http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/06/gospel.judas.ap/index.html

Ancient text offers revelations about Judas
Manuscript indicates disciple betrayed Jesus -- at his request

Thursday, April 6, 2006; Posted: 10:52 a.m. EDT (14:52 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- National Geographic unveiled an ancient manuscript Thursday that may shed new light on the relationship between Jesus and Judas, the disciple who betrayed him.

The papyrus manuscript was written probably around 300 A.D. in Coptic script, a copy of an earlier Greek manuscript.

It was discovered in the desert in Egypt in the 1970s and has now been authenticated by carbon dating and studied and translated by biblical scholars, National Geographic announced.

Unlike the four gospels in the Bible, this text indicates that Judas betrayed Jesus at Jesus' request.

The text begins "the secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot."

The key passage comes when Jesus tells Judas "you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothed me."

This indicates that Judas would help liberate the spiritual self by helping Jesus get rid of his physical flesh, the scholars said.

The manuscript was first mentioned in a treatise around 180 A.D. by a bishop, Irenaeus of Lyon, in what is now France. The bishop denounced the manuscript as differing from mainstream Christianity and said it produced a fictitious story.

There were several gospels in circulation at the time in addition to the four in the Bible. When those gospels were denounced, it was thought that believers hid them away.

The gospel of Judas was kept by a group called the Gnostics, who believed that the way to salvation was through secret knowledge given by Jesus to his inner circle.

National Geographic said the author of the gospel of Judas believed that Judas Iscariot alone understood the true significance of Jesus' teachings.

If true, the Biblical implications are not at all staggering.

ping Harry Potter thread

1. How could anyone have recorded a "secret conversation between Judas and Jesus?" Jesus was crucified right after his betrayal, and Judas killed himself.

2. This account is so completely inconsistent with the rest of the Biblical accounts of these events that it SHOULD be dismissed.

3. There's no doubt that Jesus knew well ahead of time that Judas would betray him, and he even told the apostles ahead of time that one of them would betray him. In fact, careful examination of the scriptures reveals that Jesus forgave Judas for it before it even happened. My guess is that someone tried to contort this fact into a story that makes Judas look a little better.

church don't like change

Interesting.

i thought this was about the new 'missing link' dinosaur fossil found.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/science/05cnd-fossil.html?ex=1301889600&en=43e5c9ecb1dd0cd6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

ping Harry Potter thread

Gold.

i thought this was about the new 'missing link' dinosaur fossil found.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/science/05cnd-fossil.html?ex=1301889600&en=43e5c9ecb1dd0cd6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Same here.

i thought this was about the new 'missing link' dinosaur fossil found.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/science/05cnd-fossil.html?ex=1301889600&en=43e5c9ecb1dd0cd6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

I thought it was going to be about the FSU scientist who theorized that Jesus actually walked on ice.

http://kabobfest.blogspot.com/2006/04/jesus-walks-on-ice.html

I'd agree that the biblical implications are not terribly staggering, mostly because people who don't believe this will continue to not believe it.

What it does for me is lend further credence to the belief that the "lost scriptures" are indeed relevant and that there is more to the "Bible" than has been accounted.

i thought this was about the new 'missing link' dinosaur fossil found.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/science/05cnd-fossil.html?ex=1301889600&en=43e5c9ecb1dd0cd6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

This story is obviously fake because we all know transitional fossils don't exist. :D

1. How could anyone have recorded a "secret conversation between Judas and Jesus?" Jesus was crucified right after his betrayal, and Judas killed himself.

Where does it say that this conversation took place just before the betrayal?

Well, this certainly has implications for the assisted suicide debate.

This story is obviously fake because we all know transitional fossils don't exist. :D Unless they were put there to test our faith.

No implications at all as the Gnostic gospels, of which there are many besides this one, are not Christian documents per se, since they proceed from a syncretistic sect that incorporated elements from different religions, including Christianity. The "Gospel of Judas" would be a document of this sort, which could have great historical value, since it contributes to our knowledge of the Gnostic movement, but it poses no direct challenge to Christianity.

Gnosticism arose in the middle of the second century, and the "Gospel of Judas," if authentic, probably dates back to the mid- to late second century.

