quote:An early Christian manuscript, including the only known text of what is known as the Gospel of Judas, has surfaced after 1,700 years. The text gives new insights into the relationship of Jesus and the disciple who betrayed him, scholars reported today. In this version, Jesus asked Judas, as a close friend, to sell him out to the authorities, telling Judas he will "exceed" the other disciples by doing so.
Holy cr@p.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Was this article by Jason Blair?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
In stores just in time for seasonal gift-giving!
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
From National Geographic, the organization that tracked down and authenticated the manuscript:
Thanks Kasie =) Good article!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Tom Hanks stars in that movie this summer.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I found that story to be interesting. I struggle with my own faith. I have a hard time reconciling the bible as being divinely written and all of the evidence that early Christians played a huge role in what was included and what was left out. This certainly furthers my curiosity about how much personal opinion went into writing down the Bible and including various sections.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
This is interesting, and it's certainly a significant find, but it's worth noting that there are scads of gospels from the first couple of centuries CE that offer a different take on Christ and Christianity than those that became canon.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Should this be regulated to the "Fanfic" thread then?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
That goes along with a sort of pet theory a friend had, that Satan was not the "great betrayer" but the most trusted of God's angels, even now - he's just "doing the job" God asked him to do, filling a loathsome role because someone had to do it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Dracula 2000!
-pH
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:"This gospel," he said, "has a completely different understanding of God, the world, Christ, salvation, human existence—not to mention of Judas himself—than came to be embodied in the Christian creeds and canon."
Which is probably why it was regarded as non-canonical.
Theresa, here's a quick layman's summary of where the bible came from. There are probably inaccuracies, but it's fairly correct.
The books in the Christian Bible were chosen in a series of Ecumenical Councils in the 4th and early 5th centuries, AD. Some books were not in all canons and these were refered to as "deuterocanonical". Many of these from the Old Testament were not availible in any translation other than the (Greek) Septuagint and these were not part of the Jewish Canon of the time. At the reformation, many, if not all, Protestants also removed these books from their canon as well.
LDS have added scriptures, notably The Book of Mormon, to the Christian Canon, but I'm not sure which Old Testament Canon they use.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The LDS Church uses the King James Version of the Bible as its official Bible.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
That would be the Protestant Canon, then, correct? IOW not the books of Tobit, Sirach, 1 & 2 Maccabees, etc?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Those books are not in the KJV.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Hmm, thats not really how I meant my statement to be taken but I am having problems finding a way to clarify it. I don't mean that I am confused as to how the books were chosen. I am aware of the historical aspects. I guess for me it is more an uncertainty about how influenced those events were by a divine source. In other words, is the Bible today what God intended it to be both in what is included and what is not included, or did it wind up that way based on the votes of early religous figures? I don't think this is something that can ever be known. It is a matter of faith. So, I guess I wasn't looking for an explanation. Simply sharing that I felt that new books surfacing is interesting and makes me wonder how much influence the divine had in choosing what was included.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
"You want me to do it... what if I just sit here and ruin your ambition?"
Sorry, off on an ALW tangent...
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Sorry for mis-interpreting your question.
As an aside, I was always fascinated by the way the betrayal was played in the movie "Jesus Christ, Superstar"
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Jim, everyone KNOWS that Judas is still roaming the earth as a vampire. The movie said so. Duh.
-pH
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
if I see him I'll be sure and tell him to "bite me" then Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Oh, you won't see him....until it's too late!
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Jim, everyone KNOWS that Judas is still roaming the earth as a vampire. The movie said so. Duh.
What movie?
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
No problem. I realize that the orignal post did come across that way when I reread it. I just wanted to clarify.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
mph: Why, the cinematic gem that is Dracula 2000, of course!
-pH
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
pH, you obviously forget...
<neo> I know Kung Fu </neo>
Posted by kung fu (Member # 9320) on :
Everyone says they know me, but if that's true why am I so lonely? Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Cuz you beat people up. Play nice and you'll have a lot more friends.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Kung fu matters not when your opponent is undead, 2000 years old, and capable of using his magical vampiric powers to force people to bend to his will.
Oh, and he can also have sex on the ceiling.
That alone is a sure sign that he can kick your ass.
-pH
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Oh, and he can also have sex on the ceiling.
Yes, I'm afraid I'm incapable of that without a really tall bunk bed.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Those books are not in the KJV.
Yes they were, originally. I have a KJV Apocrypha on my bookshelf And if you remember, Joseph Smith's copy of the KJV did too.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well, Jim, I'm sorry. I was totally planning to jump your bones, but you know, I just need my lovers to be able to have sex on the ceiling. I'm a woman; I have needs!
-pH
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
So Jesus really did want to be turned in. like a jaded mandarin, like a jaded faded jaded faded jaded mandarin. Intriguing.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
fyfe, I am totally missing what I presume is a cultural or historical reference...
