Gospel of Judas

Mark Daniels has some good thoughts on the Gospel of Judas. He points out that it's not exactly new, that it's an example of the Gnostic writings, and that it's not really very relevant. The thing I think is most useful to us as historians (amateur or pro) is that it seems to reinforce the idea that Irenaeus is a reliable source, since he talked about the gospel. Worth reading, check it out.

And Michael Spencer has a great look at how this sort of thing compares with US History. Funny, biting and well-written. The Stupids Do New Testament 101 - go read it. Now. I'll wait.

Christianity Today has a good wrapup as well. Collin Hanson does a good job of pointing out the fallacies of those who are trying to show this as some sort of gigantic change in the understanding of Jesus. It's especially interesting to me because I've lately been seeing the other side of the coin; that is, those Christians who overstate the value of archaeological finds in order to "prove" the Bible. It's nice to see that this sort of fanaticism extends to the atheists as well. I'm not saying that there's not a LOT of archaeological evidence for the Bible's veracity, because there is; I just get annoyed by those who seize on one little insignificant find and blow it out of proportion. Anyway, CT has a good article. Lisez-le. Lese es. Read it.