The manuscript known as “The Gospel of Judas” has recently been featured in TV shows. Although researchers have studied this document for decades, it has suddenly become popular in the electronic media, after the technical scholars in the university have concluded that it contains little historical information about the actual events of the first century.
The life of Jesus took place in a Hebrew culture in the first century, and the most reliable documents about that era are written by first-century Hebrews; the “Gospel of Judas” is a Greek document, written several centuries later.
Clearly, Jesus remains a controversial and influential figure in history; but whatever their personal beliefs, historians simply seek the most reliable texts about the life of any famous person. There are always plenty of spurious sources concerning any historical event or person.
In recent lectures and articles, James Voelz (Cambridge University, England) and Jeffrey Kloha addressed four aspects of the gospel of Judas manuscript:
1) How the manuscript is portrayed in the media: the “popular media” of TV, radio, and internet isn’t allowed to take the time to do a careful historical analysis of the manuscript, because people want “entertaining” news.
2) Basic features of the manuscript: written much later than the historical accounts of the life of Jesus, it couldn’t possible have been written by an eyewitness to the events. Instead, it relies upon tradition.
3) Gnosticism as a point of reference for the manuscript: “Gnosticism” is belief system, a mixture different Greek philosophical ideas, combined with a few ideas from Judaism and Christianity – interesting ideas, but they can’t be the ideas which were being discussed in Jerusalem in first century, because they are ideas from a later era.
4) The manuscript and canonicity: this manuscript, known to ancient authors and modern scholars, was never taken seriously because of its obvious flaws. Rejected by serious researchers, the TV industry picked it because it is entertaining, if untrue.
“There is nothing of the historical Jesus, the Jesus that walked the earth, in this document,” commented Kloha. “It is important that we know about this document since people are watching and reading media reports about it and being influenced by them.” Instead of a factual account of the actual events that happened during the life of Jesus, this document presents a series of Greek philosophical idea that flourished during the later years of the Roman Empire. Modern archaeology and ancient texts give us some core facts about events in Jerusalem during the first century; the “Gospel of Judas” is clearly a combination of later traditions.
The gospel of Judas was featured in a National Geographic Society television documentary. It is dramatically different from the four gospels that are contained within the New Testament and purports to provide a secret account of a revelation that Jesus spoke with the disciple Judas Iscariot.
“Jesus is never described as ‘the Christ’ in this manuscript,” commented Kloha. “Instead, an individual named Seth is referenced as the Christ.”
In describing the media’s portrayal of the document, Voelz stated, “They are conveniently omitting a lot of information that would put the manuscript in a bad light. It is important for people to know how odd this document is.” The ideas presented in the “Gospel of Judas” are not the ideas of either Jews or Christians in the first century; the concepts of “Messiah” are different.
There are other documents about these events which are simply more reliable, more accurate, and older, having been written by eyewitnesses to the events in question.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
The Gospel of Whom?
The manuscript known as “The Gospel of Judas” has recently been featured in TV shows. Although researchers have studied this document for decades, it has suddenly become popular in the electronic media, after the technical scholars in the university have concluded that it contains little historical information about the actual events of the first century.
The life of Jesus took place in a Hebrew culture in the first century, and the most reliable documents about that era are written by first-century Hebrews; the “Gospel of Judas” is a Greek document, written several centuries later.
Clearly, Jesus remains a controversial and influential figure in history; but whatever their personal beliefs, historians simply seek the most reliable texts about the life of any famous person. There are always plenty of spurious sources concerning any historical event or person.
In recent lectures and articles, James Voelz (Cambridge University, England) and Jeffrey Kloha addressed four aspects of the gospel of Judas manuscript:
1) How the manuscript is portrayed in the media: the “popular media” of TV, radio, and internet isn’t allowed to take the time to do a careful historical analysis of the manuscript, because people want “entertaining” news.
2) Basic features of the manuscript: written much later than the historical accounts of the life of Jesus, it couldn’t possible have been written by an eyewitness to the events. Instead, it relies upon tradition.
