The "Gospel" Of Judas
The National Geographic Society has recently obtained a 1,700 year old manuscript, called "The Gospel of Judas", which apparently casts Judas to be the best friend of Jesus, or his favored disciple.
According to the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible, Judas hung himself shortly after Christ was delivered to Roman authorities. I find that a manuscript only dating 1,700 years old, roughly 300 years after the death of Judas, would be found to be anything other than fiction, if for no other reason than the date discrepancy.
Those who do not like the idea of Jesus as Lord and the Bible being the authoritative word of God are constantly attempting to find ancient documentation that will refute or contradict what is written the in Bible. The so-called "Gnostic Gospels", attributed to such contemporaries of Jesus as Thomas, Phillip, and even Mary Magdeline, have attempted to color the Bible to be written by writers with an agenda other than transcribing words inspired by God. For example, the "Gospel of Mary" portrays Peter as being jealous of Mary, and Mary being chosen by Christ to lead the apostles. From this work, we are supposed to draw the conclusion that from the beginning, a conspiracy existed that has perpetuated throughout history to oppress the role of women in the church.
And such is continuous assault on the time-tested canons of the Christian religions. Although disagreements exist even down to the level of sects on what the scriptures may mean, at least most use some form of the same Bible.
Personally, I believe that the Authorized King James Version is superior to all other translations or versions. These men who were commissioned by King James to translate the original manuscripts into the English tongue took great pains to authenticate the works which were translated, from Hebrew in the Old Testament and Greek in the New Testament. This led to the rejecting of the Aprocryphal books, which appear still in Catholic Bibles. The King James translators also were honest enough to note when they inserted a word because a clean translation did not exist, hence the italicized words. The controls and checks were extremely stringent in how the books were translated, paying special attention context to ensure that the proper sense and meanings were conveyed. The King James Version has been time-tested, as other versions and translations have fell to the wayside over the years.
I was once criticized on the blog of a student of divinity when I entered a debate on whether a church, specifically a Baptist church, should be considered liberal and avoided if they advocated or held a female deaconship. My quoting of the 3rd chapter of I Timothy and the attribution to the Authorized King James Version drew ire from the posters, who I assumed were mostly students of divinity at a Baptist college. I would gladly challenge those so-called students of divinity to re-create the conditions and controls the King James translators subjected themselves to and come up with something more genuine and honest than the translation we hold today. I would question that they have enough knowledge of Hebrew or Greek to even perform the task.
The major complaint of the KJV that I hear is that the language is not modern language, and sometimes people get wrapped up in it. But, I would argue, more reading and a dictionary can overcome that issue.
We have no better guide in the English language than the King James Version, despite what the Baptist divinity students or the "Gospel" of Judas may tell us.
According to the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible, Judas hung himself shortly after Christ was delivered to Roman authorities. I find that a manuscript only dating 1,700 years old, roughly 300 years after the death of Judas, would be found to be anything other than fiction, if for no other reason than the date discrepancy.
Those who do not like the idea of Jesus as Lord and the Bible being the authoritative word of God are constantly attempting to find ancient documentation that will refute or contradict what is written the in Bible. The so-called "Gnostic Gospels", attributed to such contemporaries of Jesus as Thomas, Phillip, and even Mary Magdeline, have attempted to color the Bible to be written by writers with an agenda other than transcribing words inspired by God. For example, the "Gospel of Mary" portrays Peter as being jealous of Mary, and Mary being chosen by Christ to lead the apostles. From this work, we are supposed to draw the conclusion that from the beginning, a conspiracy existed that has perpetuated throughout history to oppress the role of women in the church.
And such is continuous assault on the time-tested canons of the Christian religions. Although disagreements exist even down to the level of sects on what the scriptures may mean, at least most use some form of the same Bible.
Personally, I believe that the Authorized King James Version is superior to all other translations or versions. These men who were commissioned by King James to translate the original manuscripts into the English tongue took great pains to authenticate the works which were translated, from Hebrew in the Old Testament and Greek in the New Testament. This led to the rejecting of the Aprocryphal books, which appear still in Catholic Bibles. The King James translators also were honest enough to note when they inserted a word because a clean translation did not exist, hence the italicized words. The controls and checks were extremely stringent in how the books were translated, paying special attention context to ensure that the proper sense and meanings were conveyed. The King James Version has been time-tested, as other versions and translations have fell to the wayside over the years.
I was once criticized on the blog of a student of divinity when I entered a debate on whether a church, specifically a Baptist church, should be considered liberal and avoided if they advocated or held a female deaconship. My quoting of the 3rd chapter of I Timothy and the attribution to the Authorized King James Version drew ire from the posters, who I assumed were mostly students of divinity at a Baptist college. I would gladly challenge those so-called students of divinity to re-create the conditions and controls the King James translators subjected themselves to and come up with something more genuine and honest than the translation we hold today. I would question that they have enough knowledge of Hebrew or Greek to even perform the task.
