Manipulating the Gospels

[woodchip]

Forgive me if this topic has been discussed previously, but a couple of months ago on the National Georaphic Channel, they did a bit on the newly discovered Judas Gospels. What I got the most out of the presentation is the informing on Jesus by Judas for a few gold dinars was really a plan between Judas and Christ to trigger the events leading to the Crucifiction. True or no?

[Kilarin]

Discussed at length Here (man I wish the search function worked!)
As I said there: Our very first reference to this \"Gospel of Judas\" rejects it as fiction. We have little reason to doubt it belongs in the same VERY large pile of other fake \"gospels\".

[Will Robinson]

I'm pretty sure there was a conspiracy but it runs a little deeper than that.

Apparantly it was all part of a larger plan concieved by the Roman Senate specifically one Senator named Cheneyus Haliburtus.
He wanted there to be much conflict for many millenia in the region between the Israelites, the Philistines, and any other people that may one day occupy the land in anticipation of the discovery of, and subsequent world dependance on, a strange oily substance that would be extracted from the ground there.
The plan was for the Haliburtus family to be able to manipulate the never ending conflict to make the extraction and marketing of the oily substance more profitable for all of Cheneyus' decendants for countless generations to follow.
The plan involved many deceptions and complex schemes not the least of which was when Haliburtus' men managed to impersonate God to get Abraham to believe that god wanted him to give his mistress and their son Ishmael the boot.

Truly an amazing story and quite a legacy for the Haliburtus clan!

[Testiculese]

Well, I'll be damned if it didn't come true!

[Mobius]

Mobius bows to Will's wisdom.

[Repo Man]

All of the so-called \"Gnostic Gospels,” including Judas, have the following things in common:

1. They were written under pseudonyms; attributed to the apostles in an attempt to give their speculations legitimacy. And thus rejected by the early church.

2. They were all written centuries after the Gospel period—in contrast to the New Testament authors who claimed to either be eyewitnesses (Matthew, Mark and John) or to have interviewed eyewitnesses (Luke).

3. They make no pretense of being an actual record of historical events; they were anti-historical as opposed to being non-historical.

If I recall correctly, the “Gospel of Judas” was known and refuted by Irenaeus around 180 AD. The National Geographic story was a slick presentation meant to deceive its readers.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (II Timothy 4:3-4)

That's my two cents worth.

[Pugwash]

I would suggest that people do their own research instead of accepting Repos version as fact. I believe most if not all of his claims to be false.

[Kilarin]

I would suggest that people do their own research instead of accepting Repos version as fact. I believe most if not all of his claims to be false.

Well, I certainly agree that people should do their own research, but I believe that research will back up most of what Repo said:

1. They were written under pseudonyms;

Since the earliest date scholars attribute to the "Gospel of Judas" is 130AD (See point #2), it couldn't have actually been written by Judas, unless you believe he lived to be very, very, VERY old.

2. They were all written centuries after the Gospel period

National Geographic lists the date for the Gospel of Judas as being 130-170 C.E. Wikipedia guesses at 130-180.
So, confirmed, it was written at least a hundred years after Christ Died.

3. They make no pretense of being an actual record of historical events; they were anti-historical as opposed to being non-historical.

I believe this comes from Erwin Lutzer in "The DaVinci Deception". The Gnostic Gospels are not written like histories, but there is certainly room here for difference of opinions. I suppose you could say that the "Gospel of Judas" PRETENDED to be a history, but its a pretty weak pretense.

If I recall correctly, the “Gospel of Judas” was known and refuted by Irenaeus around 180 AD.

Again, Wikipedia confirms:

The early Christian writer Irenaeus of Lyons, whose writings were almost all directed against Gnosticism, mentions The Gospel of Judas in Book 1 Chapter 31 of Refutation of Gnosticism calling it a "fictitious history"

[Pugwash]

well for example, wiki dates the gospel of St John to be anywhere from 65-130AD so the gospel of Judas is in fact a contempory of the gospels adopted by the Catholic church.
Not only that but the gnostic gospels were found sealed in jars in their original form. NOT rewritten thru the ages like the Catholic Gospels.

the rest of your argument is equally flawed.

