jesus died when He was 33 and that the disciples were in their late teens to early twenties at this time, this means they would have been able to write these Gospels within the allotted time.

Ahuh...

Nevermind that fact that they were not writen at the same time. Or that the first gospel writen, Mark, is pretty much agreed upon to have been writen around 60-70, while later ones can go into the 100s.

Have you even studied the issue (that's rhetorical, I know you haven't)? There were many tests to see the validity of a scripture. If it failed just one aspect of the test, it was no longer considered for scripture. Likewise, many went with the oral traditions of the apostles. In other words, a book would validate what they had already heard, and therefore was accepted as inspired. Though official cannon was not established until the 4th century, this was off hundreds of years of tradition and sound teaching.

Sure it was.

You've never read it, have you? In passage 140 "Jesus" says, "...everyone who seeks truth from true wisdom will fashion wings to fly, fleeing from the passion that inflames human spirits."

This is found in a passage that refers to the human body being as an animal and lesser than the spirit, that the body traps us. The Gospel of Thomas does not match the other Gospels at all in that it is purely Gnostic in nature.

Okay. Given what you have said before, I will simply not believe that you have devine knowledge as to how to interpret the Gospel of Thomas, when people can not even agree what the Canonocial gospels mean.

Aswell, you again misinterpret me. What I ment was things like this:

Thomas 8 SV

8. And Jesus said, "The person is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. Among them the wise fisherman discovered a fine large fish. He threw all the little fish back into the sea, and easily chose the large fish. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!"

Matthew 13:47-50 NIV:

47"Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Matthew 18: 12-14 NIV

12"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost."

Luke 15: 3-7 NIV

3Then Jesus told them this parable: 4"Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.' 7I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent."

Thomas 107 SV

107. Jesus said, "The kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One of them, the largest, went astray. He left the ninety-nine and looked for the one until he found it. After he had toiled, he said to the sheep, I love you more than the ninety-nine."

You see? Similar. But you seem to not understand me. If you can not understand me, how am I supposed to believe that you understand the Gospel of Thomas enough to interpret it faithfully?

[apothanein kerdos]

Of all the debates I've ever been in, this is possibly the worst attempt at a response I've ever seen:

How...in...the...world...did you do this? How could you have possibly misinterpreted what I wrote so drasticaly? I am not even going to bother to clarify. Just go back, and read what I responded to, and what I wrote. I am sure you can do it yourself. I have faith in you.

You stated that it cannot pose a problem to Christianity. If it speaks the truth or utilizes a certain form of truth that is logically more coherant than the current truth we hold, then yes, it poses quite a huge problem. This is not just some book that "slightly" changes our views. It goes in the fact of what the Gospels have to say, and therefore is no small find.

That is simply not true.

Actually it is. I presented the logical reasons as to why...which of course you ignored. I'll get to that though.

The writers themselves claim to be anonomys, but the gospels are still named what they are named. Again, you somehow misread what I say.

You really have no idea what I'm talking about. What I stated is that people of unknown character were used as the titles of the Gospels. Two of the titles were by people who really aren't mentioned in scripture at all and were not given credit as disciples of Jesus. They are second hand accounts. If people were merely putting names to the Gospels so they would appear acceptable, it makes no logical sense as to why three of the four would be under names that were relatively unknown to the common person in the second and third century.

Ahuh...

Nevermind that fact that they were not writen at the same time. Or that the first gospel writen, Mark, is pretty much agreed upon to have been writen around 60-70, while later ones can go into the 100s.

This isn't an actual reply. Let's look at some of the key points I brought up:

* You assert they were not written until 160AD, yet we have them being quoted from in the 1st century

* This puts the composition of it around 40-70AD. Without a printing press we have to allow for time for it to become commonly known. When we do this, we find they were written relatively earlier than some secular "scholars" would have us to believe.

* The disciples, and those listening to the disciples, would have been alive during the composition of these Gospels.

To add to it, the whole "100-200 years after the fact" argument stems from an absurd lack of knowledge. Most of this is based on the fact we can only find manuscripts dating back that far. In other words, even the oldest manuscripts post-date Christ by about 100 years. Thus, many "scholars" declare that these Gospels were composed about 100 years after Christ. The problem with this is that the fact a manuscript is found 100 years after the fact actually shows the popularity. Seeing as how everything was hand copied, given time, multiple wars in the area, etc, there had to be many manuscripts for us to find just a few that have survived. If there were many manuscripts by 150AD, chances are the original composition began much earlier. In fact, Peter, in his epistle, even references the writings of Paul. Whilst these are not Gospels, it still shows that Christian writing began extremely early.

