Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Gospel of Judas on nationalgeographic.com

Expand Messages
  • Bart Ehrman
    The Gospel of Judas *itself* is no hoax. It is a manuscript from around 300, a Coptic translation of an original that predates Irenaeus. ANd very interesting.
    Message 1 of 17 , Apr 10 5:04 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      The Gospel of Judas *itself* is no hoax. It is a manuscript from
      around 300, a Coptic translation of an original that predates Irenaeus.
      ANd very interesting. The best resources are the books just now published
      by National Getographic.

      -- Bart Ehrman
      University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill


      On Sun, 9 Apr 2006, Ben Davidson wrote:

      > OMG! I just looked more closely at their 'translations'.
      > First let me apologise to any who wasted their time on that link.
      > I am a sucker for images, and I didn't even give xlations a glance at first.
      > Actually, now that i think of it, why haven't there been more such hoaxes?
      > I am not encouraging anyone. The only one I can think of is Morton Smith
      > and the Secret Gospel of Mark...but like all good hoaxes I suppose the jury is
      > still out on that one. I guess I should have seen a 'Judas' thing coming,
      > but how many have there actually been? almost none?
      >
      > regrets and apologies,
      > Eeyore...
      >
      >
      > Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...> wrote:
      >
      > I think this geocities site (though now at gospelofstjudas.com) is a hoax. You can read their "translations" (no originals) and decide for yourself:
      >
      > http://www.gospelofstjudas.com/router_page.html
      >
      > Anyone can collect a few archaeological and mss. photos and put up a website claiming a discovery. They also declare that they take "no responsibility, ever." Heh.
      >
      > regards,
      > Peter Kirby
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      > __________________________________________________
      > Do You Yahoo!?
      > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      > http://mail.yahoo.com
    • g_gardner1234
      Here are some of the issues that I view as problematic in labeling the Gospel of Judas as an early Christian writing . First of all the codex available for
      Message 2 of 17 , Apr 10 1:52 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Here are some of the issues that I view as problematic in labeling the
        Gospel of Judas as "an early Christian writing". First of all the
        codex available for review is written in Coptic, not Greek. If it is a
        copy of the earlier Greek text referred to by Iraneus of Lyons (180
        ce) as some have alluded, then I would like to see some solid evidence
        presented that actually substantiates this. If anyone could direct me
        towards those resources, I would greatly appreciate it. The theology
        taught in the codex clearly goes against first century Jewish thought,
        as well as much earlier writings from the Hebrew scriptures about
        creation and such. When compared to the canonical Gospels, there are
        contradictions that are quite evident. The "gospel" that is being
        taught in this writing appears to be clearly gnostic and dualistic, so
        it is evident why, if this is a copy of the original, the early church
        fathers rejected it during it's first review. Since the gnostic
        movement arose in the middle second century, I am not sure how this
        writing would be influential when the foundations of the early
        Christian movement was forming in the first century. A better label
        for this codex might be "coptic gnostic" in my opinion. I also must
        admit that I find the timing for the release of this translation
        (Easter season) to be a bit questionable. With all of the press that
        the Da Vinci codes have gotten recently with the lawsuit and such, the
        surrounding fanfare that has been showered on the Gospel of Judas
        lends itself to the appearance of a well thought out marketing
        strategy rather than the release of groundbreaking textual news. In my
        opinion, this gnostic codex sheds about as much light on the factual
        truth of the Christian story as the Nag Hammadi texts did, which is
        little to none.








        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Bart Ehrman <behrman@...> wrote:
        >
        > The Gospel of Judas *itself* is no hoax. It is a manuscript from
        > around 300, a Coptic translation of an original that predates Irenaeus.
        > ANd very interesting. The best resources are the books just now
        published
        > by National Getographic.
        >
        > -- Bart Ehrman
        > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
        >
        >
        > On Sun, 9 Apr 2006, Ben Davidson wrote:
        >
        > > OMG! I just looked more closely at their 'translations'.
        > > First let me apologise to any who wasted their time on that link.
        > > I am a sucker for images, and I didn't even give xlations a
        glance at first.
        > > Actually, now that i think of it, why haven't there been more
        such hoaxes?
        > > I am not encouraging anyone. The only one I can think of is
        Morton Smith
        > > and the Secret Gospel of M

        ark...but like all good hoaxes I suppose the jury is
        > > still out on that one. I guess I should have seen a 'Judas'
        thing coming,
        > > but how many have there actually been? almost none?
        > >
        > > regrets and apologies,
        > > Eeyore...
        > >
        > >
        > > Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > I think this geocities site (though now at gospelofstjudas.com) is
        a hoax. You can read their "translations" (no originals) and decide
        for yourself:
        > >
        > > http://www.gospelofstjudas.com/router_page.html
        > >
        > > Anyone can collect a few archaeological and mss. photos and put up
        a website claiming a discovery. They also declare that they take "no
        responsibility, ever." Heh.
        > >
        > > regards,
        > > Peter Kirby
        > >
        > >
        > > ---------------------------------
        > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
        > >
        > > __________________________________________________
        > > Do You Yahoo!?
        > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        > > http://mail.yahoo.com
        >
      • Daniel Buck
        ... around 300, a Coptic translation of an original that predates Irenaeus. -- Bart Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill I agree. . . to an
        Message 3 of 17 , Apr 10 2:05 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Bart Ehrman <behrman@...> wrote:
          >> The Gospel of Judas *itself* is no hoax. It is a manuscript from
          around 300, a Coptic translation of an original that predates Irenaeus.

          -- Bart Ehrman
          University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill>>

          I agree. . . to an extent.

