The Gospel of Judas

The Gospel of Judas is a fascinating new wrinkle in ancient gospel scholarship. I don't know of anyone who is actually saying that anything in the gospel is "true", but it does help confirm a fact that many fundamentalists don't like to think about: That the early "church" of Jesus was actually many, many different sects, each with its own agenda and particular beliefs. The scientific dating of this manuscript itself is to between 220 and 340 CE, though Iraneus wrote about it in 180 CE, meaning it had to be in existence by then. Unfortunately, some scholars report that the original text may have been as long as 76 pages, but that only 26 remain (the others were probably sold separately).

Here's a great quote from the Wikipedia article on the gospel:

"And although the earliest known manuscript of the Gospel of Judas dates from the 3rd century, the earliest known entire manuscripts of the canonical gospels, (the Codex Sinaiticus), date from the fourth and fifth centuries--the manuscript of the Gospel of Judas predates them. If accuracy and authenticity are something that can be used to attack it, then the Canonical Gospels fare worse under the same tests."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas

The title of this article links to the National Geographic pages on the new manuscript. The "Early Christian Writings" website has a page on the Gospel of Judas at:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospeljudas.html

It provides a good summary of what was known about the text before the current version was made public.

So let's get a FCHJ blog discussion going on this topic. What do you think about the Gospel?

-Rev. Chuck

UPDATE: Here's another good site, with pictures of some of the pages and independent translations. The entire page has articles going back for some time on the existence and status of the gospel.

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/gospel_of_judas/#April2005

Historical Method entry in Wikipedia

Peter Kirby, the man who created the Historical Jesus theories page referenced in the previous post, has completed a basic review of the Historical Method and posted such to the Wikipedia. On a quick read-through, I think he does a great job of explaining the methodology of determining the historicity of written and oral sources. You know where I'm going with this: I want to apply these methods to the question of the Historical Jesus. (And since Mr. Kirby's site is called "Christian Origins" I believe that's his intent as well.)

But again, I think this Wiki entry will help me to construct and elaborate on a solid argument against the Historical J.

Historical Jesus Theories page

This page, assembled by Peter Kirby, gives what I think to be fair descriptions of the various Historical Jesus theories out there, and includes the myth theories of Earl Doherty and Freke et al. I think I side more with Doherty than Freke. Anyway, check out the page. It's quite good.

Excavating Jesus

In our argument about the historicity of Jesus, Pete has said that one reason to think he did exist is the archeological evidence. I may be wrong, but he may have mentioned JD Crossan in this regard.

Unpacking some boxes this weekend, I happened upon my copy of Crossan's Excavating Jesus, where Crossan combines what science knows about first century Palestine with what biblical scholars know about Jesus. Crossan is very clear about his methods and, I believe, if there is striking archeological evidence for Jesus, that this would be the book to find it in.

In fact, the book's Introduction lists what Crossan feels are the "top ten archaeological discoveries" that can inform us about Jesus. He notes that the first five on his list are specific objects "with direct links to gospel texts". The ten items are, in Crossan's order:

1. The ossuary of the high priests Joseph Caiaphas


2. The incription of the prefect Pontius Pilate


3. The house of the apostle Peter at Capernaum


4. The fishing boat from the Sea of Galilee


5. The skeleton of the crucified Yehochanan


6. Caesarea Maritima and Jerusalem: cities of Herod the Great


7. Sepphoris and Tiberias: cities of Herod Antipas


8. Masada and Qumran: monuments of Jewish resistance


9. Gamla and Jodefat: first century Jewish villages in the north


10. Stone vessels and stepped, plastered pools: Jewish religion

(Excavating Jesus, p 2)

Crossan points to items 1 and 2 to provide independent verification of two historical figures that play parts in the gospels. The logical conclusion is that, if these men really existed, then the gospel accounts of them are historical, and thus the gospel contains some historical truth. But Josephus notes both men in his writings on the histories of the Jews, and it would not be beyond educated men in the 2nd century CE to include them in their story. Josephus also mentions John the Baptist. I don't see these two items as being particularly convincing of the historicity of the gospels. But taken with other supporting evidence, they would add to a more complete conclusion.