Like the other gospels, John was probably based on previous texts now lost.

Nowhere in Luke or Acts does it explicitly say that the author is Luke, the companion of Paul. The earliest surviving witnesses that place Luke as the author are the Muratorian Canon (c. 170), the writings of Irenaeus (c. 180)

so the other gospels were not written by the supposed authors either.

I do not believe Erwin Lutzer was there at the time so I dont see how he can claim one writing from the time is true and another is not.

Irenaeus of Lyons tried to dispel the other gospels for political not religous reasons. the early Church tried to limit the Christian outlook so that Christianity would not become too fragmented. they decided which Gospels would be accepted and denounced the rest as heracy.

(considering Wiki can be written by anyone I would suggest not using it as a reference in future. Repo prolly wrote the quotes you are using )

[Shadowfury333]

they decided which Gospels would be accepted and denounced the rest as heresy.

Yes, after a great deal of scholarship, debate and prayer*.

*if you refute on the grounds of prayer, then obviously you are against organized religion as a whole, since logically prayer would help one organize a religion.

[Pugwash]

If you use belief as an argument you end all possible debate, thank you for putting an end to this one.

[Kilarin]

considering Wiki can be written by anyone I would suggest not using it as a reference in future.

I use Wiki because lots of folks trust it. Wiki is frequently a good source of information. BUT, I agree with a friend of mine who calls it the "Quantum Encyclopedia", because the data is sometimes there, and sometimes not, and sometimes in an indeterminate superimposed state.

I only use Wiki when the data it contains is backed up by other sources.

Wiki dates the gospel of St John to be anywhere from 65-130AD

True. And I started to mention this issue, but thought it would be self evident. Those who accept the Gospel of Judas as authentic are the ones who date it from 130-180 bc. For example, the National Geographic piece that was, I understand, quite favorable to the Judas document, uses the dates 130-180bc. I haven't heard ANY other dates quoted for the document, if you have some, I'd be happy to see the source and stand corrected.

BUT, Those who accept the Gospel of John as being authentic place its date of writing within the first century. The Rylands Papyrus contains a passage from John and is dated about AD 125. Which proved not only that the Gospel of John existed in the early half of the second century, but that it had already reached Egypt by that time, which means we have to place it's origin further back. This is obviously consistent with the date accepted by most Christians. However, the actual evidence here is beside the point. Those who accept the Gospel of John date it within the lifetime of John. Even those who actually support the Gospel of Judas date it after the lifetime of Judas.

I do not believe Erwin Lutzer was there at the time so I dont see how he can claim one writing from the time is true and another is not.

You will note that I felt that Lutzers statement, while essentially true, went a bit far in claiming that the gnostic gospels didn't even pretend to be histories. They didn't pretend very well (Have you READ the Gospel of Thomas?), but I think saying they weren't claiming historicity at all is going to far.

Irenaeus of Lyons tried to dispel the other gospels for political not religous reasons.

All Repo claimed was that the Gospel of Judas "was known and refuted by Irenaeus around 180 AD." which is undeniably true. And it does say something important that within less than 50 years from when the Gospel of Judas was written, people were already denying it was anything but fiction. That doesn't prove the case, but it is one more piece of evidence.

Not only that but the gnostic gospels were found sealed in jars in their original form. NOT rewritten thru the ages like the Catholic Gospels.

Since, as I mentioned before, the earliest John fragment is from 125AD, it pre-dates the earliest Gnostic Gospel.

[Pugwash]

now while 125AD does predate 130AD to me a difference of 5 years is irrelevent when we are talking +/-50 years for dates.

I do not see how you can say John predates the gnostic gospels that doesnt make any sense to me.

Repo was using Iraeneus as a reason the Gnostic gospels were not true Gospels. I explained why that is a false position.

I guess my point was that REpo stated those points as facts when in fact they are at best speculation and opinion. That is why I suggested peeps look into it for themselves.

[Lothar]

considering Wiki can be written by anyone I would suggest not using it as a reference in future.