The major complaint of the KJV that I hear is that the language is not modern language, and sometimes people get wrapped up in it. But, I would argue, more reading and a dictionary can overcome that issue.
We have no better guide in the English language than the King James Version, despite what the Baptist divinity students or the "Gospel" of Judas may tell us.
posted by Badbeans | 11:19 AM
5 Comments:
Although this 'Gospel' of Judas has been missing for 1700 years, it is believed to have been penned somewhere around 160-170 AD.
From what I have read, even the 2nd century church elders dismissed this writing as being absured and not even remotely being inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Much will be made by the secular world to authenticate this book for no tother reason than what you already said; an attempt to discredit the Bible as the Word of God.
There has been alot of television publications in the past couple of years that have angered me. This is one. It seems all are blatantly focused on smearing the name of Jesus. They hype it up to be the biggest biblical revelation since...Revelations. Yet they all turn out the same...heresy here, heresy there. "There was no immaculate conception", "Mary was impregnated by a Roman centurion", "Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene"..."There was no resurrection", "Judas was an innocent pawn"....blah, blah, blah. And these dramatic conclusions were all drawn from "biblical scholars", none of which, I might add, are Christian.(Lest they fear their very words)
I'm reminded of the movie "Rain Man" where Dustin Hoffman is repeating over and over Abbot and Costello's famous skit, "Who's on first". He's constantly trying to figure out the riddle...all the while missing the point, that there is no riddle. This is what biblical scholars are to me. Blind observers.
We part (slightly) on the issue of the KJV. I'm not sure if I understand your view completely or not. I know that here in Pensacola there is a famous "Baptist" church headed by one of the most vicious, venemous, judgemental preachers that I believe I've ever heard. His flock is just as venemous. They can be seen any given Saturday on the corners of every major intersection in town, holding up their 14 pound KJV's pointing and shouting of hellfire at motorists. Instead of preaching about the kind, gentle, merciful Jesus who saved ME from eternal damnation, who picked ME up and washed ME clean and made ME new, they paint the picture of an angry (almost Islamic) type God who can't wait to throw you into hell. The silent, stoeic, emotionless women beside them are holding signs with images depicting hell. They chase so many people away from Jesus that I wonder which line they'll stand in on the day when every knee shall bow.
These same people have cars literally covered (all over) with bumper stickers of the same type message. One bumper sticker that almost every one has reads "If it ain't King James, it ain't Bible!" They are MILITANT about it. I wonder if they believe that to taste the word of God, one must speak English. Think about it. What if a peasant from say...Laos, wanted to learn about Jesus? Would he have to learn a dead language in order to do so? Of course not. Someone, somewhere faithfully rendered the word of God in Laotian...not some forgotten dead tongue or dialect of ancient Laotian, but rather in their modern (if there is such a thing) day language. Why then should it be any different with those who speak English. What about those who are mentally challenged? What about children? Why can't the bible be faithfully translated into a modern day English tongue and still be considered the infallable word of God? God is perfect, so is his word. It either IS the perfect word of God or it ISN'T. It can't be both. If one version is more "correct" than the other, then the other is flawed and thus cannot be the word of God. Are we so arrogant to believe that only English speaking people can receive the perfect word of the Living God? Was it God's intent that his word could only be read in ONE Language? I think not. To some people, they might as well be sitting in a Catholic church 100 years ago listening to some priest read from the bible in Latin. (The Roman Catholic Church used to insist that if it wasn't Latin, it wasn't Bible.)Oviously they were wrong. How then is this issue any different?
Don't get me wrong. I love the KJV. All of my favorite verses I've memorized from KJV. The 23rd Psalm just doesn't sound right when quoted from an NIV or NASB. It's beautiful and poetic....and yes, it is most definitly an accurate translation of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. English, like most languages is constantly evolving. Jesus didn't speak English. He spoke Aramaic, a dead language. If one were able to truly transcribe every word he said in it's exactness, it would be useless today and we'd be back to the age of a few learned elite spoonfeeding us the Word of God. Why then should the Bible be chained to one single dead language? Sunday we celebrate the fact that Jesus is alive! Shouldn't also the Word of God be?
I guess I may have gone overboard on my point. You may not have intended that interpretation at all. But it is a touchy subject in these parts, thanks to Peter Ruckman and his band of bullies from the Jo Jo Road Bible Baptist Church.
Badbeans and I have wrestled over the issue of the King James version of the Bible versus any other translation.
Not to be a fence rider on the issue but I agree with both WWW and Badbeans concerning the AKJV.
I agree with WWW on the fact an individual learning modern English should be able to pick up a modern translation of the Bible and read the Word of God without getting lost in 17th century terminology that is never used today. However, I agree with Badbeans that a Webster’s dictionary will solve a word definition problem. A dictionary is a useful tool to help one understand a particular word if necessary but, at the same time, some words are routinely dropped from the English language on a need to basis. Some day a word used in the AKJV may very well be dropped in modern dictionaries and gone forever to future generations of AKJV readers. Word a word not in use in modern language anymore but still in the AKJV Bible, that word becomes open for interpretation or question to future readers.