          Unlike many archeological revelations of the past decade, the Codex in
          which the GOJ is found is no modern forgery. It has been dated by
          carbon-14 and paleography to the 3rd century or so. It shows every
          sign of being a translation of the actual Gnostic text of that name
          mentioned by Iranaeus in the 2nd century (if we are to put that level
          of trust in late editions of his works).

          However, we are probably too far removed from the situation to know
          anything further. That the original Gospel of Judas, as Irenaeus
          charged, was a pseudopigraphal forgery can be taken for granted. Thus
          whether this present document is itself an ancient forgery of the GOJ
          is both unknowable and unimportant. However interesting it may be to
          those studying the history of Gnosticism, it is of little value to the
          paleographer, even less to the New Testament textual critic.

          Daniel Buck
        • Bart Ehrman
          I d suggest you read the scholarship already available, which deals with just these issues. You ll find four relevant essays in the book National Geographic
          Message 4 of 17 , Apr 11 4:27 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            I'd suggest you read the scholarship already available, which deals with
            just these issues. You'll find four relevant essays in the book National
            Geographic has released, called The Gospel of Judas. The essays are by
            Rodolphe Kasser (editor of the text), Gregor Wurst (co-editor), Marvin
            Meyer (English translator), and me (an add-on). Leaving me out of the
            equation, I think you'll recognize that we're dealing with the top
            scholars in the world of Coptology, with impeccable credentials on the
            early Christian literature.

            -- Bart Ehrman
            University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

            On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, g_gardner1234 wrote:

            > Here are some of the issues that I view as problematic in labeling the
            > Gospel of Judas as "an early Christian writing". First of all the
            > codex available for review is written in Coptic, not Greek. If it is a
            > copy of the earlier Greek text referred to by Iraneus of Lyons (180
            > ce) as some have alluded, then I would like to see some solid evidence
            > presented that actually substantiates this. If anyone could direct me
            > towards those resources, I would greatly appreciate it. The theology
            > taught in the codex clearly goes against first century Jewish thought,
            > as well as much earlier writings from the Hebrew scriptures about
            > creation and such. When compared to the canonical Gospels, there are
            > contradictions that are quite evident. The "gospel" that is being
            > taught in this writing appears to be clearly gnostic and dualistic, so
            > it is evident why, if this is a copy of the original, the early church
            > fathers rejected it during it's first review. Since the gnostic
            > movement arose in the middle second century, I am not sure how this
            > writing would be influential when the foundations of the early
            > Christian movement was forming in the first century. A better label
            > for this codex might be "coptic gnostic" in my opinion. I also must
            > admit that I find the timing for the release of this translation
            > (Easter season) to be a bit questionable. With all of the press that
            > the Da Vinci codes have gotten recently with the lawsuit and such, the
            > surrounding fanfare that has been showered on the Gospel of Judas
            > lends itself to the appearance of a well thought out marketing
            > strategy rather than the release of groundbreaking textual news. In my
            > opinion, this gnostic codex sheds about as much light on the factual
            > truth of the Christian story as the Nag Hammadi texts did, which is
            > little to none.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Bart Ehrman <behrman@...> wrote:
            >>
            >> The Gospel of Judas *itself* is no hoax. It is a manuscript from
            >> around 300, a Coptic translation of an original that predates Irenaeus.
            >> ANd very interesting. The best resources are the books just now
            > published
            >> by National Getographic.
            >>
            >> -- Bart Ehrman
            >> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
            >>
            >>
            >> On Sun, 9 Apr 2006, Ben Davidson wrote:
            >>
            >>> OMG! I just looked more closely at their 'translations'.
            >>> First let me apologise to any who wasted their time on that link.
            >>> I am a sucker for images, and I didn't even give xlations a
            > glance at first.
            >>> Actually, now that i think of it, why haven't there been more
            > such hoaxes?
            >>> I am not encouraging anyone. The only one I can think of is
            > Morton Smith
            >>> and the Secret Gospel of M
            >
            > ark...but like all good hoaxes I suppose the jury is
            >>> still out on that one. I guess I should have seen a 'Judas'
            > thing coming,
            >>> but how many have there actually been? almost none?
            >>>
            >>> regrets and apologies,
            >>> Eeyore...
            >>>
            >>>
            >>> Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...> wrote:
            >>>
            >>> I think this geocities site (though now at gospelofstjudas.com) is
            > a hoax. You can read their "translations" (no originals) and decide
            > for yourself:
            >>>
            >>> http://www.gospelofstjudas.com/router_page.html
            >>>
            >>> Anyone can collect a few archaeological and mss. photos and put up
            > a website claiming a discovery. They also declare that they take "no
            > responsibility, ever." Heh.
            >>>
            >>> regards,
            >>> Peter Kirby
            >>>
            >>>
            >>> ---------------------------------
            >>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
            >>>
            >>> __________________________________________________
            >>> Do You Yahoo!?
            >>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            >>> http://mail.yahoo.com
            >>
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Bart Ehrman
            Well, it s of *tremendous* value to the *Coptic* palaeographer, but not so much to one restricted to Greek. -- Bart Ehrman UNC-Chapel Hill
            Message 5 of 17 , Apr 11 4:29 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Well, it's of *tremendous* value to the *Coptic* palaeographer, but not
              so much to one restricted to Greek.