Item 3 is described by Crossan as the place identified by locals as the house of Peter the Apostle. The site consists of "An octagonal church ... built in the fifth century C.E. atop a house church dating to the fourth century, which lay atop a simple courtyard house initially constructed in the first century B.C.E. Striking examples of Christian invocations in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Syriac had been scratched into the plaster of one room as early as the second century C.E." So once again, Christian evidence stops at the second century (as do the catacombs of Rome, by the way).

Items 4 and 5 are listed by Crossan as evidence for similar descriptions in the Gospels. I don't see any direct link to a historical Jesus. Similarly, Items 6 through 10 are offered as examples of everyday life. They would inform us about the world of any first century man, and are not specific at all to Jesus.

So there it is: the most important archaeological evidence we have for Jesus, and all but items 1 and 2 provide no real evidence at all.

Not even first century Nazareth measures up to its gospel descriptions. Nazareth is described in Mark 6:1-2 as:

6:1 Now Jesus left that place and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue.

But Crossan describes first century Nazareth like this:

"The massive layer representing the Christian construction of "terra sancta", Holy Land, rests atop a frail and elusive layer representing a simple Jewish peasant life: excavations underneath the Christian structures uncovered no synagogue, but also no fortifications, no palace, no basilica, no bathhouse, no paved street, nothing." (Ibid, pp 31-32)

Pete replied, in part:

Yes, the known evidence (all of it, not just archeological) was one of a list of issues I had, but I'm still missing your larger point here. No matter how slight you believe Crossan's summary of the evidence for a man named Jesus is, A) Crossan apparently finds it convincing, and B) it is more evidence than you've presented for the opposite conclusion.

Jesus and the Gospel—What Really Happened?

In Slate, there is (was) a letter exchange debating the historicity of Jesus.

The first letter (by Alan F. Segal) points to the concept of "dissimilarity" as a judgment of what details in the gospels can be considered historic. Simply put, if a detail would have been embarrassing to the early church, it is more likely to be historical. The letter explains it better. Here is an excerpt:

"For all the rigor of the standard it (dissimilarity) sets, the criterion demonstrates that Jesus existed. Here are some facts in the Gospels that embarrassed the early church: Jesus was baptized by John (a great theological problem). He preached the end of the world (which did not come). He opposed the Temple in some way (and this opposition led directly to his death). He was crucified (a disreputable way to die). The inscription on the cross was "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" (the church never preached this title for Jesus and shortly lost interest in converting Jews). No one actually saw him arise (though evidently his disciples almost immediately felt that he had). Ironically, it's the embarrassing nature of these facts that assures us of their authenticity. The exalted figure of Jesus as a heavenly redeemer and the Lord of the Hebrew Bible, on the other hand, was the response of Jesus' closest disciples to the events of Easter morning. These are tenets of faith, not claims that can be demonstrated historically."

The third letter, a response to Segal's letter from John Kloppenberg, contains this:

"Alan also stresses the force of the criterion of dissimilarity, in reducing quite severely what critical scholars can say with any confidence about the historical Jesus. His list--that Jesus was baptized by John; that he held views about the coming of the kingdom (I'm rephrasing Alan here, since the "end of the world" really isn't an apocalyptic notion); that he opposed the Temple in some way; and that he was crucified by the Romans--is not only very short and mostly uncontroversial but also doesn't include anything about the details of Jesus' birth."

So here are the historical "facts" as it were. Any argument by me (or others) that Jesus was NOT historical should adequately disprove these facts:

1. Jesus was baptized by John


2. Jesus preached the coming of the Kingdom of God


3. Jesus opposed the Temple in Jerusalem


4. Jesus was crucified

I'll have to think about this a while. I will assume that merely stating "but Jesus didn't exist, so none of that could have happened" won't suffice for fundamentalists such as Pete. So we'll see if I can get anywhere with it.