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Jim: It's from Jesus Christ Superstar.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The one on your bookshelf -- are those books marked as apocrypha, or as just other books in the bible?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Oh, they're separated apart, meaning they're not incorporated with the other portion of the Old Testament. There are very few English translations that merge them together - such as the Catholic NAB and New Jerusalem Bible. (And at least the NJB , while instegrasted, still includes the old KJV Chapter system for the 'additions' books -like Additions to Esther- Where later chapter numbers are inserted in the middle of the text to restore them to their proper position. Remnants of the proliferation and standardization of the KJV of the text)
But the Apocrypha were part of the original KJV translation, and also were a part of the Revised Standard Version. They are not any more separated than the Old or New Testaments are - a single page with the text, "The Apocrypha - Translated out of the original tongues: and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by his majesty's special command" - While it's true that nearly all modern publications of the KJV are sans Apocrypha (I don't believe the KJV even holds a Catholic imprimatur), the original publications of it, and many thereafter, included that portion within the binding of 'The Holy Bible: Authorized King James Version'.
Not that it's really worth an argument Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Jim: It's from Jesus Christ Superstar.
well, there's some egg for my face...
I blame senility...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I wasn't meaning to argue. Sorry.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
You all realize this is a forgery, right? Give it a couple of months.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
It's not that big a deal to me... gnosticism is very low on my choices of worldviews, so it's not like I'll be revising any beliefs based on this.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Awww, and I thought Jim waas teasing me with his JCS comment immediately after my quoting the same piece.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Thing is, this text has been known to have existed forever. We have a nice denunciation of it by Iraenius in the second century, including a brief summary of its contents. It's neat and nifty to have the actual text of it, but I don't think it's as big a deal as they're making it out to be.
I still don't get all the hubbub about Gospel of Thomas. Apart from that final saying in Thomas (which IMHO seems very out of place in the text), that text is actually very much in line with what I do believe. ho hum.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
No, Goody, I remembered *that* section, which was very powerful and inspired my comment... I just don't remember the "jaded faded Mandarin" line at all... Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Yeah, I'm sure it's a forgery. It fits *modern* sensibilities too well. It showed up in a burglary, rather than in a crypt.
There was another hoax I was very interested in: the shroud of Turin. The maker seemed to know things medeivals wouldn't. (That face thing was weird -- a cloth wrapped around a real human face would show a distorted image; but this wasn't distorted.) Later they tested it: sorry, it only dates back to around 1200 I think it was.
Seeing it reminded me of the real suffering Christ endured. But it was still a fake.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Should this be regulated to the "Fanfic" thread then?
You make me laugh.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"I still don't get all the hubbub about Gospel of Thomas."
The hubbub is that the Gospel of Thomas is considered by some to be more authentic than the Four Gospels. Not that it is older as is, but that it contains older material all in one handy fragment. And that is important because some argue that it is proof that all that "Jesus as Divine" stuff was later additions and not to be trusted. The teachings themselves are not that special, although with a Gnostic flavor.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: "This gospel," he said, "has a completely different understanding of God, the world, Christ, salvation, human existence—not to mention of Judas himself—than came to be embodied in the Christian creeds and canon."
I would be more impressed if it wasn't written by Judas. Anyone can write about how essential and good they are.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Jim, everyone KNOWS that Judas is still roaming the earth as a vampire. The movie said so. Duh.
-pH
I hadn't realized this.
Think of the parallels though... Ender the xenocide ranges the cosmos for 3 thousand years before he finally reveals himself. Judas, the Judas, ranges earth for 2 thousand years before revealing himself... Spooky?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I'm just curious as to when Judas would have written this book . . . from the grave? He did hang himself -- and my memory seems to think it was within a day or two of "doing the deed" as it were . . .
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think there's a misunderstanding here. Judas isn't supposed to have written the gospel, just as with the other gospels the name attached is generally not supposed to be the name of the author.
None of the scholarship is supposing this is a firsthand account by Judas, merely that this is a gnostic gospel much in line with other gnostic and non-gnostic gospels and pretty much entirely unsurprising for content (the only "surprise" is talked about in a document we've had for a long time dating back to at least 180 AD, and has been long a part of biblical theorizing). Its a very important find, academically, but doesn't necessarily have any religious import (it won't unless a church or person decides to consider it important).
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
The basic concept of Judas as an important, misunderstood, and/or secretly-trusted figure is fairly old, I think...I recall reading about all manner of medieval legends in which Judas is redeemed/thanked by Jesus/etc. I don't recall details, unfortunately, only a poem based on them in which Judas is personally welcomed into heaven by Jesus. My point is, aside from the possible reappearance of belief in these legends and increasing distrust of the canonical gospels (more due to the propaganda value of "new" gospels turning up), I doubt this will have much effect.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
And if you remember, Joseph Smith's copy of the KJV did too. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)