              -- Bart Ehrman
              UNC-Chapel Hill



              On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Daniel Buck wrote:

              > Bart Ehrman <behrman@...> wrote:
              >>> The Gospel of Judas *itself* is no hoax. It is a manuscript from
              > around 300, a Coptic translation of an original that predates Irenaeus.
              >
              > -- Bart Ehrman
              > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill>>
              >
              > I agree. . . to an extent.
              >
              > Unlike many archeological revelations of the past decade, the Codex in
              > which the GOJ is found is no modern forgery. It has been dated by
              > carbon-14 and paleography to the 3rd century or so. It shows every
              > sign of being a translation of the actual Gnostic text of that name
              > mentioned by Iranaeus in the 2nd century (if we are to put that level
              > of trust in late editions of his works).
              >
              > However, we are probably too far removed from the situation to know
              > anything further. That the original Gospel of Judas, as Irenaeus
              > charged, was a pseudopigraphal forgery can be taken for granted. Thus
              > whether this present document is itself an ancient forgery of the GOJ
              > is both unknowable and unimportant. However interesting it may be to
              > those studying the history of Gnosticism, it is of little value to the
              > paleographer, even less to the New Testament textual critic.
              >
              > Daniel Buck
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • James M. Leonard
              I offer these thoughts with some tentativity, suggesting that the forum members take them more as questions than measured opinion, and asking for correction as
              Message 6 of 17 , Apr 11 9:24 AM
              • 0 Attachment

                I offer these thoughts with some tentativity, suggesting that the forum members take them more as questions than measured opinion, and asking for correction as necessary....

                Someone has raised the question as to the appropriateness of labeling GJud as a Christian text.  This whole discussion coincides with the commencement of my own re-reading of Prof. Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption in light of my just completed reading of Prof. Hurtado's incredibly good and comprehensive tome Lord Jesus Christ (Amazon Review ).

                Preliminarily, we should question the validity of discussing GJud on this forum since I can't imagine how it might possibly contribute to our discipline, except  perhaps in some peripheral matters such as paleography, etc.  However, GJud is thrust upon us, not by media hype, but rather by Prof. Ehrman's rather heightened emphasis on radical diversity in early Christianity.  This emphasis is found both in his Orthodox Corruption and Misquoting Jesus.   Prof. Ehrman writes,

                Some of these Christian groups insisted that God had created this world; others maintained that the true God had not created this world (which is,  after all, an evil place), but that it was the result of a cosmic disaster.  Some of these groups insisted that the Jewish scriptures were given by the one true God; others claimed that the Jewish scriptures belong to the inferior God of the Jews, who was not the one true God.  Some of these groups insisted that Jesus Christ was the one Son of God who was both completely human and not at all divine; others maintained that he was completely divine and not at all human; and yet others asserted that Jesus Christ was two things--a divine being (Christ) and a human being (Jesus).  Some of these groups believed that Christ's death brought about the salvation of the world; others maintained that Christ's death had nothing to do with the salvation of this world; yet other groups insisted that Christ had never actually died (Misquoting Jesus, 153).

                I understand that there is a basic diversity in early Christianity, but here Prof. Hurtado provides some often overlooked corrective.  He emphasizes that proto-orthodoxy survived despite, or perhaps precisely because of a "'free market' religious economy in the Christian movement!"  He explains,

                The claims of proto-orthodox circles to preserve primal Christian traditions can easlity be shown to be simplistic, or at least only partly indicative of what characterized them.  Actually we could say that proto-orthodox Christianity succeeded more than competing versions of faith, and became the generally dominant form of Christian faith precisely by adapting successfully.  Proto-orthodox circles drew upon revered traditions, to be sure [a point well articulated and substantiated by Hurtado inter alia], but they also engaged the issues, circumstances, and settings of the early centuries in their efforts to articulate and promote adherence to their vision of Christian faith.  To succeed as it did, proto-orthodox Christianity had to advocate its beliefs and practices in ways that appealed to comparatively wider circles, and larger numbers of believers, than the alternatives did.  In the earliest period, long before imperial coercion could be brought to bear in favor of this or that doctrinal position, there was a "free-market" religious economy in the Christian movement (520)!

                And so, much of Prof. Hurtado's book shows how proto-orthodoxy is not merely consonant with first century Christianity, but a natural outgrowth and maturation of earliest Christian thought.

                In contrast, we are hard-pressed to see anything integrally Christian in the gnostic writings.  Therein we see an alien sophistry sporadically dangled onto sequestered names and figures of Christianity who are otherwise disembodied from their historical, real life settings.  What we don't have is a philosophy properly integrated into a Christian system of thought.  We can't imagine these gnostics as gathering together for worship, expressing their love to Jesus, singing hymns of praise to him, doing Christian ministry, or adhering to their beliefs at the threat of martyrdom.  Instead, we get the impression that these sophists found it convenient to promote their beliefs by attaching them to well-known personages of the church.

                This discussion is relative to tc because Prof. Ehrman felt compelled to appeal to these pagan pseudo-Christians in his effort to affirm his basic thesis that those who preserved scripture often corrupted it for theological reasons.  The more radically divergent early Christianity was, the greater the impression on the reader that copyists were reactionary and scripture was correspondingly corrupted.  Thus, we get statements from Prof. Ehrman exaggerating the significance of the discovery of GJud.

                But isn't the existence of radically divergent Christianity largely moot in terms of tc?  After all, gnostics were generally not known for preserving traditions encapsulated in the earliest Christian writings.  They were innovators and reactionaries to tradition, and as such, carry little value in determining the NT text.  This may not be true of all NT apocryphal and patristic writings, but it is especially true of the kinds of writings found in Nag Hammadi generally, and in GJud in particular.