3) Gnosticism as a point of reference for the manuscript: “Gnosticism” is belief system, a mixture different Greek philosophical ideas, combined with a few ideas from Judaism and Christianity – interesting ideas, but they can’t be the ideas which were being discussed in Jerusalem in first century, because they are ideas from a later era.
4) The manuscript and canonicity: this manuscript, known to ancient authors and modern scholars, was never taken seriously because of its obvious flaws. Rejected by serious researchers, the TV industry picked it because it is entertaining, if untrue.
“There is nothing of the historical Jesus, the Jesus that walked the earth, in this document,” commented Kloha. “It is important that we know about this document since people are watching and reading media reports about it and being influenced by them.” Instead of a factual account of the actual events that happened during the life of Jesus, this document presents a series of Greek philosophical idea that flourished during the later years of the Roman Empire. Modern archaeology and ancient texts give us some core facts about events in Jerusalem during the first century; the “Gospel of Judas” is clearly a combination of later traditions.
The gospel of Judas was featured in a National Geographic Society television documentary. It is dramatically different from the four gospels that are contained within the New Testament and purports to provide a secret account of a revelation that Jesus spoke with the disciple Judas Iscariot.
“Jesus is never described as ‘the Christ’ in this manuscript,” commented Kloha. “Instead, an individual named Seth is referenced as the Christ.”
In describing the media’s portrayal of the document, Voelz stated, “They are conveniently omitting a lot of information that would put the manuscript in a bad light. It is important for people to know how odd this document is.” The ideas presented in the “Gospel of Judas” are not the ideas of either Jews or Christians in the first century; the concepts of “Messiah” are different.
There are other documents about these events which are simply more reliable, more accurate, and older, having been written by eyewitnesses to the events in question.
The life of Jesus took place in a Hebrew culture in the first century, and the most reliable documents about that era are written by first-century Hebrews; the “Gospel of Judas” is a Greek document, written several centuries later.
Clearly, Jesus remains a controversial and influential figure in history; but whatever their personal beliefs, historians simply seek the most reliable texts about the life of any famous person. There are always plenty of spurious sources concerning any historical event or person.
In recent lectures and articles, James Voelz (Cambridge University, England) and Jeffrey Kloha addressed four aspects of the gospel of Judas manuscript:
1) How the manuscript is portrayed in the media: the “popular media” of TV, radio, and internet isn’t allowed to take the time to do a careful historical analysis of the manuscript, because people want “entertaining” news.
2) Basic features of the manuscript: written much later than the historical accounts of the life of Jesus, it couldn’t possible have been written by an eyewitness to the events. Instead, it relies upon tradition.
3) Gnosticism as a point of reference for the manuscript: “Gnosticism” is belief system, a mixture different Greek philosophical ideas, combined with a few ideas from Judaism and Christianity – interesting ideas, but they can’t be the ideas which were being discussed in Jerusalem in first century, because they are ideas from a later era.
4) The manuscript and canonicity: this manuscript, known to ancient authors and modern scholars, was never taken seriously because of its obvious flaws. Rejected by serious researchers, the TV industry picked it because it is entertaining, if untrue.
“There is nothing of the historical Jesus, the Jesus that walked the earth, in this document,” commented Kloha. “It is important that we know about this document since people are watching and reading media reports about it and being influenced by them.” Instead of a factual account of the actual events that happened during the life of Jesus, this document presents a series of Greek philosophical idea that flourished during the later years of the Roman Empire. Modern archaeology and ancient texts give us some core facts about events in Jerusalem during the first century; the “Gospel of Judas” is clearly a combination of later traditions.
The gospel of Judas was featured in a National Geographic Society television documentary. It is dramatically different from the four gospels that are contained within the New Testament and purports to provide a secret account of a revelation that Jesus spoke with the disciple Judas Iscariot.
“Jesus is never described as ‘the Christ’ in this manuscript,” commented Kloha. “Instead, an individual named Seth is referenced as the Christ.”
In describing the media’s portrayal of the document, Voelz stated, “They are conveniently omitting a lot of information that would put the manuscript in a bad light. It is important for people to know how odd this document is.” The ideas presented in the “Gospel of Judas” are not the ideas of either Jews or Christians in the first century; the concepts of “Messiah” are different.