Sure it was.

How is this even a reply? You're in over your head mate. You probably had a professor or two who went on rants explaining this and instead of being an actual thinker you decided to take everything they said prima facie. Study the issue before making a smart aleck reply. Look up any history book, it will validate what I've claimed.

Okay. Given what you have said before, I will simply not believe that you have devine knowledge as to how to interpret the Gospel of Thomas, when people can not even agree what the Canonocial gospels mean.

So because I used logic and historical analysis my interpretation of Thomas is somehow skewed? Because I used arguments that you are too inadequate to actually respond to and can only come up with half-way replies...not even half-way...pathetic replies that don't deal with the issue, I am disqualified?

Aswell, you again misinterpret me

This shows your lack of understanding. For one, I didn't misinterpret you at all, you're shifting your advocacy. You said that it was highly similar, if not identical, to the other Gospels. This is a provable lie. You refer to two passages (that you got off the internet no doubt) that deal with different contexts. In other words, though they look similar to scripture, the message is entirely different. I'll deal with that in my next point/

You see? Similar. But you seem to not understand me. If you can not understand me, how am I supposed to believe that you understand the Gospel of Thomas enough to interpret it faithfully?

Because I've spent massive ammounts of time studying Gnosticism. I have read through almost all of the major Gnostic Gospels/writings. I have also read from both secular and Christian commentators on some of these. I know what I am talking about when it comes to the Gnostic Gospels...I've actually read them, translated portions from Greek to English (as a student in a class), etc. I know what I am dealing with here, much more than you do. That's not arrogance, it is merely stating a verfiable fact.

Thomas 8 - Though it sounds similar (this is no doubt quoted from the Gospels in an attempt to legitimize the writing) it is in a different context. We turn over to Thomas 3.4 we find that Jesus is speaking of having a special knowledge of oneself. This is a Gnostic teaching, period. It talks about having a secret inner knowledge that is gained through an experience that we have that cannot be explained intellectually. If anything, this form of Gnosticism in "secret knowledge" is a forerunner to Keirkegaard's Christian existentialism. The problem with this is that Christ did not teach us to know ourselves in the true Gospels but instead to deny ourselves and to die to Him everyday. So no, the context does not allow for this to be "identitcal" with the Gospels.

Thomas 107 - You obviously missed the passage after it, 108:

108.1 - Jesus said, "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; (108.2) I myself shall become that person, (108.3) and the hidden things will be revealed to that person."

This too is Gnostic in nature. In other words, Thomas 107 is not holding the same meaning as the Bible but is instead refering to a hidden knowledge. The one sheep he goes after he does through "secret knowledge" (as clarified in the passage after it). This is Gnostic in thought, not Christian.

THe other thing to note in both passages is the use of the term "largest." In other words, he keeps the largest fish and seeks after the largest lamb. This places a significance on the concept of Gnostic "grace." It was only those that were enlightened, philosophic, of importance, "largest" in the intellectual and existential world of Greek philosophy that were worth comming after. In other words, all the other smaller fish had not obtained a secret knowledge, and therefore were not "large enough" for Christ to put effort into saving them or keeping them. Salvation was based upon one's own quality, not upon the merits of God.

The context, and even the wording of the texts themselves, simply does not allow for you to justifiably state the Gospel of Thomas is "almost identical" to the true Gospels.

I know this post seems harsh, but if you're going to act as if though you know what you are talking about yet not substantiate a single iota of it, I'm going to get upset. At best, your next reply will be copy and pasted from other websites (I'm sure you'll give citation) trying to prove me wrong. The reason being is you haven't studied this for yourself and instead have accepted what you have been fed. Study this issue before even attempting a reply, which will take a few years. After you have truly studied it, there will no reason for a reply unless you are going to say, "I was wrong in what I said." I would love to have an intelligent conversation, but I must stress the word intelligent. This means you'll actually have to use logic, refute my logic with more than, "Nu uh!," and use your brain. If you can do this, wonderful, I hope to see it in your next reply. If not, then don't bother wasting my time. Good day.

[Cyrrylia]

You stated that it cannot pose a problem to Christianity. If it speaks the truth or utilizes a certain form of truth that is logically more coherant than the current truth we hold, then yes, it poses quite a huge problem. This is not just some book that "slightly" changes our views. It goes in the fact of what the Gospels have to say, and therefore is no small find.