                 

                 


                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel Buck" <bucksburg@...> wrote:
                >
                > Bart Ehrman behrman@ wrote:
                > >> The Gospel of Judas *itself* is no hoax. It is a manuscript from
                > around 300, a Coptic translation of an original that predates Irenaeus.
                >
                > -- Bart Ehrman
                > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill>>
                >
                > I agree. . . to an extent.
                >
                > Unlike many archeological revelations of the past decade, the Codex in
                > which the GOJ is found is no modern forgery. It has been dated by
                > carbon-14 and paleography to the 3rd century or so. It shows every
                > sign of being a translation of the actual Gnostic text of that name
                > mentioned by Iranaeus in the 2nd century (if we are to put that level
                > of trust in late editions of his works).
                >
                > However, we are probably too far removed from the situation to know
                > anything further. That the original Gospel of Judas, as Irenaeus
                > charged, was a pseudopigraphal forgery can be taken for granted. Thus
                > whether this present document is itself an ancient forgery of the GOJ
                > is both unknowable and unimportant. However interesting it may be to
                > those studying the history of Gnosticism, it is of little value to the
                > paleographer, even less to the New Testament textual critic.
                >
                > Daniel Buck
                >

              • g_gardner1234
                Bart, Thanks for your reply. If I can find the book at a university library, I will give it a look. For now, let me simplify my line of questioning. Do you
                Message 7 of 17 , Apr 11 12:55 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bart,

                  Thanks for your reply. If I can find the book at a university library,
                  I will give it a look. For now, let me simplify my line of
                  questioning. Do you believe that it is Christian or gnostic in its
                  content, because to state that it is both Christian and gnostic is
                  like saying that it is a square circle. I looked at the translation,
                  and its content appeared purely gnostic to me, with all of the typical
                  phraseology.The modern Coptic church, who I would assume are the
                  keepers of the Coptic Christian tradition, seem to have a strong
                  aversion to this codex:

                  quote:

                  "We reject any association with the Gospel of Judas or any other
                  Gnostic Texts

                  · The "Gospel of Judas" is one of many "Gnostic non Christian
                  Gospels". It is one of many found in Upper Egypt in a cave in the
                  provincial city of Nag-Hammadi.

                  · The Coptic Orthodox Church is a main stream Christian Church and
                  totally rejects these non-Christian writings.

                  · The use of the Coptic language in a document does not make it
                  necessarily one of our documents. The Coptic language was the native
                  language of all Egyptians, Christians and pagans. Paganism co-existed
                  with Christianity in Egypt till the 5th Century.

                  We suppose the question should be why would the churches suppress
                  these Gnostic gospels? What would be the benefit – Christianity lived
                  and flourished in the midst of the most bloody and violent era 1st,
                  2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Centuries? Who would attempt to challenge the
                  world with a self proclaimed falsified truth?

                  The Gnostic gospels were deemed false by the churches because they
                  were untrue, not historical and have no support from the foundation of
                  the Christian faith - that being the prophecies of the Old Testament.
                  Which incidentally have been endorsed as accurate and true following
                  the discovery made at the valley of Qumran – "The Dead Sea Scrolls" in
                  particular the book of ISIAH the prophet."

                  http://www.coptic.org.au/modules/news/article.php?storyid=288

                  To say that this text is important in reference to the study of the
                  era, language, and writing style of the gnostic group who penned it
                  may have some merit. To state that it is important in reference to the
                  formation of early Christianity and the canon would be a major stretch
                  in my opinion.