Ironic, coming from a guy who quoted wiki ;)

the gnostic gospels were found sealed in jars in their original form. NOT rewritten thru the ages like the Catholic Gospels.

We have very, very old and geographically widespread copies of the Biblical Gospels -- not exactly "originals", but taken together, close enough. We're not looking at rewrites of revisions of edits of modified versions; we're looking at widespread copies with trivial differences between them. It's pretty evident, when looking at the sum total of the manuscripts, that the writings are:

1) from closer to 60 AD than 130 AD, and
2) pretty much in the form they were in at the time they were written

We don't know whether or not the jar-bound Gnostic Gospels we found were originals or rewrites. There are very, very few copies of them to compare. So, really, it's exactly the opposite of what you suggested. The Gnostics are unreliable; the earliest they possibly could have been written is a couple generations after Christ and we don't know how many different revisions they may have gone through because we only have a few ancient manuscripts to compare. The Biblical Gospels, though, were very likely written within a generation of Jesus' death, and we can see they weren't significantly changed over time because the copies that spread to different regions within a generation or so show few variations between them.

Like the other gospels, John was probably based on previous texts now lost.

Nowhere in Luke or Acts does it explicitly say that the author is Luke, the companion of Paul. The earliest surviving witnesses that place Luke as the author are the Muratorian Canon (c. 170), the writings of Irenaeus (c. 180)

so the other gospels were not written by the supposed authors either.

We KNOW the gospel of Judas wasn't written by Judas, because it wasn't written until a hundred years after Judas' suicide. It's not possible.

You're SPECULATING the gospel of Luke wasn't written by Luke, because nobody mentions Luke as the author until much later. It's possible Luke wasn't the real author but that others decided to attach his name to the books much later, but it's also possible he was.

You're also SPECULATING that the gospel of John wasn't written by John, based on the fact that we think there were previous writings that went into it. As if John wasn't allowed to have read anybody else's gospels and use them as reference material.

the early Church tried to limit the Christian outlook so that Christianity would not become too fragmented. they decided which Gospels would be accepted and denounced the rest as heracy.

The early church wasn't exactly powerful; there wasn't some central government that ran all of the churches. Documents spread or not spread based on their popularity -- based on whether churches that recieved the letters felt they were worth passing on. Some people -- like Paul and Peter -- gave instruction to the various churches through letters while they were still alive, but nobody particularly "ran the show" to the point where they could just suppress writings they didn't like.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John spread because people as a whole thought they were worth spreading. The much later gospels of Thomas, Judas, Mary, etc. did not spread because people didn't think they were worth spreading. And, honestly, all you have to do is read them to see why. They're total crap.

[Pugwash]

considering Wiki can be written by anyone I would suggest not using it as a reference in future.

Ironic, coming from a guy who quoted wiki

Congrats on spotting the joke.

Lothar I am not speculating about anything. I am pointing out that Repo posted speculation and opinion as FACT and that people should not accept this as fact.
You then procede to post more speculation and opinion to back up his original speculation and opinion.

You and Repo are both claiming that one set of objects whos creation date is unknown is much older than another set of objects whos creation date is unknown. Am I the only one that can see how goofy that is?

Some guy who has an agenda bad mouthing the Gnostic Gospels is not a factual reason to dismiss them as Repo suggests.

You not liking them is no reason to Dispel them either.

My quotes from Wiki are intended to show that nobody knows for sure what came when or how. So to claim they do is false.

I stick to my point, you should not claim speculation and opinion as fact.

[Shoku]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John spread because people as a whole thought they were worth spreading. The much later gospels of Thomas, Judas, Mary, etc. did not spread because people didn't think they were worth spreading. And, honestly, all you have to do is read them to see why. They're total crap.

Yep. Total crap. Content is everything. The collection of writtings we now call the New Testament have one very improtant thing in common: Truth. This is the thread that binds them together. Granted, each gospel is written from a different perspective, but in the end what is revealed in each is consistent with the Christian concept of Truth -none of these writtings misrepresent basic Christian doctrine.