As far as "more to the Bible", You can go to any Catholic bookstore and pick up a copy of the Gnostic gospels. Christians may not believe them to be true, but there is no attempt to hide them. The Gnostic Gospels are refered to many times by the early Church Fathers (and even by St Timothy in the "Bible"), so they were not hidden then and are still not.

they have been running the commercial for the show on pretty much everything i have watched on tv the last few weeks, including WWE Raw!

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/gospelofjudas/

i for one, plan on watching it.

Who dates a manuscript by carbon dating? Given the margin of error in carbon dating, you would usually be better off dating it by the handwriting or, if possible, internal references.

Assuming that the dating is correct: a document written 300 years after the fact isn't going to tell you much about the actual relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and Judas Iscariot. It just tells you how later generations understood that relationship--and given how much we already know about the Gnostic gospels and their traditions, what this document says is hardly surprising.

Who dates a manuscript by carbon dating? Given the margin of error in carbon dating, you would usually be better off dating it by the handwriting or, if possible, internal references.

Assuming that the dating is correct: a document written 300 years after the fact isn't going to tell you much about the actual relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and Judas Iscariot. It just tells you how later generations understood that relationship--and given how much we already know about the Gnostic gospels and their traditions, what this document says is hardly surprising.

when exactly do you think that the rest of the gospels/bible were written. the matthew, mark, luke, and john bibles werent written until the 2nd century AD, iirc without actually looking it up

church don't like change

You know that's right.

I'd agree that the biblical implications are not terribly staggering, mostly because people who don't believe this will continue to not believe it.

What it does for me is lend further credence to the belief that the "lost scriptures" are indeed relevant and that there is more to the "Bible" than has been accounted.

ditto

when exactly do you think that the rest of the gospels/bible were written. the matthew, mark, luke, and john bibles werent written until the 2nd century AD, iirc without actually looking it up

St Mark 65-70 AD
St Matthew 70-80 AD
St Luke 70-80 AD
St John 80-90 AD

These dates vary some a little earlier and some a little later but most historians & theoligians agree with the above as again many early Church/historic writings refer to these Gospels in the 1st & 2nd Centuries.

when exactly do you think that the rest of the gospels/bible were written. the matthew, mark, luke, and john bibles werent written until the 2nd century AD, iirc without actually looking it up

Generally accepted that Matthew and Luke are between 60-100 AD, Mark in the 60-70 range, John closer to the 120-ish range.

But when was Q written?

I bet these guys could figure it out

http://www.crazyabouttv.com/Images/voyagers.jpg

Jesus asked Judas to betray him? The next thing you know someone is going to say that He was married to Mary Magdalene and that the Catholic Church has been covering that up for thousands of years too. :eek:

But when was Q written?

I bought it in the early 1990's:) but I believe it as written a little before that.

The Logia, or the document Q of the critics, rests on no historical authority, but only on critical induction.

But when was Q written?

He was featured in the series premiere of Star Trek: The Next Generation, so I'd assume that script was written about 1987 or so.

Jesus asked Judas to betray him? The next thing you know someone is going to say that He was married to Mary Magdalene and that the Catholic Church has been covering that up for thousands of years too. :eek:

That isn't the only thing the Catholic church has been covering up for 2k years. The Catholic Church is the most powerful and most corupt organization in the world.

This story is obviously fake because we all know transitional fossils don't exist. :D
The great thing about transitional fossils if if you find one, you can just point to the lack of a transitional fossil between that one and another one.

Jesus asked Judas to betray him? The next thing you know someone is going to say that He was married to Mary Magdalene and that the Catholic Church has been covering that up for thousands of years too. :eek:

Now that would just be silly. :p

All roads lead through U2. There song "until the end of the world" is based on a poem from the poet brendan kennelly "book of judas" he writes: "If you want to serve the age, betray it." in other words, where would we be today without judas? or for that matter eve or cain. their "sins" were essential for the spiritual process.

if jesus was granted freedom from the crowd would he of had to get arrested all over again, or would christ have to make another apprearence in another time and place?