                  Gene





                  --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Bart Ehrman <behrman@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I'd suggest you read the scholarship already available, which
                  deals with
                  > just these issues. You'll find four relevant essays in the book
                  National
                  > Geographic has released, called The Gospel of Judas. The essays are by
                  > Rodolphe Kasser (editor of the text), Gregor Wurst (co-editor), Marvin
                  > Meyer (English translator), and me (an add-on). Leaving me out of the
                  > equation, I think you'll recognize that we're dealing with the top
                  > scholars in the world of Coptology, with impeccable credentials on the
                  > early Christian literature.
                  >
                  > -- Bart Ehrman
                  > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                  >
                  > On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, g_gardner1234 wrote:
                  >
                  > > Here are some of the issues that I view as problematic in labeling the
                  > > Gospel of Judas as "an early Christian writing". First of all the
                  > > codex available for review is written in Coptic, not Greek. If it is a
                  > > copy of the earlier Greek text referred to by Iraneus of Lyons (180
                  > > ce) as some have alluded, then I would like to see some solid evidence
                  > > presented that actually substantiates this. If anyone could direct me
                  > > towards those resources, I would greatly appreciate it. The theology
                  > > taught in the codex clearly goes against first century Jewish thought,
                  > > as well as much earlier writings from the Hebrew scriptures about
                  > > creation and such. When compared to the canonical Gospels, there are
                  > > contradictions that are quite evident. The "gospel" that is being
                  > > taught in this writing appears to be clearly gnostic and dualistic, so
                  > > it is evident why, if this is a copy of the original, the early church
                  > > fathers rejected it during it's first review. Since the gnostic
                  > > movement arose in the middle second century, I am not sure how this
                  > > writing would be influential when the foundations of the early
                  > > Christian movement was forming in the first century. A better label
                  > > for this codex might be "coptic gnostic" in my opinion. I also must
                  > > admit that I find the timing for the release of this translation
                  > > (Easter season) to be a bit questionable. With all of the press that
                  > > the Da Vinci codes have gotten recently with the lawsuit and such, the
                  > > surrounding fanfare that has been showered on the Gospel of Judas
                  > > lends itself to the appearance of a well thought out marketing
                  > > strategy rather than the release of groundbreaking textual news. In my
                  > > opinion, this gnostic codex sheds about as much light on the factual
                  > > truth of the Christian story as the Nag Hammadi texts did, which is
                  > > little to none.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Bart Ehrman <behrman@> wrote:
                  > >>
                  > >> The Gospel of Judas *itself* is no hoax. It is a manuscript from
                  > >> around 300, a Coptic translation of an original that predates
                  Irenaeus.
                  > >> ANd very interesting. The best resources are the books just now
                  > > published
                  > >> by National Getographic.
                  > >>
                  > >> -- Bart Ehrman
                  > >> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >> On Sun, 9 Apr 2006, Ben Davidson wrote:
                  > >>
                  > >>> OMG! I just looked more closely at their 'translations'.
                  > >>> First let me apologise to any who wasted their time on that link.
                  > >>> I am a sucker for images, and I didn't even give xlations a
                  > > glance at first.
                  > >>> Actually, now that i think of it, why haven't there been more
                  > > such hoaxes?
                  > >>> I am not encouraging anyone. The only one I can think of is
                  > > Morton Smith
                  > >>> and the Secret Gospel of M
                  > >
                  > > ark...but like all good hoaxes I suppose the jury is
                  > >>> still out on that one. I guess I should have seen a 'Judas'
                  > > thing coming,
                  > >>> but how many have there actually been? almost none?
                  > >>>
                  > >>> regrets and apologies,
                  > >>> Eeyore...
                  > >>>
                  > >>>
                  > >>> Peter Kirby <peterkirby@> wrote:
                  > >>>
                  > >>> I think this geocities site (though now at gospelofstjudas.com) is
                  > > a hoax. You can read their "translations" (no originals) and decide
                  > > for yourself:
                  > >>>
                  > >>> http://www.gospelofstjudas.com/router_page.html
                  > >>>
                  > >>> Anyone can collect a few archaeological and mss. photos and put up
                  > > a website claiming a discovery. They also declare that they take "no
                  > > responsibility, ever." Heh.
                  > >>>
                  > >>> regards,
                  > >>> Peter Kirby
                  > >>>
                  > >>>
                  > >>> ---------------------------------
                  > >>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                  > >>>
                  > >>> __________________________________________________
                  > >>> Do You Yahoo!?
                  > >>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  > >>> http://mail.yahoo.com
                  > >>
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                • xt7rt
                  ... moot ... writings. Isn t that Ehrman s exact point? While the gnostics didn t preserve the text, they provided a point of opposition to the orthodox who
                  Message 8 of 17 , Apr 12 2:35 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James M. Leonard"
                    <jmleonardfamily@...> wrote:
                    > But isn't the existence of radically divergent Christianity largely
                    moot
                    > in terms of tc? After all, gnostics were generally not known for
                    > preserving traditions encapsulated in the earliest Christian
                    writings.

                    Isn't that Ehrman's exact point? While the gnostics didn't preserve
                    the text, they provided a point of opposition to the orthodox who
                    _were_ preserving the text?
                  • Bart Ehrman
                    Sorry, but I think we re going to end up talking in circles. If you think Gnostic Christian is a square circle, then you hold to a view of both Gnosticism and
                    Message 9 of 17 , Apr 12 6:14 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Sorry, but I think we're going to end up talking in circles. If you
                      think Gnostic Christian is a square circle, then you hold to a view of
                      both Gnosticism and Christianity that I simply don't share and that I
                      think is both historically and methodologically problematic and
                      implausible. Many Gnostics *were* Christians (they saw themselves as
                      followers of the true teachings of Christ) just as many Christians were
                      Gnostics (they held that the secret knowledge that Jesus delivered is what
                      brought about salvation, rather than Jesus' death and resurrection). To
                      think otherwise is simply to accept the ideological views handed down from
                      Eusebius (well, Irenaeus at least) -- that is, it is a theological, not a
                      historical, claim, a claim that anyone who holds to a different way of
                      following Christ is not "really" a Christian. The Baptist church on the
                      corner might claim that about the Episcopalian church across the street;
                      but for historians to take that view means living back in the fourth
                      century. In my opinion! But again, I"m not sure this relates directly to
                      the list.

                      --- Bart Ehrman



                      On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, g_gardner1234 wrote:

                      > Bart,
                      >
                      > Thanks for your reply. If I can find the book at a university library,
                      > I will give it a look. For now, let me simplify my line of
                      > questioning. Do you believe that it is Christian or gnostic in its
                      > content, because to state that it is both Christian and gnostic is
                      > like saying that it is a square circle. I looked at the translation,
                      > and its content appeared purely gnostic to me, with all of the typical
                      > phraseology.The modern Coptic church, who I would assume are the
                      > keepers of the Coptic Christian tradition, seem to have a strong
                      > aversion to this codex:
                      >
                      > quote:
                      >
                      > "We reject any association with the Gospel of Judas or any other
                      > Gnostic Texts
                      >
                      > · The "Gospel of Judas" is one of many "Gnostic non Christian
                      > Gospels". It is one of many found in Upper Egypt in a cave in the
                      > provincial city of Nag-Hammadi.
                      >
                      > · The Coptic Orthodox Church is a main stream Christian Church and
                      > totally rejects these non-Christian writings.
                      >
                      > · The use of the Coptic language in a document does not make it
                      > necessarily one of our documents. The Coptic language was the native
                      > language of all Egyptians, Christians and pagans. Paganism co-existed
                      > with Christianity in Egypt till the 5th Century.
                      >
                      > We suppose the question should be why would the churches suppress
                      > these Gnostic gospels? What would be the benefit – Christianity lived
                      > and flourished in the midst of the most bloody and violent era 1st,
                      > 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Centuries? Who would attempt to challenge the
                      > world with a self proclaimed falsified truth?
                      >
                      > The Gnostic gospels were deemed false by the churches because they
                      > were untrue, not historical and have no support from the foundation of
                      > the Christian faith - that being the prophecies of the Old Testament.
                      > Which incidentally have been endorsed as accurate and true following
                      > the discovery made at the valley of Qumran – "The Dead Sea Scrolls" in
                      > particular the book of ISIAH the prophet."
                      >
                      > http://www.coptic.org.au/modules/news/article.php?storyid=288
                      >
                      > To say that this text is important in reference to the study of the
                      > era, language, and writing style of the gnostic group who penned it
                      > may have some merit. To state that it is important in reference to the
                      > formation of early Christianity and the canon would be a major stretch
                      > in my opinion.
                      >
                      > Gene
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Bart Ehrman <behrman@...> wrote:
                      >>
                      >> I'd suggest you read the scholarship already available, which
                      > deals with
                      >> just these issues. You'll find four relevant essays in the book
                      > National
                      >> Geographic has released, called The Gospel of Judas. The essays are by
                      >> Rodolphe Kasser (editor of the text), Gregor Wurst (co-editor), Marvin
                      >> Meyer (English translator), and me (an add-on). Leaving me out of the
                      >> equation, I think you'll recognize that we're dealing with the top
                      >> scholars in the world of Coptology, with impeccable credentials on the
                      >> early Christian literature.
                      >>
                      >> -- Bart Ehrman
                      >> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                      >>
                      >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, g_gardner1234 wrote:
                      >>
                      >>> Here are some of the issues that I view as problematic in labeling the
                      >>> Gospel of Judas as "an early Christian writing". First of all the
                      >>> codex available for review is written in Coptic, not Greek. If it is a
                      >>> copy of the earlier Greek text referred to by Iraneus of Lyons (180
                      >>> ce) as some have alluded, then I would like to see some solid evidence
                      >>> presented that actually substantiates this. If anyone could direct me
                      >>> towards those resources, I would greatly appreciate it. The theology
                      >>> taught in the codex clearly goes against first century Jewish thought,
                      >>> as well as much earlier writings from the Hebrew scriptures about
                      >>> creation and such. When compared to the canonical Gospels, there are
                      >>> contradictions that are quite evident. The "gospel" that is being
                      >>> taught in this writing appears to be clearly gnostic and dualistic, so
                      >>> it is evident why, if this is a copy of the original, the early church
                      >>> fathers rejected it during it's first review. Since the gnostic
                      >>> movement arose in the middle second century, I am not sure how this
                      >>> writing would be influential when the foundations of the early
                      >>> Christian movement was forming in the first century. A better label
                      >>> for this codex might be "coptic gnostic" in my opinion. I also must
                      >>> admit that I find the timing for the release of this translation
                      >>> (Easter season) to be a bit questionable. With all of the press that
                      >>> the Da Vinci codes have gotten recently with the lawsuit and such, the
                      >>> surrounding fanfare that has been showered on the Gospel of Judas
                      >>> lends itself to the appearance of a well thought out marketing
                      >>> strategy rather than the release of groundbreaking textual news. In my
                      >>> opinion, this gnostic codex sheds about as much light on the factual
                      >>> truth of the Christian story as the Nag Hammadi texts did, which is
                      >>> little to none.
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>> --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Bart Ehrman <behrman@> wrote:
                      >>>>
                      >>>> The Gospel of Judas *itself* is no hoax. It is a manuscript from
                      >>>> around 300, a Coptic translation of an original that predates
                      > Irenaeus.
                      >>>> ANd very interesting. The best resources are the books just now
                      >>> published
                      >>>> by National Getographic.
                      >>>>
                      >>>> -- Bart Ehrman
                      >>>> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                      >>>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2006, Ben Davidson wrote:
                      >>>>
                      >>>>> OMG! I just looked more closely at their 'translations'.
                      >>>>> First let me apologise to any who wasted their time on that link.
                      >>>>> I am a sucker for images, and I didn't even give xlations a
                      >>> glance at first.
                      >>>>> Actually, now that i think of it, why haven't there been more
                      >>> such hoaxes?
                      >>>>> I am not encouraging anyone. The only one I can think of is
                      >>> Morton Smith
                      >>>>> and the Secret Gospel of M
                      >>>
                      >>> ark...but like all good hoaxes I suppose the jury is
                      >>>>> still out on that one. I guess I should have seen a 'Judas'
                      >>> thing coming,
                      >>>>> but how many have there actually been? almost none?
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>> regrets and apologies,
                      >>>>> Eeyore...
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>> Peter Kirby <peterkirby@> wrote:
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>> I think this geocities site (though now at gospelofstjudas.com) is
                      >>> a hoax. You can read their "translations" (no originals) and decide
                      >>> for yourself:
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>> http://www.gospelofstjudas.com/router_page.html
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>> Anyone can collect a few archaeological and mss. photos and put up
                      >>> a website claiming a discovery. They also declare that they take "no
                      >>> responsibility, ever." Heh.
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>> regards,
                      >>>>> Peter Kirby
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>> ---------------------------------
                      >>>>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                      >>>>>
                      >>>>> __________________________________________________
                      >>>>> Do You Yahoo!?
                      >>>>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                      >>>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
                      >>>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>>
                      >>
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • g_gardner1234
                      Bart, Thank you for your response. I have looked over some of your books and your explanations of variants found in the Greek texts. I was wondering if there
                      Message 10 of 17 , Apr 12 1:39 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Bart,

                        Thank you for your response. I have looked over some of your books and
                        your explanations of variants found in the Greek texts. I was
                        wondering if there have been any variants found that would change the
                        literal meaning of Galatians 1:8-9. I ask this, because according to
                        these verses, the gnostics would then be considered anathema. If this
                        reading is correct, then wouldn't it be unlikely that they would have
                        been viewed as Christian in light of these statements made by Paul, as
                        he was one of the founding fathers of the Christian faith who wrote a
                        considerable share of the writings that Christians referenced as their
                        standard of orthodoxy?

