On 4/7/06, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> *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?*
>
Here's Robinson's opinion in the NY
Times<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07judas.html?pagewanted=1>
:
At least one scholar, James M. Robinson, said the new manuscript did not
contain anything likely to change traditional understanding of the Bible.
Dr. Robinson, a retired professor of Coptic studies at Claremont Graduate
University in California, was the general editor of the English edition of
the Nag Hammadi collection. "Correctly understood, there's nothing
undermining about the Gospel of Judas," he said.
Dr. Robinson noted that the gospels of John and Mark both had passages that
suggest that Jesus not only picked Judas to betray him, but actually
encouraged Judas to hand him over to those he knew would crucify him.
Received on Sat Apr 8 11:31:12 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 08 2006 - 11:31:12 EDT