Gospel of Judas

I am interested in a discussion (preferrably an intelligent one) on the Gospel of Judas. THis forum provides a venue for some quick thoughts, but if any of you are interested in pursuing this discussion, email me at kjnkafelnikov@hotmail.com

Originally posted by KAFKOV
I am interested in a discussion (preferrably an intelligent one) on the Gospel of Judas. THis forum provides a venue for some quick thoughts, but if any of you are interested in pursuing this discussion, email me at kjnkafelnikov@hotmail.com

Why don't you start by giving us an opinion about it?

Originally posted by Palynka
Why don't you start by giving us an opinion about it?

Compared to the New York Times, it's really old.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Compared to the New York Times, it's really old.

Compared to the four canons, it's really different.

Originally posted by David C
Compared to the four canons, it's really different.

Of course. It was written nearly a century later.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Of course. It was written nearly a century later.

...and therefore a less reliable account, right?

Originally posted by David C
...and therefore a less reliable account, right?

Not merely on the basis of that, but because it is clear that theological
frameworks had started to crystalize and take off. The Gospel of
Judas represents a well-developed understanding of Gnostic principles
(when compared with, say, the proto-Gnostic Gospel of St John).
Furthermore, although a Coptic script one can work backwards to infer
what vernacular of Greek it originally utilized, which places it with
mid-2nd century date (+/- 25 years or so).

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Not merely on the basis of that, but because it is clear that theological
frameworks had started to crystalize and take off. The Gospel of
Judas represents a well-developed understanding of Gnostic principles
(when compared with, say, the proto-Gnostic Gospel of St John).
Furthermore, although a Coptic script one can work backwards to infer
what vern ...[text shortened]... riginally utilized, which places it with
mid-2nd century date (+/- 25 years or so).

Nemesio

Yes, I understand the methods used to date the Gospel. Does the fact that it was written a generation later than the current canon determine that it is less likely to be accurate in its' portrayal of the events described? If so, what could have been the motivation for its' authorship?

Originally posted by David C
Does the fact that it was written a generation later than the current canon ...

More like two generations, at least.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
More like two generations, at least.

Sure, whatever. So, why was it written?

Originally posted by David C
Sure, whatever. So, why was it written?

To embody (pun intended) the Gnostic message in a Christian milieu.

Originally posted by David C
Yes, I understand the methods used to date the Gospel. Does the fact that it was written a generation later than the current canon determine that it is less likely to be accurate in its' portrayal of the events described? If so, what could have been the motivation for its' authorship?

Well, since we can more or less determine that Gnosticism grew out
of 'mainstream' Chrstianity based on the lack of sources before a
certain period and the increasing number of them afterwards, we can
conclude that a text which demonstrates a highly-developed notion of
Gnosticism is going to be later than one that demonstrates a poorly-
developed one.

The motivation was that Gnostics thought that their brand of Christianity
was the 'right' one. So, they took principal characters from the historic
Christian pallette and painted a picture which conformed to their
theological framework. Given its removal from individuals or communities
which would have had a close tie with Jesus or His Disciples, its value
as a historic record suffers by being both late in a stemmatic rendering
for transmission of text and is highly edited within the Gnostic framework.

By contrast, while we know that Sts Matthew and Luke edited their
primary documents ('Q' as it were and St Mark), we have the dual
advantage of 1) Knowing at least in part what documents they had
(more or less) to edit; and 2) Knowing that they and their documents
originate much closer to the 'original' (oral) source, either Jesus Himself
or at worst a disciple of a Disciple.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well, since we can more or less determine that Gnosticism grew out
of 'mainstream' Chrstianity based on the lack of sources before a
certain period and the increasing number of them afterwards, we can
conclude that a text which demonstrates a highly-developed notion of
Gnosticism is going to be later than one that demonstrates a poorly-
developed one.
...[text shortened]... l' (oral) source, either Jesus Himself
or at worst a disciple of a Disciple.

Nemesio

Well, since we can more or less determine that Gnosticism grew out
of 'mainstream' Chrstianity

Not so convinced, to wit:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

The beginnings of Gnosticism have long been a matter of controversy and are still largely a subject of research. The more these origins are studied, the farther they seem to recede in the past. Whereas formerly Gnosticism was considered mostly a corruption of Christianity, it now seems clear that the first traces of Gnostic systems can be discerned some centuries before the Christian Era.

Isn't it more likely they grew, in most respects, parallel to one and other? The Gnostic teaching being less accessible, of course, due to its' reliance on initiation and mystery. Since what we have of the GoJ shows it is likely a translation of an earlier Greek text, why the insistence on placing the content post-canon? Comfort?

Originally posted by David C
Since what we have of the GoJ shows it is likely a translation of an earlier Greek text, why the insistence on placing the content post-canon? Comfort?

No. Factual correctness.

Something Gnostics and ideologues have not much use for.

The GoJ has not excited any interest in me as yet, and I can’t comment on it. This is just an aside re the dating question. One (certainly not the only) sources of controversy about the Gospel of Thomas is the possibility of its early composition, coupled with its “gnosticism.”* In this case, “gnostic” refers mainly to the claim of hidden or secret teachings, revealed only to a few—as opposed to the public gospel. There was controversy over inclusion of the Apocalypse of John in the canon, too.

However, the ultimate arguments have to be on content—that is, what are the particular contents that would exclude such a book from the canon, as opposed to, say, the Apocalypse? (Unless one simply wants to say that the canon is closed because its closed because its closed...) I doubt if it can strictly be the idea of “secret teachings” imparted to the apostles, since there is clear reference to such in the canonical NT texts (e.g., Mark 4:11 and 1st Corinthians, chapter 2).

Again, since I have not read the GoJ, I’ll now withdraw...

______________________________


* From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_Of_Thomas —

There is currently much debate about when the text was composed, with scholars generally falling into two main camps: an early camp favoring a date in the 50s before the canonical gospels, and a late camp favoring a time after the last of the canonical gospels in the 100s. Among critical scholars, the early camp is dominant in North America, while the late camp is more popular in Europe (especially in the UK and Germany). The majority of Scholars who study the Gospel of Thomas favor an early dating. However the majority of Biblical scholars at large favor a late dating. The dating of The Gospel of Thomas is hotly contested.