The gnostic writings, and other pseudo-christian books - all contain concepts and ideology that is in conflict with the basic Truth of BOTH the Old and New Testaments.

As Lothar said, "all you have to do is read them to see why."

Which is a challenge I made to a lawyer friend of mine many years ago. He was skeptical at first, then I gave him a copy of "The Lost Books of the Bible." He read it, and humbly retreated from his prior stance.

[Pugwash]

edited: removed completely pointless post

[Kilarin]

Everyone has free access to the canonical gospels, but most people have never read the Gnostic Gospels. You can find many of them here: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

Most famous is perhaps The Gospel of Thomas: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
My favorite quote being:
Simon Peter said to them, \"Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life.\"
Jesus said, \"Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.\"

To be fair, some think this was added at a later date, but the only reason I could find for this was that folks thought it just didn't \"FEEL RIGHT\". There was no textual support for removing it.

Please note Pugwash, I AGREE with you completely that people who are interested should read the gnostic gospels and look at the evidence and decide for themselves. We obviously disagree on where that research would lead, but I do agree with you that people should DO the research.

I'm also highly in favor of people researching the background of how the Biblical canon came to be. Most Christians are ignorant of this story, and are frightened of the details. It's not as smooth of a history as they would like. BUT, a few bumps on the road shouldn't surprise anyone.

[snoopy]

I stick to my point, you should not claim speculation and opinion as fact.

Lesson #1 of historiography: Everything is slanted by opinion, and Everything is subject to question. What you ate for breakfast is a matter of speculation and opinion if you want to take it to that extreme.

The fact that you are debating this shows that you havn't done your research, and that you don't know the bodies of evidence supporting the claim that the gospels are more correct than the gnostic gospels. So yes, we're all speculating, but you're betting your speculation on, at best, a weak set of documents (because of the lack of copies out there). Lothar and Kilarin are betting on the strongest historical document in existence. (Again, because of the number of historical copies in existence.)

So, as you would claim that George Washington was the first president of the U.S. as a fact, so I claim that the gospel of Judas wasn't written by Judas as a fact.

[Pugwash]

Lesson #1 of historiography: Everything is slanted by opinion, and Everything is subject to question.

True but irrelevant to the debate at hand.

What you ate for breakfast is a matter of speculation and opinion if you want to take it to that extreme.

Not true, it could be open to speculation but not opinion. You cant have an opinion without first or second hand knowledge and you have neither about my breakfast.

The fact that you are debating this shows that you havn't done your research

That doesnt make any sense.

you're betting your speculation on, at best, a weak set of documents (because of the lack of copies out there)

What does number of copies have to do with anything? You only need to write something down once to record it. Copying a document many times does not make it more authentic.

Lothar and Kilarin are betting on the strongest historical document in existence. (Again, because of the number of historical copies in existence.)

Again, how does number of copies have anything to do with it? they are copies! If something is wrong the first time EVERY copy is wrong. NO I'm not saying the Gospels are wrong just pointing out how stupid this idea is.

so I claim that the gospel of Judas wasn't written by Judas as a fact.

Based on what?

Your whole post amounts to nothing. Just more opinion this time lacking even the speculation that others have included.

You have to remember that 99% of knowledge at the time was passed orally and written down much later. These gospels could have been written down 200 years later but it does not mean the original words did not come from Judas. The same is true of the Canonical Gospels. Dismiss one and you dismiss the other.

[Pugwash]

My favorite quote being:
Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

"females dont deserve life" is not suggesting that all females be killed. He is refering to the after life or enlightenment.
"I will guide her to make her male" is not suggesting sex change operations but a broadening of the spirit an enlightenment (again) so that all could enjoy heaven.

Well I believe this is the reason the early church did not adopt these Gospels. They are NOT idiot proof. They are far more like Buddhism than Canonical Christianity. The Gnostic Gospels are not "crap" as some have said. They just need to be understood properly.

[Stryker]

I hear garbage cans can be very understanding.

The number of copies without change of a text proves that it has not changed from the original source material, and also proves its popularity at the time.

