Gospel of Judas

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No. Factual correctness.

Something Gnostics and ideologues have not much use for.

OK, Mr. Snippy....comfort it is, then. 😵

Originally posted by David C

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.

Perhaps you don't know, but that article is almost 100 years old (1909) and a lot of study
about Gnosticism has taken place since then. The basic thrust of this content is correct --
Christian Gnosticism was a sort of blend of pre-existing philosophical concepts applied in a
Christian framework. Does it exclude the possibility that Jesus was the first person to blend
it? No, of course not. But, among the rules of stemmatics is the rule of complexity: the
simpler the material, the more likely it is to be early; the more complicated the material
(i.e., having a developed theology), the later the material. Regardless of the roots of
Gnosticism (whether they stemmed directly from Jesus [which I personally doubt] or from
a group of early Christians trying to make sense of it all), amongst Gnostic texts, we can
see an evolution of theological concepts (just like we can in 'mainstream' texts, such as
when we compare the genuine letters by St Paul with the ones attributed to him [like
Ephesians or II Thessalonians and especially the Pastoral Epistles]). Given that even early
Gnostic texts (like the Gospel of St John, which shows what I call a proto-Gnostic theology)
are fairly advanced theologically, a later date of composition (than, say, St Mark's Gospel)
is the more logical choice. Judas's Gospel displays an even more developed Gnostic
framework, which is why I personally favor a second-century date.

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?

Mind you, I'm in the camp that finds it compelling to believe that St Thomas's Gospel has a
mid- to late-first century dating, so I agree that Gnosticism has first-century roots, although
I believe it began to evolve later than the 'Synoptic' track. And I also agree that its asceticism
made it less marketable (so to speak). And while the Coptic text is no doubt a translation of an
earlier Greek text (as you observe), its dating is no doubt quite a bit later than (say) the
Synoptic accounts. As a consequence, I don't see a reason to give the Gospel of Judas any
'biographical' weight (heck, I don't give the Gospel of St John much biographical weight,
except for perhaps the Passion account, which I find more compelling than the Synoptic account).

It certainly isn't a matter of comfort for me, but I don't think that denying the content of
Judas's Gospel as relevant for the historic Jesus really comes down to comfort (whereas denying
the importance of St Thomas's, I think, does). Just my 'heretic' opinion.

Nemesio

Originally posted by vistesd
(Unless one simply wants to say that the canon is closed because its closed because its closed...)

Actually, it isn't:

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/08/tritiocanonical.html

But, for it to be canon, it would have had to have been used somewhere by a church with Apostolic Succession right from the beginning along with the current canon, plus it has to be consistent with existing dogma etc...

Originally posted by David C
OK, Mr. Snippy....comfort it is, then. 😵

Too afraid to face history?

Wonderful fiction about Judas, more interesting than the Gospel of:

Three Versions of Judas (J.L. Borges)

http://www.hccp.org/borges-judas.html

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

Your statement is misleading, please give an approximate timeline for the each of the four cannons and for the gospel of Judas.
I think you will find that although the gospel of Judas was the last to be written, it isnt somehow 'separated by time' from the rest.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your statement is misleading, please give an approximate timeline for the each of the four cannons and for the gospel of Judas.
I think you will find that although the gospel of Judas was the last to be written, it isnt somehow 'separated by time' from the rest.

Off the top of my head:

Mark: 50-70 AD
Matthew & Luke: 60-80 AD
John: 90-110 AD

Judas: 160-220 AD

Happy?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, it isn't:

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/08/tritiocanonical.html

But, for it to be canon, it would have had to have been used somewhere by a church with Apostolic Succession right from the beginning along with the current canon, plus it has to be consistent with existing dogma etc...

I stand happily corrected! 🙂

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Off the top of my head:

Mark: 50-70 AD
Matthew & Luke: 60-80 AD
John: 90-110 AD

Judas: 160-220 AD

Happy?

So
Jesus - First Gospel - 50 years(dont know this actually)
First Gospel - Last Gospel -50 years approx
Last Gospel - Judas Document - 50 years approx.
So Why isnt John also discarded as being 'written nearly a centuary later'?
And to what extent can we tell whether any of them are either made up or invented at the time of writing or based on previous manuscripts / verbal histories / tradition / folklore etc?
Is any of it, in your opinion 'devine inspiration' and if so why does the date matter at all.
It is my belief that almost all public documents covering major events today are more innaccurate and biased when you take the ones made soon after the event. For example a documentary on the second world war made today would almost cirtainly be more factual than one made in 1950 as more information is available to the maker and less bias is likely.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So
Jesus - First Gospel - 50 years(dont know this actually)
First Gospel - Last Gospel -50 years approx
Last Gospel - Judas Document - 50 years approx.
So Why isnt John also discarded as being 'written nearly a centuary later'?
And to what extent can we tell whether any of them are either made up or invented at the time of writing or based on previou ...[text shortened]... than one made in 1950 as more information is available to the maker and less bias is likely.

