Originally posted by lucifershammer I'm not saying it's an absolute law - more a rule of thumb or heuristic - something that I would expect to hold all else being equal.
Corinthians and John are not exactly comparable, are they? I mean, they belong to two distinct genres of literature.
Are all other things equal though? How could one tell?
Originally posted by scottishinnz Are all other things equal though? How could one tell?
What factors do you think make it more likely that the 2nd century Gospel of Judas is more historically accurate than the four 1st century canonical Gospels?
Originally posted by lucifershammer They do [apparently] contradict each other on some factual matters - but none of the Gospels says Judas was "an ok kind of guy". Mark, considered by many to be the earliest of the canonical gospels, mentions Judas three times (3:19, 14:10 and 14:43). In the first two citations, Mark explicitly says that Judas betrays Jesus; the third citation is the a ...[text shortened]... rden.
EDIT: And I cannot see how the word "betray" implies "an ok kind of guy", do you?
Complicating the matter, the word for "betray" ("paradidomi"😉 used in conjunction with Judas's actions may mean "hand over" in many or all instances.
See William Klassen, "Judas: Betrayer or friend of Jesus," Fortress Press, (1996).
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole Complicating the matter, the word for "betray" ("paradidomi"😉 used in conjunction with Judas's actions may mean "hand over" in many or all instances.
See William Klassen, "Judas: Betrayer or friend of Jesus," Fortress Press, (1996).
Paradidomi need not necessarily imply treachery, as you point out. However, treachery is one of its meanings. Lk 6:16 uses prodotes, meaning "traitor" to refer to Judas.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Paradidomi need not necessarily imply treachery, as you point out. However, treachery is one of its meanings. Lk 6:16 uses prodotes, meaning "traitor" to refer to Judas.
So, one unambiguous word against the thrust of an entire, albeit admittedly later, Gospel. At the very least, we must conclude that exactly what Judas was up is open to legitimate alternative interpretations.
Originally posted by lucifershammer What factors do you think make it more likely that the 2nd century Gospel of Judas is more historically accurate than the four 1st century canonical Gospels?
What factors do you think the Synodic Gospels are more accurate than The Gospel of Thomas? Or, for that matter that they predate it?
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole So, one unambiguous word against the thrust of an entire, albeit admittedly later, Gospel. At the very least, we must conclude that exactly what Judas was up is open to legitimate alternative interpretations.
Originally posted by frogstomp What factors do you think the Synodic Gospels are more accurate than The Gospel of Thomas? Or, for that matter that they predate it?
What evidence do you have that the Gospel of Thomas predates the canonical gospels?
Originally posted by lucifershammer http://www.textexcavation.com/gospelmanuscripts.html
The Oxyrhyncus papyri are indeed venerable (2nd century) but highly fragmentary. It appears that the oldest complete version of the New Testament is the Codex Sinaiticus, believed (ahem) "originally to have been one of 50 copies of the scriptures commissioned by Roman Emperor Constantine after he converted to Christianity" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4739369.stm).
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage The Oxyrhyncus papyri are indeed venerable (2nd century) but highly fragmentary. It appears that the oldest complete version of the New Testament is the Codex Sinaiticus, believed (ahem) "originally to have been one of 50 copies of the scriptures commissioned by Roman Emperor Constantine after he converted to Christianity" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4739369.stm).
18 Apr '06 12:55
Gospel of Judas
Back to Top