                        Gene




                        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Bart Ehrman <behrman@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Sorry, but I think we're going to end up talking in circles. If
                        you
                        > think Gnostic Christian is a square circle, then you hold to a view of
                        > both Gnosticism and Christianity that I simply don't share and that I
                        > think is both historically and methodologically problematic and
                        > implausible. Many Gnostics *were* Christians (they saw themselves as
                        > followers of the true teachings of Christ) just as many Christians were
                        > Gnostics (they held that the secret knowledge that Jesus delivered
                        is what
                        > brought about salvation, rather than Jesus' death and resurrection).
                        To
                        > think otherwise is simply to accept the ideological views handed
                        down from
                        > Eusebius (well, Irenaeus at least) -- that is, it is a theological,
                        not a
                        > historical, claim, a claim that anyone who holds to a different way of
                        > following Christ is not "really" a Christian. The Baptist church on
                        the
                        > corner might claim that about the Episcopalian church across the
                        street;
                        > but for historians to take that view means living back in the fourth
                        > century. In my opinion! But again, I"m not sure this relates
                        directly to
                        > the list.
                        >
                        > --- Bart Ehrman
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, g_gardner1234 wrote:
                        >
                        > > Bart,
                        > >
                        > > Thanks for your reply. If I can find the book at a university library,
                        > > I will give it a look. For now, let me simplify my line of
                        > > questioning. Do you believe that it is Christian or gnostic in its
                        > > content, because to state that it is both Christian and gnostic is
                        > > like saying that it is a square circle. I looked at the translation,
                        > > and its content appeared purely gnostic to me, with all of the typical
                        > > phraseology.The modern Coptic church, who I would assume are the
                        > > keepers of the Coptic Christian tradition, seem to have a strong
                        > > aversion to this codex:
                        > >
                        > > quote:
                        > >
                        > > "We reject any association with the Gospel of Judas or any other
                        > > Gnostic Texts
                        > >
                        > > · The "Gospel of Judas" is one of many "Gnostic non Christian
                        > > Gospels". It is one of many found in Upper Egypt in a cave in the
                        > > provincial city of Nag-Hammadi.
                        > >
                        > > · The Coptic Orthodox Church is a main stream Christian Church and
                        > > totally rejects these non-Christian writings.
                        > >
                        > > · The use of the Coptic language in a document does not make it
                        > > necessarily one of our documents. The Coptic language was the native
                        > > language of all Egyptians, Christians and pagans. Paganism co-existed
                        > > with Christianity in Egypt till the 5th Century.
                        > >
                        > > We suppose the question should be why would the churches suppress
                        > > these Gnostic gospels? What would be the benefit – Christianity lived
                        > > and flourished in the midst of the most bloody and violent era 1st,
                        > > 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Centuries? Who would attempt to challenge the
                        > > world with a self proclaimed falsified truth?
                        > >
                        > > The Gnostic gospels were deemed false by the churches because they
                        > > were untrue, not historical and have no support from the foundation of
                        > > the Christian faith - that being the prophecies of the Old Testament.
                        > > Which incidentally have been endorsed as accurate and true following
                        > > the discovery made at the valley of Qumran – "The Dead Sea Scrolls" in
                        > > particular the book of ISIAH the prophet."
                        > >
                        > > http://www.coptic.org.au/modules/news/article.php?storyid=288
                        > >
                        > > To say that this text is important in reference to the study of the
                        > > era, language, and writing style of the gnostic group who penned it
                        > > may have some merit. To state that it is important in reference to the
                        > > formation of early Christianity and the canon would be a major stretch
                        > > in my opinion.
                        > >
                        > > Gene
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Bart Ehrman <behrman@> wrote:
                        > >>
                        > >> I'd suggest you read the scholarship already available, which
                        > > deals with
                        > >> just these issues. You'll find four relevant essays in the book
                        > > National
                        > >> Geographic has released, called The Gospel of Judas. The essays
                        are by
                        > >> Rodolphe Kasser (editor of the text), Gregor Wurst (co-editor),
                        Marvin
                        > >> Meyer (English translator), and me (an add-on). Leaving me out
                        of the
                        > >> equation, I think you'll recognize that we're dealing with the top
                        > >> scholars in the world of Coptology, with impeccable credentials
                        on the
                        > >> early Christian literature.
                        > >>
                        > >> -- Bart Ehrman
                        > >> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                        > >>
                        > >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, g_gardner1234 wrote:
                        > >>
                        > >>> Here are some of the issues that I view as problematic in
                        labeling the
                        > >>> Gospel of Judas as "an early Christian writing". First of all the
                        > >>> codex available for review is written in Coptic, not Greek. If
                        it is a
                        > >>> copy of the earlier Greek text referred to by Iraneus of Lyons (180
                        > >>> ce) as some have alluded, then I would like to see some solid
                        evidence
                        > >>> presented that actually substantiates this. If anyone could
                        direct me
                        > >>> towards those resources, I would greatly appreciate it. The
                        theology
                        > >>> taught in the codex clearly goes against first century Jewish
                        thought,
                        > >>> as well as much earlier writings from the Hebrew scriptures about
                        > >>> creation and such. When compared to the canonical Gospels, there are
                        > >>> contradictions that are quite evident. The "gospel" that is being
                        > >>> taught in this writing appears to be clearly gnostic and
                        dualistic, so
                        > >>> it is evident why, if this is a copy of the original, the early
                        church
                        > >>> fathers rejected it during it's first review. Since the gnostic
                        > >>> movement arose in the middle second century, I am not sure how this
                        > >>> writing would be influential when the foundations of the early
                        > >>> Christian movement was forming in the first century. A better label
                        > >>> for this codex might be "coptic gnostic" in my opinion. I also must
                        > >>> admit that I find the timing for the release of this translation
                        > >>> (Easter season) to be a bit questionable. With all of the press that
                        > >>> the Da Vinci codes have gotten recently with the lawsuit and
                        such, the
                        > >>> surrounding fanfare that has been showered on the Gospel of Judas
                        > >>> lends itself to the appearance of a well thought out marketing
                        > >>> strategy rather than the release of groundbreaking textual news.
                        In my
                        > >>> opinion, this gnostic codex sheds about as much light on the factual
                        > >>> truth of the Christian story as the Nag Hammadi texts did, which is
                        > >>> little to none.
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>> --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Bart Ehrman <behrman@>
                        wrote:
                        > >>>>
                        > >>>> The Gospel of Judas *itself* is no hoax. It is a
                        manuscript from
                        > >>>> around 300, a Coptic translation of an original that predates
                        > > Irenaeus.
                        > >>>> ANd very interesting. The best resources are the books just now
                        > >>> published
                        > >>>> by National Getographic.
                        > >>>>
                        > >>>> -- Bart Ehrman
                        > >>>> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                        > >>>>
                        > >>>>
                        > >>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2006, Ben Davidson wrote:
                        > >>>>
                        > >>>>> OMG! I just looked more closely at their 'translations'.
                        > >>>>> First let me apologise to any who wasted their time on that link.
                        > >>>>> I am a sucker for images, and I didn't even give xlations a
                        > >>> glance at first.
                        > >>>>> Actually, now that i think of it, why haven't there been more
                        > >>> such hoaxes?
                        > >>>>> I am not encouraging anyone. The only one I can think of is
                        > >>> Morton Smith
                        > >>>>> and the Secret Gospel of M
                        > >>>
                        > >>> ark...but like all good hoaxes I suppose the jury is
                        > >>>>> still out on that one. I guess I should have seen a 'Judas'
                        > >>> thing coming,
                        > >>>>> but how many have there actually been? almost none?
                        > >>>>>
                        > >>>>> regrets and apologies,
                        > >>>>> Eeyore...
                        > >>>>>
                        > >>>>>
                        > >>>>> Peter Kirby <peterkirby@> wrote:
                        > >>>>>
                        > >>>>> I think this geocities site (though now at gospelofstjudas.com) is
                        > >>> a hoax. You can read their "translations" (no originals) and decide
                        > >>> for yourself:
                        > >>>>>
                        > >>>>> http://www.gospelofstjudas.com/router_page.html
                        > >>>>>
                        > >>>>> Anyone can collect a few archaeological and mss. photos and put up
                        > >>> a website claiming a discovery. They also declare that they
                        take "no
                        > >>> responsibility, ever." Heh.
                        > >>>>>
                        > >>>>> regards,
                        > >>>>> Peter Kirby
                        > >>>>>
                        > >>>>>
                        > >>>>> ---------------------------------
                        > >>>>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                        > >>>>>
                        > >>>>> __________________________________________________
                        > >>>>> Do You Yahoo!?
                        > >>>>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        > >>>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
                        > >>>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>>
                        > >>
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • Roger Pearse
                        Both Epiphanius and Irenaeus refer to a ps.Gospel of Judas as used by Cainites. Is it certain that these two descriptions refer to a single document? (i.e.
                        Message 11 of 17 , Apr 21 1:42 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Both Epiphanius and Irenaeus refer to a ps.Gospel of Judas as used
                          by Cainites. Is it certain that these two descriptions refer to a
                          single document? (i.e. That there is not more than one?)