Pete replied with:

Though the item and purpose isn't exactly the same, the enumerated items of the list below is similar to a list in Martin's "The Elusive Messiah" of observations about Jesus upon which there is general agreement among scholars:

1. Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist


2. About the time John was put to death, Jesus became a teacher


3. The core of Jesus' message was about the Kingdom of God


4. Jesus was unusually egalitarian for the time and place


5. Jesus practiced communal eating in which everyone was equal regardless of social status


6. Jesus was a healer with a reputation as a miracle worker


7. During Passover Jesus got into trouble in Jerusalem and was summarily put to death

I concluded that any serious attempt to prove that Jesus did not exist has to address the "dissimilarity" conclusions as well as addressing the historicity and accuracy of the gospels and other early Christian writings.

-Chuck

The Pontius Pilate inscription

Again, title is a link to a picture. Far be it from me to suggest that the "PILATUS" part of the inscription looks like it's had the "I" and "T" squeezed in between the other letters. That may be proper Roman lettering style. But it is interesting to note that the inscription is partial. (Missing parts are in brackets.)

[DIS AUGUSTI]S TIBERIEUM
[. . . . PO]NTIUS PILATUS
[. . .PRAEF]ECTUS IUDA[EA]E
[. .FECIT D]E[DICAVIT]

Which leaves, in reality:

S TIBERIEUM
NTIUS PILATUS
ECTUS IUDA...E
E

The Caiaphus Ossuary

I did some digging into Caiaphus's bone box (ossuary) to see if there's anything on it being a forgery, but I have to admit I can find no articles suggesting it is. The heading above is a link to two pictures of the box. Here's another view of it.

Ancient Village Discovery Raises Questions

Via the AP (title to this post is a link to full article)

JERUSALEM (AP) - Discovery of an ancient village just outside Jerusalem has brought into question one of the strongest images of biblical times - the wholesale flight of Jews running for their lives after the Roman destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Just beneath the main road leading north from Jerusalem, archaeologists have found the walls of houses in a well-planned community that existed after the temple's destruction. It might lead to rewriting the history books if it was really Jewish. But at least one expert isn't sure it was.

The discovery of stone vessels indicate Jews in the village continued to live by religious purity laws after 70 A.D., said Debbie Sklar-Parnes, of the Israel Antiquities Authority, who is overseeing the dig.

This is the first evidence that Jews lived so close to Jerusalem - about a mile away - after the destruction of the Second Temple, Sklar-Parnes said.

Archaeologists used pottery and coins found at the site to estimate that people lived there from around 70 to 132 A.D., when the Romans crushed a second Jewish revolt.

Chuck's Comment: I'm assuming for the moment that "rewriting the history books" refers to Josephus's accounts of the Jewish War. The skeptic in me asks, "If Josephus was wrong about that, what else was he wrong about?" (Hint: Rhymes with Bejeezus.)

Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

An FCHJ correspondent gave us a heads up to this article:

AN ITALIAN judge has ordered a priest to appear in court this month to prove that Jesus Christ existed.

The case against Father Enrico Righi has been brought in the town of Viterbo, north of Rome, by Luigi Cascioli, a retired agronomist who once studied for the priesthood but later became a militant atheist.

Signor Cascioli, author of a book called The Fable of Christ, began legal proceedings against Father Righi three years ago after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ’s historical existence.

Read the rest on the TimesOnline site.

Welcome!

This is the first post of the official "First Church of Historical Jesus" blog. In time, I hope this blog will take over the focus of the existing Yahoo discussion group of the same name (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fchj/) since I'm tired of having to get web mail every time I want to read the latest posts to that forum.

I should note that, over time, the focus of this "church" has changed from a concentration on defining and then following the "historical" teachings of Jesus (as mostly defined by the Jesus Seminar) to a concentration on discussing the nature of Jesus himself (or, itself). In particular, I now wonder aloud whether Jesus was really historical at all or if "he" is as much a mythical construction as is the later form of Christianity that claims him as its founder.

To this end, my friend Pete has suggested that FCHJ no longer stands for "First Church of Historical Jesus," but rather for, "Fickle Chuck Hates Jesus." Either way is fine with me. Welcome aboard.