Re: 'Gospel of Judas' Called An Authentic Fabrication

Rich Blinne wrote:

>
>
> On 4/7/06, *Janice Matchett* <janmatch@earthlink.net
> <mailto: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>
>
> *
> *
>
>
>
>
Few comments and requests for additional evidence.

1. The manuscript was authenticated through radiocarbon dating as well
as ink analysis, multispectral imaging and an analysis of the content
for linguistic style and handwriting style, National Geographic reported.

2, Of course Judas was not the direct author of this document, few of
the Gospel texts were actually written by their namesakes.

"Many similar "apocryphal" gospels are attributed to important figures
in early Christianity, Chancey said, though most scholars doubt that
they were actually written by their purported authors.

"It is clear, for example, that Judas did not write this work," Chancey
said. The gospel clearly reflects second-century developments, long
after Judas, he said."

3. Guilt by association does not work either, yes the NG was hasty in
its presentation of the dinosaur, but to suggest that they did not learn
their lesson fails on evidentiary grounds.

4. Coptic monk who found the original manuscript? Interesting, any details

5. in 180 AD bishop, Irenaeus of Lyon denounced the manuscript of the
Gospel of Judas

6. "It was revealed as a forgery because it was created using a stylus
that hadn't been invented until AD 378" requires some additional
evidence...

In fact "National Geographic, which funded much of the research, said it
authenticated the codex through radiocarbon dating, ink analysis and
study of the script. And despite the document's murky history, no
scholar has suggested it is a forgery, a problem that has dogged several
recent finds, most notably the bone box, or ossuary, purported to have
contained the remains of Jesus's brother James."

Read more on the authentication process:
http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/authentication.html

Dave Wallace

>
> How far are you willing to take that we can change the cannon? My
> mother in law is a charismatic and claims that her "visions" can
> override scripture. I would assume you would not go that far?
> I can already see that even history I lived through is being revised
> and whitewashed. What principles would you apply in deciding which
> books are authentic and which are people adding things to get what
> Jesus said... to match how they want theology to come out?
> Do you not feel that God oversaw the selection of books just like the
> actual writing process? Or do you completely disregard inspiration? Am
> not trying to criticise just to understand.
>
> When you talk about what they like or dislike, I think that is unfair.
> Surely some criteria of consistency was involved.
> Dave Wallace

These are good question and I have no direct answers to this other than
to point out that there are many redactings, inconsistencies, copy
errors etc to be found not just limited to those books we have come to
accept as the Gospel.

> As others have already pointed out, that argument does not hold. Many
> hundreds of years ago, some got to decide what they liked and
> disliked
> as the 'canonical gospel'.
>
> But of course you know there were very many fictional accounts written
> long after the time of Jesus, and these were promoting theologies that
> disagreed with each other. So the early church simple **had** to
> proclaim which were the fictional accounts and which ones represented
> the actual tradition going back to Jesus. To say that they decided
> based on what they "liked and disliked" is to distort the matter, as
> if the church itself was one of the groups trying to promote a
> fictional account of Jesus. Do you really believe this?

They were trying to promote AN account of Jesus. How their beliefs
influenced their choices is something we should consider as an issue.

> I don't think it was really all that hard for the early church to
> choose the correct tradition about Jesus. It was probably quite easy,
> and to them it was not a matter of making a determination so much as
> it was a task of settling the matter publicly. Certain books of course
> were more difficult -- like the epistles of Jude and 2 Peter. But
> these hardly decide the overall picture of Jesus.

I find this an interesting assertion. It was probably quite easy? Based
on what standards?
http://www.mayyoubehappy.com/gospels.html

<quote>The four gospels selected—Mark (the later version that had
another ending tacked on), Mathew, Luke and John—just happened to be the
ones that talked about Jesus' resurrection. Because Irenaeus, a couple
of centuries after Jesus' death, believed in the resurrection, that was
the main criterion he used for selecting his gospels.</quote>

http://www.ntcanon.org/Irenaeus.shtml

<quote> Irenaeus was especially insistent that there are exactly 4
Gospels <http://www.ntcanon.org/Irenaeus.shtml#4_Gospels>, and used
numerological arguments surrounding the number 4, such as the 4
covenants <http://www.ntcanon.org/Irenaeus.shtml#4_Covenants>, for
support.</quote>

http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml

    Cross Reference Table: Writings and Authorities

Each symbol in the large table below corresponds to a specific authority
and a specific writing.
The symbols summarize the opinion of the authority about the writing.
If the symbol is blue, select it with the mouse to jump to the evidence.
The symbols have this meaning:
Received on Sat Apr 8 18:19:12 2006