All roads lead through U2. There song "until the end of the world" is based on a poem from the poet brendan kennelly "book of judas" he writes: "If you want to serve the age, betray it." in other words, where would we be today without judas? or for that matter eve or cain. their "sins" were essential for the spiritual process.

if jesus was granted freedom from the crowd would he of had to get arrested all over again, or would christ have to make another apprearence in another time and place?

Being omniscient, God knows full well what choices we will make and weaves even our bad decisions into his providential plan for the world.

In his last published book, Pope John Paul II reflected on how God continues to bring good out of even the worst evil that man can produce.

That doesn't mean, however, that God intends for us to do evil, or that he intended for Judas to betray Jesus. If it wasn't Judas, it would have been someone else. The authorities had already decided to put Jesus to death, and it was just a matter of time.

Apparently National Geographic paid over $1mil for an exclusive on this story, so if anybody has The Gospel of Joseph lying about in a drawer somewhere, you should maybe give them a call.

Being omniscient, God knows full well what choices we will make and weaves even our bad decisions into his providential plan for the world.

So I have no free will. If God knows the decision I will make then I can only make that decision. Either I am not free to make a competing choice or else God can be wrong, i.e. is not omniscient.

So I have no free will. If God knows the decision I will make then I can only make that decision. Either I am not free to make a competing choice or else God can be wrong, i.e. is not omniscient.

Just because God knows doesn't mean you aren't acting out of your own free will.

It's funny how people see these paradoxes and scream about how there cannot really be a God (or, in this case, perhaps there cannot be any real free will), just because our small and limited human minds can't process the concept.

Just because God knows doesn't mean you aren't acting out of your own free will.

It's funny how people see these paradoxes and scream about how there cannot really be a God (or, in this case, perhaps there cannot be any real free will), just because our small and limited human minds can't process the concept.

IMO it defeats the purpose of life though. If God knows we are going to sin or not believe in him prior to us being born, thus we are doomed to be condemned to hell, then what's the point of us existing anyway? Why not just straight away send our souls to Heaven/Hell.

Anyone remember one of Irving Wallace's book, The Word?

So I have no free will. If God knows the decision I will make then I can only make that decision. Either I am not free to make a competing choice or else God can be wrong, i.e. is not omniscient.

This is one of the most difficult and disturbing theological/philosophical concepts to understand. Anybody wanting my pov is free to pm me ... I don't have all the answers but I have put a lot of work into resolving this for myself.

I bought it in the early 1990's:) but I believe it as written a little before that.

The Logia, or the document Q of the critics, rests on no historical authority, but only on critical induction.


I don't buy there was a Q. I just wondered how many would even know what I meant. :)

As for predestination/free will debate, I tend to look at it like this. God's ultimate plan for this world is like a riverbed that He has etched onto the surface of space-time. Ultimately, the flow of history will proceed from point A to point B. As individual drops in the river of humanity, we have some freedom of movement within the greater flow, influencing and being influenced by the formation of the riverbed surface we pass over (i.e. eddys, rapids, still water, etc.), but in the end we are confined by the banks of the river.

In scripture, God typically represents Himself as being in the present. When Moses asked for His name in the wilderness to give the Hebrews so they might believe the God of their Fathers had sent him, God gave the name "I AM". I believe that God transcends linear time and is present, "I AM", at every point in history simultaneously, thus His omniscience.

Apparently National Geographic paid over $1mil for an exclusive on this story, so if anybody has The Gospel of Joseph lying about in a drawer somewhere, you should maybe give them a call.

I have The Gospel of Brian on videotape. Will that do?

2. This account is so completely inconsistent with the rest of the Biblical accounts of these events that it SHOULD be dismissed.


By the rest of the Biblical accounts you mean the ones that the church sanctioned/didn't destroy? I'm not a biblical scholar, but my understanding is that there were a lot more writings/testaments re: Jesus than those that are captured in the new testament. The church picked and chose which ones to keep and which ones to destroy based on the writings/messages.

2. This account is so completely inconsistent with the rest of what the church wants you to believe that they want it to be dismissed.



Fixed that for you.