The \"gospel\" of Judas has only had one source copy found to my knowledge. For all we know, it could be a mutilated, disfigured batch of scribbles that doesn't even resemble the source document. Oral traditions are subject to change. Written texts that stay written in the same fashion for hundreds of generations aren't.

Not only are there many copies of the early biblical manuscripts in existence showing that they have not changed over time, they are also historically accurate to the time period, and even neutral authors mention the same events occurring at the same time as the Bible.

To be frank, the whole \"Look, I will guide her to make her male\" thing sounds more like a modern person with a homosexual agenda than a well-educated person from the first century.

Even the Romans, hedonistic as they were, generally didn't perform sex change operations.

[Lothar]

It's not \"number of copies\", in isolation, that's important to my argument. It's the number of copies spread over a broad geographic area by about 130 AD, and the number of changes between them. Taken together, they show a few things:

1) The gospels had been written enough earlier that they were able to spread over a very large area
2) The gospels had been written enough earlier that various editors/copyists had time to make a large number of copies
3) The gospels hadn't changed substantially during the spread (otherwise, we'd see large variations across regions; what we actually see are very small changes that are traceable.) I think it's reasonable to extend that pattern back -- people treated them with such respect that I don't think they changed substantially at first, either.
4) The people who read the gospels thought they were of value, and therefore worth taking the time and energy to copy them and spread them to others

In comparison,

1) We don't know if the Gnostics were any older than the original scrolls we've found, because we only have a few copies of any given book, and all are from the same area
2,3) We don't know if the Gnostics are in their \"original form\", because we only have a few copies and all are from the same area. We can't see what sort of changes were made to them in any way, shape, or form.
4) The people in the early church who read the Gnostics didn't think they were worth passing on.

Some of this is \"speculation\", but at least it's speculation based on, and in line with, the evidence. For example, I've speculated that the Biblical Gospels took several years to spread because of what I know of the transportation of the time; it's POSSIBLE but unlikely that they spread much faster and therefore aren't quite as old as I think.

You and Repo are both claiming that one set of objects whos creation date is unknown is much older than another set of objects whos creation date is unknown. Am I the only one that can see how goofy that is?

It's not that goofy at all. I don't know the creation date of the Pyramids, nor do I know the creation date of Paul's letter to the Romans, but it's perfectly reasonable for me to say that the Pyramids are older, based on the evidence.

I don't know the exact creation date of the Gnostic gospels or the Biblical gospels, but it's perfectly reasonable for me to say the Biblical gospels are at least a generation older, based on the evidence. (Treating +/- 5 years as \"irrelevant\" due to the +/- 50 years on the dates shows a great deal of misunderstanding. You can't double the size of the error bars arbitrarily; the difference of 5 years is the absolute minimum. There's good reason to believe it's closer to 60 years, in particular, based on the fact that none of the Biblical gospels mention the destruction of the temple in 70 AD even though they're historical narrative.)

I believe this is the reason the early church did not adopt these Gospels.... They are far more like Buddhism than Canonical Christianity. The Gnostic Gospels are not \"crap\" as some have said. They just need to be understood properly.

They do need to be understood properly, I agree. And I've said before that they're far more like Buddhism than Christianity. That's why I say people who think they belong in the Bible should go read them.

They're \"crap\" in the sense that they obviously don't describe a Jewish teacher named Jesus who was popular among the Jewish people. They're a bunch of eastern teachings rephrased using a Jewish teacher's name. The early church didn't adopt them because they didn't describe the historical Jesus the people in the early church had been taught about directly by those who knew him. So, in the historical sense, they're crap. There's no way around that.

If you think they have some value as historically-inaccurate philosophy, more power to you. But don't go claiming they belong in the Bible or they describe the Jewish teacher Jesus.

[Pugwash]

I explained earlier why some Gospels flourished while others where demonized.
There is only one set of dead sea scrolls do you doubt their authenticity/date also?
There may be \"good reason\" or not to \"think\" one set of Gospels is older than the other but you dont KNOW. So to claim precedence as fact is still wrong.
Like I said the teachings could easily be contemporary even if the paper they are written on is not.