I know a fellow who reads only the AKJV and he was relating to me a few years ago how the Sunday morning sermon really spoke to him and he quoted to me Psalm 42:1 which says, “As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God” (KJV). My friend was telling me how this verse touched him and how his ‘heart’ was panting after God too.
I pointed out to him that, although I understood what he was telling me, the ‘hart’ in Psalm 1 was not the same as the ‘heart’ in his chest. He disagreed with me and I had to get a dictionary to show him that the ‘hart’ in the AKJV is a European deer, not a muscle that pumps his blood. He would have argued to the death the meaning of that word if I had not shown him the definition in the dictionary.
The main disagreement I have with Badbeans on this issue is the amount knowledge one has today with Greek and Hebrew languages than one did in the 17th century. I don’t think someone can categorically state that 17th century translators were better translators because of their knowledge of Greek and Hebrew than modern day translators. I would argue that we should be talking about motives in translating rather than the actual knowledge of the translators. There may very well be more educated Greek-Hebrew scholars available today to translate a Bible to English than ever before in history. That being said, the better question to ask is; what are their motives to do so? Are their motives to provide a coherent, readable and true to the original manuscripts as possible? Or are their motives to provide a translation that is gender neutral and make the Creator and Savior of the universe a figure who is either male of female and non-offensive to sinners?
I personally like the New King James version of the Bible. This version takes away all the 17th century words we never speak anymore and replaces them with the current words we do speak without losing the original interpretation. Now there are AKJV folks who will say that even the NKJV has some differences with the AKJV to which I resolve by reading and studying both versions as well as using a Greek lexicon and concordance. I can show people on both sides of the aisle that, in both AKJV and NKJV that there are some Greek words that no English word can be found to properly convey the meaning of.
And this is where Badbeans does make a great, great point. The AKJV translators did put those type of words in italics to show the reader that this is the best word that could be used at the time of translating. At the very least, the 17th century translators were honest enough to do that. But, in all truthfulness, there are footnotes in most Bibles that do the same thing if a word has been found to have either multiple meanings or could be translated in a different way.
The debate goes on.
The one thing that is certain is, Jesus is Lord and one day will return. Praise be to Him and Him alone.
Have a great Resurrection Day!
/bark bark bark
looks like a great opportunity for some enterprising writer to build a book/movie empire a la davinci code. wait and see. it'll happen.
/grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Wadical,
I am a strong advocate of the AKJV, but I hope that I am not militant as you described your Pensicola "Baptists". I hope the weapons of warfare that I employ are spiritual, when it comes to the spiritual warfare we battle, and if so, it is not necessary that I stand on the street corner and shout people down about how they are doomed for hell if they do not believe in Jesus. True conviction comes from the holy spirit, which comes from God. God will fight the battle.
I believe that God has spoken and will speak to all nations in their own tongues. I hope I did not mislead you into thinking that I was so narrow as to believe that only the English speaking peoples had some monopoly on heaven because of the KJV. I believe that the KJV is a superior English translation to anything else we have.
My only point with the Greek or Hebrew scholarship of today is that I am sick and tired of the first thing that these seminary-educated theologians do with their knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is to try to prove where the KJV transalators messed up. Given the same controls and knowledge, I believe very little discrepancy would be found if the original manuscripts were to be re-translated.
I, too, and also tired of constant attack on the being of Jesus Christ. I know it is difficult for men to comprehend that God dwelled upon earth through Jesus his son in the flesh, bore the life of mortal man while still being sinless, and took on the sins of the world upon his shoulders, ultimately dying and conquering death by his resurrection and ascension into heaven, back to Father with whom he was with before the foundations of the world, and that he sends his Holy Spirit to dwell with us and comfort us while on our pilgrimage on earth. But his ways are so simple that they confound the wise. True knowledge comes by revelation from the spirit of God.
The most well-known heresy is not only the Da Vinci code marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdalene, but the lie that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. No where in the scripture is Mary Magdalene referred to as a prostitute.
I once received an e-mail, one of those touchy-feely kind, that attempts to compare what figures in the Bible had to endure that should make a person feel better about themselves. One of the lines was that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Another line said that Leah, the elder sister of Rachel and the first to daughter of Laban given to Jacob to wife, was ugly. The whole e-mail was chock full of untruths. I sent it back to the person who sent it to me with corrections and note attached at the bottom for this person not to send me any more junk like that. But this is only the fulfilling of scripture, as the world will continually attack Jesus Christ until his return for his true bride.
One other point: while Jesus loved us enough that He died for the sins of the world, He was not bleeding-heart liberal. He loved the world, even those who despised Him, enough to tell them the truth. He called them "vipers", and even said in one place that He came to cause a division. While peace will ultimately be gained by those faithful few who fought the spiritual warfare at the end, while the earth endures, He is still dividing. But the battle is God's, and through faith we will win.
Post a Comment
<< Home