Judas Gospel is fictional, just like the 'Da Vinci Code' (page 2)

pseudoxristos

Judas Gospel is fictional

One down, four to go. Perhaps there's hope for you yet.

pseudo

Leo,
Why is it being promoted and talked about so much? What is the intent? That is why I posted this article. Maybe I need to spell it out...it is just another attack on the Christian faith. It is some more controversy for the world-view of the populace, even if it is not billed as 'true', the promoting of it serves a purpose. Many in the drive-by media are bound and determined to undermine Christianity. Christianity is the enemy, much more than Islam or any other faith. The leftists will promote anything and even 'bed down' with radical Islam to accomplish their political agenda. You see it here all of the time: the constant attempts to portray (serious) Christians as comparable to radical Islamists, while ignoring the fact that Islam TEACHES hatred. It is a billion person cult, yet it is practically ignored as being a threat. Why are so many people who came out of a cult too ignorant (or blind) to recognize another cult that has caused much more carnage and misery than their own has?
Thanks for asking a obvious question instead of attacking the messenger.
Rex

Shining One

Hi Hellrider,
Thanks for the intelligent message.
>Do you feel that this "gospel" has gotten to much attention? Noone ever said that the gospel of Judas should ever be included in the Bible. There were also many other texts that weren`t included in the Bible, and Judas will just take his place among all these discarded texts. No need to worry, and this (satanic?) fascination over the Judas-gospel isn`t a sign of the second coming either.
See my post to Leo. I explain why I chose to post this article. We have a battle of world-views going on and this is part of it.
>Anyway, I think the comparison with "the Da Vinci code" wasn`t very good, because the Judas Gospel isn`t a fraud. It is a text from the early christian communities (heretics or not)
Fair enough. I do think I should have used the book 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' instead. The reason it is a fraud is because it uses the discliples name yet bears no relation to (or from) him. The gospels were written by those who traveled with them and knew them intimately. I don't believe any of the late date arguments advanced by the leftists.
Rex

Shining One

>Doesn`t the four gospels of the Bible attribute this "traitor"-thing to Judas in various degrees? I think that more than just a story about greed and "demonic posession", the story about Judas is the story of a tragedy. Luke 6 says "Judas Iscariot who also became a traitor". So, obviously, he wasn`t always bad, he just made a very bad act. But thru his death, perhaps he was cleansed?
Interesting speculation but we have no way of knowing if he was cleansed. He was a 'thief from the beginning' and handled the money for the disciples. Jesus was reaching out to Judas even to the last. He was like any of us, a man who probably tried his best and was tripped up by his desire leading to sin. Perhaps he wanted a Messiah who would be a political king as the Zealots wanted?
Who know how the betrayal would have played out if he had chosen differently? Only God.
Rex

Leolaia

I am a regular reader of biblioblogs and the general criticism about the media coverage is the general lay perception that this document might have something new to say about a historical Judas Iscariot. Of course, biblical scholars understand that this is not the case, but the media presents it this way probably because the news story is more interesting if it concerns an infamous person from the Bible rather than an obscure religious sect. This follows the general pattern for the media to sensationalize things. The actual publication of the gospel in the official National Geographic Press book is very clear about both the sectarian origins of Judas and its dependence on the canonical gospels.

In fact, the recovery of the book needs no sensationalization, for it is an amazing story how the codex was nearly destroyed and then painstakingly put back together and authenticated. Whenever any ancient document from antiquity survives the ravages of time, it is a big story...whether it is a lost play of Euripedes, a letter written by Simon bar-Kochba, or a Dead Sea Scroll apocryphon...but when it is a lost book discussed by the church fathers that gives a novel interpretation of the betrayal and passion, it is an even bigger story because it helps fill in a missing piece of the history of Christianity. A facile approach would be simply to judge its merits solely on its value as a historical document or its religious value, and disregard it entirely on that basis. As Narkissos pointed out, no scholar is suggesting that it ought to take its place in the Christian canon or be mined for historical information about Judas Iscariot; only in the media has it been hyped up to such importance. But the document is incredibly important for understanding who the adversaries of second-century heresiologists were, what they taught, and especially how orthodoxy developed as a response to these dissident sects. For those who study the history of religion, it takes its place among other parabiblical texts that shed light on the history of Christianity. Similarly, it is impossible to understand intertestamental Judaism (i.e. of the second century BC) without examining works such as 1 Enoch and the Qumran sectarian documents which are incredibly informative about what people believed at the time. But since the layperson is generally not interested in such things, the media often does not emphasize its true historical importance...

mkr32208

Just like the rest of the stupid bible... YAWN... Moving on...

Forscher

Well, Leo, glad to see that you and I can agree on something. I enjoyed your post.
Your sarcasm was not entirely off base Narkissos. Though I wonder just how accurately the author was portraying the opinions of "conservative scholars". I caught a sniff of an agenda there.
Forscher

BluesBrother

I agree with Shining One [ even though he has chosen a poseurs name] and this is a worthwhile post.

just today I saw a TV trailer for a programme that draws on the "new findings" of the G of Judas , and relates it to the Da Vinci Code. As though these works were recording established facts

We know that scholars have discounted the idea that the Gospel should be in the Bible or that it even belongs to the 1st Century. but all the while the media keeps using it in this way, the mass public will come to believe in it, right or wrong...

Did not somebody once say that if you repeat a lie often enough , it will be accepted as a fact?

Oroborus21

Howdy,

your original post was very nice. Just one quibble. the Da Vinci Code is pure fiction and written for literary entertainment.

The so-called Gospel of Judas is an ancient Gnostic text that while evidently fictional in terms of some of the events and statements it contains, was written to espouse the views of a large competing school of thought within early Christianity. As such it has significant value for understanding this school of thought.

So the title of your post isn't really very accurate.

I agree that the mass media's complete ignorance and attribution of the text to the Judas Iscariot of the bible is irresponsible and terrible journalism.

-Eduardo

nicolaou

Shining One

Is there a reason why you chose to register on April 1st?

Judas Gospel is fictional, just like the 'Da Vinci Code'

Share this