There are other documents about these events which are simply more reliable, more accurate, and older, having been written by eyewitnesses to the events in question.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Surprise!
Historians and scientists love to surprise people. For example, most people know that Cleopatra was the queen of Egypt, but did you know that she wasn't Egyptian? She was actually Greek, the descendant of one of Alexander's Macedonian generals; she and her family spoke Greek, and didn't consider themselves Egyptians, although they would engage in the traditional ceremonies of the Pharaohs in order to get the popular support of the Egyptians.
But some reporters go too far in their desire to surprise readers, when the actually falsify sources, and create fictions, merely so that they can say something unexpected. For exampel, the actress who played Jan Brady in the famous TV series did not die of a drug overdose; she's alive and well. But the story about her was created those desiring to surprise an audience.
More serious examples have been uncovered by The Washington Time, in January of 2002:
Another example from American history:
Most historians and scientists are honest. But we need to think critically, especially when they are writing about issues related to modern politics. They might be so interested in keeping tourists out of national forests, or in eliminating the Second Amendment, that they falsify data to support their points. When science meets politics, look for fake evidence; when history intersects with controversial issues, watch for falsified sources.
But some reporters go too far in their desire to surprise readers, when the actually falsify sources, and create fictions, merely so that they can say something unexpected. For exampel, the actress who played Jan Brady in the famous TV series did not die of a drug overdose; she's alive and well. But the story about her was created those desiring to surprise an audience.
More serious examples have been uncovered by The Washington Time, in January of 2002:
Hoping to close two national forests, government scientists planted evidence that the forests were inhabited by an endangered species of lynx.
The scientists' dishonesty undermined a three-year study and confirmed suspicions that some government scientists fake studies is order to control environmental policy.
Another example from American history:
Emory University historian Michael Bellesiles apparently believes so strongly in gun control that he invented a history for the purpose of undermining the Constitution's Second Amendment, the right of citizens to own guns.
Professors Bellesiles' politically correct book, Arming America, was awarded the Bancroft Prize, a prestigious award for historians. But scholars examining the work say Mr. Bellesiles' conclusions are based on made-up and nonexistent sources.
Mr. Bellesiles aruges that gun ownership was so rare among early Americans, even on the frontiers, that no one would have cared enough about the right to give it constitutional protection. He claims to have studied many wills and to have found scant evidence of guns being bequeathed to heirs.
When skeptical scholars checked his sources, they found he claimed to have studied wills of people in Colonial Rhode Island known to have died without wills! He also claims to have studied probate records in San Francisco for the years 1849-59. However, the city's librarians say no such records exist. They were destroyed in the 1906 earthquake.
Most historians and scientists are honest. But we need to think critically, especially when they are writing about issues related to modern politics. They might be so interested in keeping tourists out of national forests, or in eliminating the Second Amendment, that they falsify data to support their points. When science meets politics, look for fake evidence; when history intersects with controversial issues, watch for falsified sources.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Which Sargon?
The Ancient Near East included three different rulers, all named Sagon:
The first reigned from approximately 2350 until 2300 B.C., and gained control of both Sumer and Akkad; he united them to form Babylonia, and his empire included all of Mesopotamia, and had significant influence to regions well beyond that area.
The second reigned around 1850 B.C., ruled Assyria early in its heyday.
The third also ruled Assyria, between 722 and 705 B.C., and was responsible for the final wave of attacks on the North Kingdom of Israel, conquering its capitol city Samaria; the Hebrew author Isaiah gives us information about him.
Three men, with the same name, in different countries, living over a thousand years apart!
The first reigned from approximately 2350 until 2300 B.C., and gained control of both Sumer and Akkad; he united them to form Babylonia, and his empire included all of Mesopotamia, and had significant influence to regions well beyond that area.
The second reigned around 1850 B.C., ruled Assyria early in its heyday.
The third also ruled Assyria, between 722 and 705 B.C., and was responsible for the final wave of attacks on the North Kingdom of Israel, conquering its capitol city Samaria; the Hebrew author Isaiah gives us information about him.
Three men, with the same name, in different countries, living over a thousand years apart!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)