I think we are running in circles with this debate so I'm gonna stop here.

Have a good one guys,

[Bet51987]

Simon Peter said to them, \"Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life.\"

Me draws guns and looks for Simon Peter....

[Kilarin]

To defend Pugwash, While Gnostic actually just means \"concerning knowledge\", it usually has an implication of \"Hidden\" knowledge. SO, it would be entirely consistant for a Gnostic to believe that a document with FEWER copies available is more authentic than one that has been widly disseminated.

[Lothar]

I explained earlier why some Gospels flourished while others where demonized.

You did. But, your argument assumed the existance of a power structure that simply did not exist at the time. I, too, explained why some gospels flourished while others failed -- but my explanation actually fits with the conditions that existed at the time. The Gnostic gospels simply didn't convince people, and it's obvious why if you read them. They're not Jewish writings; they don't describe a Jewish teacher who taught about the Jewish law in any way that would be meaningful to Jewish people.

There is only one set of dead sea scrolls do you doubt their authenticity/date also?

I don't doubt either the authenticity or date of the Gnostic Gospel manuscripts as presented above. I believe the manuscripts are from approximately the dates listed above, and that they say what people claim they say.

Similarly for the Dead Sea Scrolls -- I believe they're from approximately the dates people say, and that the text is as has been reported.

At question is not whether the manuscripts exist or are of the age they seem to be; those are well established. Rather, at question is (1) how well the manuscripts match up with other copies, (2) when the source documents were originally written, and (3) whether the content is of any value.

The parts of the DSS that should match up with other manuscripts... do. The match is pretty darn good. Furthermore, the DSS establish that the source documents for the Old Testament did not substantially change between ~150 BC and ~800 AD. And millions of Jews and Christians worldwide, throughout history, have found the content to be incredibly worthwhile. This does not mean the OT is magical or that the DSS are perfect, it simply means we have evidence that it was pretty close to its current form 150 years before the time of Christ.

The Gnostic manuscripts we have don't have counterparts for us to match them up with. We can pretty firmly establish that the copies we have were written a bit more than 100 years after Christ's death, and that they weren't tremendously popular. That's all the more manuscript evidence we have -- there aren't older copies to establish older dates; there aren't copies from other areas to establish popularity or consistancy of transmission. There are just a few manuscripts. At best, we can establish that somebody wrote them. That's not really a whole lot to go on! And not a whole lot of people throughout history seem to have gotten anything of value from them; I have yet to hear anyone say "the Gospel of Thomas totally changed my life because of how deep and wonderful it is!"

There may be "good reason" or not to "think" one set of Gospels is older than the other but you dont KNOW.

Well, no, I don't KNOW in a mathematical sense, nor do I KNOW in a strong philosophical sense. Neither applies when you're studying history. The closest you can get is to be reasonably convinced based on the available evidence. And, in this case, I am. The evidence for the Gnostics consists of a few scattered manuscripts, written in or after 130 AD, with no external support. The evidence for the Canonical Gospels consists of geographically widespread manuscripts, including a few older manuscripts, as well as external support (in the form of references, quotations, acceptance, etc.) from various churches and church leaders in several countries and regions.

Yeah, it's *possible* the Gnostics are older than the paper they were written on. It's also *possible* that they were written by actual eyewitnesses to the events and just happened to remain hidden for a long time due to the conspiring church leaders. It's also *possible* that Jesus was a Jewish teacher who sounded like a Buddhist and who passed down teachings in a secretive manner. But you have to take that on blind, unjustified faith -- there's absolutely NO evidence for it. There's no reason to believe it beyond wanting it to be true.

But it's *reasonable*, based on evidence, to think the Canonical gospels are older than the paper they're written on, and that they were written by eyewitnesses or people who interviewed eyewitnesses. The breadth of manuscript evidence alone is quite strong. It's not exactly PROOF (as if such a thing could exist), but it's certainly strong evidence.

That's all I'm saying... examine the evidence. Look at the manuscripts in both cases; look at the content in both cases; look at the history in both cases. Then believe what the evidence leads you to believe.