I really question how much this changes things. The only big thing I really question is Judas being the best friend of Jesus. Whenever there was a select group of apostles to go anywhere, it always seems to be Peter, John, and James. You rarely hear of Judas except during the betrayal. Why would all four authors of the other Gospels agree on this point?

Otherwise, I have no problem if Jesus tells Judas to betray him. The one concept I always had trouble with was whether or not Judas was condemned to hell. On one hand, I understand why he is condemned, or should be. On the flip side, what he did, HAD to be done. If I recall, Christ said that the one who betrays the Son of Man would be better if he had never lived. If that is the case, and Christ had his friend betray him, is Christ lying? Wouldn't Judas just be following what Christ told him to do?

I think there is less congruity of thought if the Gospel of Judas is true than if there it is not.

1. How could anyone have recorded a "secret conversation between Judas and Jesus?" Jesus was crucified right after his betrayal, and Judas killed himself.

If we can find out details about Adam and Eve, then a conversation between Judas and Jesus shouldn't be hard to <s>make up</s> find also.


On a related note. Is a person really "sacrificing" his life if he knows he's going to rise from the dead?

IMO it defeats the purpose of life though. If God knows we are going to sin or not believe in him prior to us being born, thus we are doomed to be condemned to hell, then what's the point of us existing anyway? Why not just straight away send our souls to Heaven/Hell.

I repeat my earlier reference: religion and God is something that was invented to stop us all going insane.

Given that this makes so much sense to me, I am both envious and sympathic towards those who have religious faith....

... You rarely hear of Judas except during the betrayal. Why would all four authors of the other Gospels agree on this point?
...


I'm thinking that the betrayal itself plays a role in this phenomenon. It is actually something I've considered before.

Back to the heart of the topic's title. I really don't think this is all that staggering. It isn't like this is the first time that the theory has been proposed. I've often heard people openly contemplate about Judas' motives. As someone said above..the betrayal had to happen. I just don't see this as all that new information.

As to why this work isn't considered part of the canonical bible, I think mostly that goes to the thought that this was a "gospel" written by someone two centuries after christ died. This is closer to fan-fic than a book of the bible.

To the point of "the biblical implications are staggering if true," doesn't the fact that there are gospels out there that the church calls "lies" and has kept from the public for centuries mean that the other canonical gospels aren't trustworthy either?

To the point of "the biblical implications are staggering if true," doesn't the fact that there are gospels out there that the church calls "lies" and has kept from the public for centuries mean that the other canonical gospels aren't trustworthy either?

That isn't exactly news. There are lots of religious or even "biblical" writings not considered canonical. Apocryphal writings are nothing new.

The canonical books of the Bible haven't changed in hundreds of years. There are certainly writings that historians, even today, argue should be considered Biblical. They aren't, and I don't honestly see that changing any time soon. This is just another one of those writings, and I doubt it is one that many would argue should be considered for "addition" to the Bible.

I again think this is closer to fan-fic than a gospel.

I again think this is closer to fan-fic than a gospel.
not sure i understand the logic behind this statement....for the fan-fic concept to apply you have to make the conclusions that whoever wrote the gospel of judas did so when christianity was hardly the dominant religion in the world, with the hope that someone would eventually find it and exonerate Judas Iscariot. that is a bit of stretch for me in an era when only about 1 percent of the population of the world was capable of writing.

i find it much more likely that this document is as authentic as the 4 canon gospels, and was a) never found until now, or b) hidden from the world so as to keep a continuity in the belief system of the church, where it is not encouraged to question anything that the bible says.

i am not saying the contents of this gospel are correct, just different.

That isn't exactly news. There are lots of religious or even "biblical" writings not considered canonical. Apocryphal writings are nothing new.

I think that to the mainstream, this is new. I imagine that a great deal of people who consider themselves religious have no idea that writings such as these exist. I think if you were to ask most people "Who wrote the Bible?" they'd answer "God."

not sure i understand the logic behind this statement....for the fan-fic concept to apply you have to make the conclusions that whoever wrote the gospel of judas did so when christianity was hardly the dominant religion in the world, with the hope that someone would eventually find it and exonerate Judas Iscariot. that is a bit of stretch for me in an era when only about 1 percent of the population of the world was capable of writing.

i find it much more likely that this document is as authentic as the 4 canon gospels, and was a) never found until now, or b) hidden from the world so as to keep a continuity in the belief system of the church, where it is not encouraged to question anything that the bible says.

i am not saying the contents of this gospel are correct, just different.

