How old are the most recent books of the Bible thought to be?

The traditional Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were written between AD 65 to 95. Jesus was crucified at roughly AD 30.

What I always liked about the traditional Gospels was the way the reading of them gave the story a 3-dimensional feel. Even though the accounts differed in subtle ways, you could tell that what was being reported was undoubtably accurate...much like watching four different news broadcasts of the same event, or reading four different newspaper reports over something. Another thing that makes the traditional more authentic in my view is the time in which they were written. It would be hard to write bogus information about something historically if the eyewitnesses of the event were still alive. For example, I don't think anyone would get away with writing a book that stated John F. Kennedy was killed with a bow and arrow because too many alive today still remember what actually happened. That's why I doubt anything that came out in 178AD. I'll admit I have spiritual reasons for doubting "The Gospel Of Judas", but I won't get into that here.

Is the "Gospel of Judas" compatible with the central historical claims on which the DaVinci Code is based?

Even though the accounts differed in subtle ways,

I think we must define the world "subtle" differently.

From a page entitled Dating the New Testament. I'm just ball-parking the dates suggested by the various scholars listed at that site.

Matthew: AD 55 - 80
Mark: AD 60 - 70
Luke: AD 60 - 80
John: AD 85 - 95
Acts: AD 63 - 75

Paul's Epistles
Romans: AD 57ish
1st Corinthians: AD 55 - 58
2nd Corinthians: AD 56 - 57
Galatians: AD 50 - 58
Ephesians: AD 61 - 62
Phillipians: AD 61ish
Colossians: AD 61 - 62
1st Thessalonians: AD 51ish
2nd Thessalonians: AD 51ish
1st Timothy: AD 63 - 66
2nd Timothy: AD 66 - 67
Titus: AD 63 - 66
Philemon: AD 60 - 63
Hebrews: AD 65 - 70

Epistle of James: AD 40 - 60

1st Peter: AD 60 - 65
2nd Peter: AD 65 - 70

1st John: AD 90 - 100
2nd John: AD 90 - 100
3rd John: AD 90 - 100

Jude: AD 55 - 65

Revelation: AD 95ish

Mark is generally accepted as the earliest Gospel because it has the simplest narrative. It is assumed that the Gospel of Mark served, along with various writings of the sayings Jesus (a hypothetical document called "Q"), as an outline for the other two synoptics, Luke and Matthew. John's Gospel came a little later and is a quite different kettle of fish.

I just love it how the media goes crazy with their religious conspiracy stories--the James Ossuary, the Gospels of Thomas and Judas, etc. It displays their--and the public's--general ignorance of church history. (which also might explain the Da Vinci Code)

The real questions to be answered by this discovery though are whether the writings (even if actually written during the time ascribed to them) are true, and whether the substance is consistent with the rest of the Bible.

One thing I haven't seen addressed, though, is when the manuscript itself was written and by whom. According to the information obtained by the tests conducted on the manuscript, the codex appears to date from between A.D. 220 and 340.

According to the wikipedia entry, the contents were reputedly used in a gnostic sect, and the original manuscript (not necessarily the one discovered) was written sometime around 130-170 A.D.

According to the web linked here, "The text begins by announcing that it is the 'secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week, three days before he celebrated Passover.' It goes on to describe Judas as Jesus' closest friend, someone who understands Christ's true message and is singled out for special status among Jesus' disciples."

According to the canonical Gospels, Jesus said that Peter's words that He was the Christ, the Son of the Living God as the rock on which He would build His church - not Judas. Also, Judas betrayed Christ and then apparently killed himself before Christ died. How would he have communicated any of this to anyone in the detail recorded in that short a time frame?

Further, if he was one of the twelve disciples and with Jesus regularly, how in that time frame would he have been able to disseminate or record what is contained in the manuscript (which is not only secret revelation but also contradiction to what the other gospel writers recorded) without giving the secrets away and tipping his hand as to his efforts to betray Jesus to the religious leaders?

What if that had leaked to the other disciples - given Peter's inclination to cut off the ear of one of the Roman soldiers, wouldn't Judas have kept that secret as closely as possible to avoid resistance from the others who were not privy to his secret?

[You can tell that this would make a great cross-examination, can't you!!]

Aren't there contradictory versions of Judas' death? One saying that his guts spilled out and the other saying that he hanged himself?

It ought to be worth pointing out, though both National Geographic and ABC's public relations push last night for their documentary seem to bury it: even if we accept the Gospel of Judas as an authentic ancient manuscript (and I see no reason not to), by all accounts, secular, Christian, liberal, whatever, this document dates more than 100 years after the end of Jesus' earthly ministry, and decades after the biblical gospels--long after the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses.

"Aren't there contradictory versions of Judas' death? One saying that his guts spilled out and the other saying that he hanged himself?"

Matthew reports that "Judas hanged himself." Acts reports that Judas "fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intenstines spilled out." These are not contradictory reports. It appears that when his body finally fell, either from decay or from someone cutting it down, the body broke open.

This is just one example of the NT writers not being as comprehensive as one might wish a history book to be. Matthew tells that x happened; Luke tells that y happened. Both x and y can happen. The gospels (and Acts) had other purposes besides being merely comprehensive biographies.

"I just love it how the media goes crazy with their religious conspiracy stories--the James Ossuary, the Gospels of Thomas and Judas, etc. It displays their--and the public's--general ignorance of church history. (which also might explain the Da Vinci Code)"

David--Can you elaborate on "the ignorance of church history" and its connection to the Da Vinci Code?

At the end of the day, what difference does it make? Jesus needed to die, doesn't really matter what Judas motives were, the results were the same.