Re: 'Gospel of Judas' Called An Authentic Fabrication

On 4/7/06, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> First ---- there are some priceless observations in this thread, these
> being some of them:
>
> "National Geographic places their own desires for confirmation of THEIR
> presuppositions ahead of actual fact. That's why they got caught with their
> pants down a couple of years ago when they trumpeted a fossil that showed a
> flying dinosaur. They wanted to believe it was true, so they did. They got
> burned big time and issued a rather haughty mea culpa.
>
> Too bad they didn't learn their lesson." 10<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1610875/posts?page=10#10>
>
> "Actually, they know the name of the Coptic monk who "found" the original
> manuscript in the early 4th century: Ratericos Danilos. It was revealed as a
> forgery because it was created using a stylus that hadn't been invented
> until AD 378." 12<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1610875/posts?page=12#12>
>
> "...Judas never wrote that stuff. As someone else pointed out here, he
> hung himself before he had time to write a "gospel". 51<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1610875/posts?page=51#51>
>
> *And my post is here:
>
> **"Nobody believes that the disciple Matthew wrote the gospel of his name,
> either."* ~ Dog Gone
>
> Being dubious about the "written directly" claims is one thing, but when
> some of them question the "authorship" of the canonical gospels, that's
> where they go off the deep end.
>
> "With these general considerations
> http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html , we now offer these
> mini-essays on each Gospel."
>
> Matthew http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.html
>
> Mark http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/markdef.html
>
> Luke http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/lukedef.html
>
> John http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.html
>
> 99 posted on *04/07/2006 11:53:30 AM EDT* by Matchett-PI
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1610875/posts?page=99#99
>
> ~ Janice
>
> * 'Gospel of Judas' Called An Authentic Fabrication
> <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1610875/posts>* The New York
> Sun ^<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1610875//%5Ehttp://www.nysun.com/article/30588>| http://www.nysun.com/article/30588 April
> 7, 2006 | BRUCE CHILTON
> Posted on *04/07/2006 9:38:55 AM EDT* by *presidio9*<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1610875//%7Epresidio9/>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1610875/posts
>
> *Acknowledged experts in this field who have concentrated on "The Gospel
> of Judas," including James Robinson and Charles Hedrick, were not consulted
> for some reason. Did National Geographic want to keep some scholars of
> Coptic away from this document?*
>

That is a waste of a unique finding; "The Gospel of Judas" offers rich
> insights into ancient Gnosticism, particularly into the way in which
> Gnostics saw Jewish institutions transformed by Jesus. (The discourse on the
> Temple is especially significant, and involves the unusual view among
> Gnostics that Jesus's death was a necessary sacrifice.) But that is likely
> to be obscured by silly claims that the "real" Judas is at issue in this
> document.
>

Verrrry interesting. You can read both of these experts in "Nag Hammadi,
Gnosticism, and Early Christianity." which is editted by Hedrick and where
Robinson has an essay concerning the relationship between the so-called "Q"
document and the Gospel of Thomas.

Hedrick in his introduction shows the importance of dealing with the
relationship between gnosticism, Judaism, and Christianity.

The Nag Hammadi Library may prove to be a a key that will help to unlock the
> secret of the origins of gnosticism. Because the library does contain
> several gnostic texts that show no evidence of having been influenced by
> Christianity (the Apocalypse of Adam, the Paraphrase of Shem, the Three
> Steles of Seth, and Eugnostos), it demonstrates beyond question that
> gnosticism was not simply Christian heresy. For further support one may
> also point to other originally non-Christian texts that were later
> appropriated for Christian gnosticism through a sometimes extremely thin
> venerr of Christianizing: the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Apocryphon of
> John, the Hypostasis of the Archons and the Trimorphic Protennoia.
> [emphasis mine] -- Nag Hammadi, p. 9
>

There is an essay by Birger Pearson on Jewish Gnosticism. He said :

> The Nag Hammadi discoveries have decisively put to rest the old idea that
> Gnosticism is a Christian heresy in its origins. The massive array of Jewish
> traditions found in many Nag Hammadi texts have brought the issue of the
> relationship between Gnosticism and Judaism to the foreground of the
> discussion, even if most (but not all!) of the Nag Hammadi texts in question
> appear in Christian dress. -- Nag Hammadi, p. 15

The scholars in this book did what Natioinal Geographic did not. They
applied their critical techniques to the gnostic literature just as they did
to the canonical Gospels. I would contend that it is even more appropriate
to do this for this class of literature. The Nag Hammadi library is an
incoherant mish-mash of many different redactions. With the Jewish
Gnosticism there is no debate which came first like there is for canonical
Gospels/the Gospel of Thomas. Gnosticism modified Judaism and not the other
way around. The picture becomes clear of an enterprise that feeds and edits
off of a host tradition. The editting goes in both directions where
Christianity and Judaism is gnosticized and there are also examples going
the other way. But, given that this religion is provably derivative then it
cannot be something written by the alleged eye witnesses.

On the other hand, the canonical Scriptures show the signs of copying and
not redaction. The many copies in may geographies don't change much except
for what can easily be explained for the most part as copying errors. The
only notable exception was the Johanine Comma and since it was in Latin the
insertion was easiliy found. While there are disputed passages and some
issues with authorship and dating there is an order of magnitude difference
when comparing the canonical Scriptures with the gnostic Scriptures.

Pim, this is why we should treat the canonical Scriptures and the gnostic
ones differently.
Received on Sat Apr 8 10:16:37 2006