By Schubert Ogden
Page History
...
Pamela Eisenbaum had this to say in connection with the publication of the Gospel of Judas in Spring, 2006:
...
'Is
...
[this
...
depiction
...
of
...
Judas
...
]
...
closer
...
to
...
historical
...
reality
...
than
...
what
...
we
...
know
...
from
...
the
...
canonical
...
gospels?'
...
My
...
answer
...
[is
...
]
...
the
...
same
...
given
...
by
...
virtually
...
every
...
scholar:
...
'The
...
Gospel
...
of
...
Judas
...
is
...
unlikely
...
to
...
reveal
...
much
...
about
...
historical
...
events
...
leading
...
up
...
to
...
Jesus'
...
execution.'
...
No
...
doubt
...
the
...
Gospel
...
of
...
Judas
...
is
...
enormously
...
significant
...
for
...
our
...
understanding
...
of
...
early
...
Christianity,
...
especially
...
Egyptian
...
Christianity
...
of
...
the
...
second
...
and
...
third
...
centuries.
...
The
...
manuscript,
...
written
...
in
...
Coptic,
...
has
...
been
...
dated
...
to
...
the
...
third
...
century,
...
but
...
is
...
likely
...
a
...
translation
...
of
...
a
...
second
...
century
...
Greek
...
text.
But the Gospel of Judas cannot bring us any closer to historical 'fact' than do the four canonical gospels. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Judas were not written as history of the sort we expect from modem historians. In antiquity, historians wrote to convey what we might call the historical essence of past events. They couldn't
...
imagine simply reporting the 'facts.'
Ancient writers and readers certainly had standards for determining the legitimacy of historical accounts. But a good account was measured by whether it captured the essence of the past so as to provide readers with a meaningful reflection on it ("New Insights into Judas?" The Denver Post, Guest Commentary).
6 May 2006
Overview
Content Tools