Regarding considering it as authentic as the four canonical gospels. I can't even imagine that is even remotely possible. This was written WELL after the fact. The other gospels were essentially contemporary with Christ's life.

The Gnostics, and this is purportedly a gnostic manuscript, were a learned bunch. They knew the bible, the gospels, and I believe they had access to at least some of the apostolic letters. They weren't true believers, at least not of the Christian faith.

I'm saying that this work was written by a learned religious fellow, that didn't buy into the Christian religion. That right there doesn't seem to add much weight to the argument that this should be held on equal ground to canonical works, just because someone dubbed it a gospel.

To the point of "the biblical implications are staggering if true," doesn't the fact that there are gospels out there that the church calls "lies" and has kept from the public for centuries mean that the other canonical gospels aren't trustworthy either?


The fact that those in power within the religion itself sat down and said "ok what are we going to allow our followers to have access to because we say they are the "canon" of our religiong, and what are we going to say doesn't relate to us?"

The entire basis of the religios text for christianity is based on censorship. How does that NOT throw up a huge red flag for everyone following it?

The fact that those in power within the religion itself sat down and said "ok what are we going to allow our followers to have access to because we say they are the "canon" of our religiong, and what are we going to say doesn't relate to us?"

The entire basis of the religios text for christianity is based on censorship. How does that NOT throw up a huge red flag for everyone following it?

No. Who better would know which books were authentic and which were fiction than those who lived closest to the time they were written? The "cannon" of the bible was settled (for the most part) long before there was an orginized church to create such conspiracies as are being suggested here. Study up on the "gnostic" movement within the early church, the motivations behind these books, and you'll understand where this and most of the apocrypha/psuedopigrapha came from, and why the early church rejected those books.

No. Who better would know which books were authentic and which were fiction than those who lived closest to the time they were written? The "cannon" of the bible was settled (for the most part) long before there was an orginized church to create such conspiracies as are being suggested here. Study up on the "gnostic" movement within the early church, the motivations behind these books, and you'll understand where this and most of the apocrypha/psuedopigrapha came from, and why the early church rejected those books.

History is an agreed upon fable. The bible is no different. Some things are true, some are not. Such is life.

On a related note. Is a person really "sacrificing" his life if he knows he's going to rise from the dead?
Very true.

What if you knew you had a ticket to heaven? You're tired of getting beat on, living with these dudes who want to write about you so they can sell a zillion copies of their book, and you know you can't commit suicide (cuz you would go to hell then). What's the answer? Get Judas to betray you and go to everlasting life.

Sounds pretty plausible to me.

Very true.

What if you knew you had a ticket to heaven? You're tired of getting beat on, living with these dudes who want to write about you so they can sell a zillion copies of their book, and you know you can't commit suicide (cuz you would go to hell then). What's the answer? Get Judas to betray you and go to everlasting life.

Sounds pretty plausible to me.

bizzaromundo. :rolleyes:

The finding of the Gospel of Judas is no surpise--the same with the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter--and the variuos other books that various groups--especially the Gnostics, created in the centuries afterwards.

The Gnostics were a heretical sect (that actually still exist today, though not by that name) that refute many of Christianity's basic doctrines because of one central belief: they believe the flesh is bad, the spirit is good, and only secret knowledge can free the spirit. Thus, they couldn't accept Jesus as God and flesh at the same time, etc. etc.

Now, if that's your basis of belief, you need some "secret knowledge" to prove this. Where does that come from? It comes from books written hundreds of years after the fact. But the church had already set a standard for biblical truth (the canon wasn't established by censorship, but by a series of tests--the biggest of which was, who wrote it? If Peter or Paul or John wrote it, it passes test one. If a desert priest with "secret knowledge" wrote it, they rejected it--pretty reasonable if you ask me), so the Gnostics knew they couldn't just invent "secret knowledge," they had to give it some authority. So they attributed it to the other disciples who hadn't written Gospels. I wouldn't be surprised if we find a Gospel of Bartholomew, a Gospel of Thaddeus, etc.