Oh my. You...there must be something wrong.

Here let me help. My faith was misplaced. This is what I responded to:

"While the discovery of the "Gospel of Judas" may have some historical significance ("Gospel of Judas rattles beliefs" April 7), I don't see how it could possibly be a serious challenge to the Christian faith. Just a historic fact or two, a little math and a bit of common sense can show why this is the case."

Let me highlight what I ment by "This is true."

"While the discovery of the "Gospel of Judas" may have some historical significance ("Gospel of Judas rattles beliefs" April 7), I don't see how it could possibly be a serious challenge to the Christian faith. Just a historic fact or two, a little math and a bit of common sense can show why this is the case."

Do you see now? It is true. The Gospel of Judas has historical significance. But it is not going to challenge the faith of Christians.

Actually it is. I presented the logical reasons as to why...which of course you ignored. I'll get to that though.

Actualy, not you did not. This is what I responded to: "Most scholars worth their weight have rejected the notion that tradition is incorrect on who composed the Gospels."

That is not true. You offered some facts that have nothing to do with that statement. You *could* have shown me some statistical analysis of scholars who agree with tradition, and those who do not, or some other such thing. But you did not. You said it was true, and went on a tangent on why one could say that tradition was true, not if scholars agreed with it or not.

You really have no idea what I'm talking about. What I stated is that people of unknown character were used as the titles of the Gospels. Two of the titles were by people who really aren't mentioned in scripture at all and were not given credit as disciples of Jesus. They are second hand accounts. If people were merely putting names to the Gospels so they would appear acceptable, it makes no logical sense as to why three of the four would be under names that were relatively unknown to the common person in the second and third century.

Do not worry. It is working both ways.

Writers of the Gospels mostly claimed anonymity. The names by witch they go by, like "Gospel of John" were not writen by a guy named John. That is all I am saying. I could care less about anything you are saying, because it has nothing to do with what I said, or am saying now.

Now I did say that gospel writers atributed gosples to names. Which is true. Afterall, "John" is traditionaly attributed to John. But scholars do not agree with that. Unless you can prove otherwise. Show me some statistics or something.

You assert they were not written until 160AD, yet we have them being quoted from in the 1st century

You asserted that. I did not give a date. I said at least 3 generations, and I use generation to mean 10 years. Now, the word is very vauge, so I apologize, but 40 years is a made up amount. Even regarding the procreation of human offspring, a generation is usualy regarded to be only 22 years.

After this you assume them to all have been writen at the same time, which is also not true. I never even heard of such an idea. Especialy considering that the two most prevailing authorship theories have either later documents being based off the earlier ones, or all of them based off a combination of the earlier ones and some missing document we have yet to find. Regardless, they were not writen at the same time, and since most of your arguments revolve around that assumption...

How is this even a reply? You're in over your head mate. You probably had a professor or two who went on rants explaining this and instead of being an actual thinker you decided to take everything they said prima facie. Study the issue before making a smart aleck reply. Look up any history book, it will validate what I've claimed.

It obviously would not, or else we would not be having this discussion now would we?

So because I used logic and historical analysis my interpretation of Thomas is somehow skewed? Because I used arguments that you are too inadequate to actually respond to and can only come up with half-way replies...not even half-way...pathetic replies that don't deal with the issue, I am disqualified?

Actualy, your interpretation had absolutely no reasoning behind it. You just said it was so. This is all you said on your interpretation:

You've never read it, have you? In passage 140 "Jesus" says, "...everyone who seeks truth from true wisdom will fashion wings to fly, fleeing from the passion that inflames human spirits."

This is found in a passage that refers to the human body being as an animal and lesser than the spirit, that the body traps us

Where is the analysis? I just see the interpretation. Where is the justification? The logic? The historical analysis?

This shows your lack of understanding. For one, I didn't misinterpret you at all, you're shifting your advocacy. You said that it was highly similar, if not identical, to the other Gospels. This is a provable lie. You refer to two passages (that you got off the internet no doubt) that deal with different contexts. In other words, though they look similar to scripture, the message is entirely different. I'll deal with that in my next point/

Because you know all, so much, that you know what I mean when aparently I do not.

I said that some passages and ideas were highly similar, if not identical. But you selectivly read, and assume I ment the entire gospel. Did I say that? No. You just made it up.

All I ment was just that. Some passages, and some ideas where similar if not identical. Not that the entirety of the gospel is. But nooo.

I am not going to comment on the rest, because it is based on a faulty assumption you made about what I said.