                          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Bart Ehrman <behrman@...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > The Gospel of Judas *itself* is no hoax. It is a manuscript
                          from
                          > around 300, a Coptic translation of an original that predates
                          Irenaeus.
                          > ANd very interesting. The best resources are the books just now
                          published
                          > by National Getographic.
                          >
                          > -- Bart Ehrman
                          > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                          >
                          >
                          > On Sun, 9 Apr 2006, Ben Davidson wrote:
                          >
                          > > OMG! I just looked more closely at their 'translations'.
                          > > First let me apologise to any who wasted their time on that
                          link.
                          > > I am a sucker for images, and I didn't even give xlations a
                          glance at first.
                          > > Actually, now that i think of it, why haven't there been more
                          such hoaxes?
                          > > I am not encouraging anyone. The only one I can think of is
                          Morton Smith
                          > > and the Secret Gospel of Mark...but like all good hoaxes I
                          suppose the jury is
                          > > still out on that one. I guess I should have seen a 'Judas'
                          thing coming,
                          > > but how many have there actually been? almost none?
                          > >
                          > > regrets and apologies,
                          > > Eeyore...
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > I think this geocities site (though now at gospelofstjudas.com)
                          is a hoax. You can read their "translations" (no originals) and
                          decide for yourself:
                          > >
                          > > http://www.gospelofstjudas.com/router_page.html
                          > >
                          > > Anyone can collect a few archaeological and mss. photos and put
                          up a website claiming a discovery. They also declare that they
                          take "no responsibility, ever." Heh.
                          > >
                          > > regards,
                          > > Peter Kirby
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > ---------------------------------
                          > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                          > >
                          > > __________________________________________________
                          > > Do You Yahoo!?
                          > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                          > > http://mail.yahoo.com
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.