In many ways, the Gnostics were like the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses of their day. They resembled Christianity, but they had their own Book of Mormon or Watchtower; they had their own versions of otherwise accepted texts.

SUMMARY: In the same way the Christian church looked at Joseph Smith's "new secret revelation" Book of Mormon as being untrustworthy, they looked at the Gnostic's "hidden secret revelations" as being equally untrustworthy. The fact that the books are 1700 years old doesn't mean they have any more credibility than the Gospel of David Koresh.

On a related note. Is a person really "sacrificing" his life if he knows he's going to rise from the dead?

Interesting question, but I don't see how it diminishes the sacrifice. Does knowing I'm going to have to sacrifice something and then be rewarded for that sacrifice diminish it?

<TABLE class=tborder id=post1106933 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt2 width=175>SFL Cat (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/member.php?u=444)<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_1106933", true); </SCRIPT>
College Benchwarmer

Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,462




</TD><TD class=alt1 id=td_post_1106933>

In scripture, God typically represents Himself as being in the present. When Moses asked for His name in the wilderness to give the Hebrews so they might believe the God of their Fathers had sent him, God gave the name "I AM". I believe that God transcends linear time and is present, "I AM", at every point in history simultaneously, thus His omniscience.


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Actually not all bibles say "I am" at at this reference, The actual septuagint or greek scrolls used in jesus day say..
Ego emi Ho on...or I am the being...or another english translation says "I cause to become"
If you look at a hebrew bible.
Over 6,000 times the tetragrammaton "YHWH" is used for gods name.
Not "I am"

Actually not all bibles say "I am" at at this reference, The actual septuagint or greek scrolls used in jesus day say..
Ego emi Ho on...or I am the being...or another english translation says "I cause to become"
If you look at a hebrew bible.
Over 6,000 times the tetragrammaton "YHWH" is used for gods name.
Not "I am"

My understanding is that most Christian bibles translate that bit as "I am". Bibles used by other sects specifically do not translate it that way. As for the Septuigant, I thought the Septuigant was a latin translation of the old and new testaments created for inclusion into the library of Alexandria. Being Latin, it, for the purposes of biblical study at least, is more useful as an example or definition of the canon at that time, rather than critical study.

As for "I am" not being a reference to Diety; There are a number of times in both the old and new testament that "I am" is used as a claim to diety. Christ did it by claiming "Before Abraham was, I am". The religious leaders at the time knew exactly what he was claiming, and even took offense.

My understanding is that most Christian bibles translate that bit as "I am". Bibles used by other sects specifically do not translate it that way. As for the Septuigant, I thought the Septuigant was a latin translation of the old and new testaments created for inclusion into the library of Alexandria. Being Latin, it, for the purposes of biblical study at least, is more useful as an example or definition of the canon at that time, rather than critical study.

As for "I am" not being a reference to Diety; There are a number of times in both the old and new testament that "I am" is used as a claim to diety. Christ did it by claiming "Before Abraham was, I am". The religious leaders at the time knew exactly what he was claiming, and even took offense.

The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Old Testament done in Alexandria between 300-200 BC. You are thinking of the Vulgate.

The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Old Testament done in Alexandria between 300-200 BC. You are thinking of the Vulgate.
Very good. I wasn't sure when I typed it, but at least I knew it was a translation made "en masse". Edit of an Edit(because I'm not quick with that whole BC/AD thing): Thanks also for the Timeline. I would have bet large sums of money that the Septuagint came into being after the days of Christ.

In that case..Joker's point is that when the OT reference to "I am" was translated to Greek, that the translators used a different phrase than the one credited to Jesus in the NT. I'm not sure I buy into any ramifications though, first because it was a 'translation' in the first place. Better to go to the original language and work that out.

In any case Jesus made the claim, and it was considered blasphemy by those that heard it. If the phrase didn't carry any meaning from the OT occurences, then it wouldn't have been considered blasphemy.

Um. But aren't the 4 gospels in the Bible also Gnostic gospels that were merely selected for their content (preferrable to the Catholic religion)?