Actually, Jesus--First Gospel was more like 20-30 years.

Your last point makes a serious error in comparing modern historical methods and historical oral traditions. Indeed, even with the example you gave, a documentary on WWII made in 1950 will certainly have more eye-witness accounts and a better chance of verifying whether certain events actually took place than a documentary in 2006.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, it isn't:

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/08/tritiocanonical.html

But, for it to be canon, it would have had to have been used somewhere by a church with Apostolic Succession right from the beginning along with the current canon, plus it has to be consistent with existing dogma etc...

Wow! I did not know this.

Has there ever been a discussion of the Didache? What about
the Shepherd of Hermas?

How does the Church justify keeping II Peter, which according to my
NAB is very, very late:

Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that II Peter is a
pseudonymous work, i.e., one written by a later author who attributed
it to Peter according to a literary convention popular at the time. It
gives the impression of being more remote in time from the apostolic
period than I Peter; indeed, many think it is the latest work of the New
Testament and assign it to the first or even the second quarter of the
second century.

The principal reasons for this view are the following. The author refers
to the apostles and "our ancestors" as belonging to a previous
generation, now dead (3, 2-4). A collection of Paul's letters exists and
appears to be well known, but disputes have arisen about the
interpretation of them (3, 14-16). The passage about false teachers
(2, 1-18) contains a number of literary contacts with Jude 4-16, and it
is generally agreed upon that II Peter depends upon Jude, not vice
versa. Finally, the principal problem exercising the author is the false
teachings of "scoffers" who have concluded from the delay of the
parousia that the Lord is not going to return. This could scarcely have
been an issue during the lifetime of Simon Peter.

...[the author of the letter] forms a link between the apostolic period
and the church of subsequent ages.

Especially this last sentence seems to be inconsistent with the
criterion of 'used...right from the beginning.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Off the top of my head:

Mark: 50-70 AD
Matthew & Luke: 60-80 AD
John: 90-110 AD

Judas: 160-220 AD

Happy?

I'll offer my opinion:
Jesus -- circa 35 CE
Q -- circa 50 CE
St Thomas -- 65-90 CE
St Mark -- 70-80 CE
Sts Matthew and Luke -- after St Mark, 80-90 CE
St John -- 90-100 CE
Judas -- 140-180 CE (220 CE is a way too late, given Origen's reference
to it in 230 CE, ten years being likely too short a time for it to gain any
currency to be worthy of an attack).

Just my 2c on the topic.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Has there ever been a discussion of the Didache? What about
the Shepherd of Hermas?...

Especially this last sentence seems to be inconsistent with the
criterion of 'used...right from the beginning.'

Of course, taken literally, none of the NT books qualify as they weren't around in the "beginning". 🙂 But the point is that they would have to have been using them pretty much from the time of the Apostolic Fathers (when all the NT books were written).

As to 2 Peter, this site gives 112AD as an outer liberal estimate:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb4.htm

With the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, I believe there were discussions and disputes in the early Church and they never quite managed to get the acceptance that the other NT books did. I have read that some churches did use them as scriptures, but over time things got standardised.

As to 2 Peter, this site gives 112AD as an outer liberal estimate:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb4.htm

With the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, I believe there were discussions and disputes in the early Church and they never quite managed to get the acceptance that the other NT books did. I have read that some churches did use them as scriptures, but over time things got standardised.[/b]

Originally posted by lucifershammer
But the point is that they would have to have been using them pretty much from the time of the Apostolic Fathers (when all the NT books were written).

Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to toss out books from the canon. However, if part of the
argument hinges on dating, then II Peter, Revelation, and maybe the Pastoral Epistles are a good
decade or more later than even St John's Gospel.

I've read dating as late as 130 CE (!) for II Peter, myself, but I personally find that to be an
excessively late date. 110 CE seems right to me, but it's all guesswork anyway.

The Didache certainly has a comparable dating (110 CE) and we know that it was used by the
early Church rather widely, and some (as you said) used them as Scripture, so to speak.

The question I intended to ask was: Has there been any modern review of Didache as per
the website you cited earlier in this thread? The reason I ask is because it seems to me that the
Didache has some very important information to transmit about practices of the early Church.
Given that the RCC is a tradition-based institution, it would seem that a broader discussion of such
an important and revealing document would merit some consideration.

Nemesio