Gospel of Judas

[Syreth]

Here's an article about the gospel of Judas, newly translated, discovered in 1970. Keep in mind that this document dates back to 300 A.D. Just thought we should have a heads up!

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=178563638&p=y78564344

Interesting how quick the media is to publish something that should make us doubt our faith, yeah? Of course, there was that coffin awhile back that belonged to James.

EDIT: There are other news articles about it as well. It will probably be on the news tonight.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I wonder what the validity of this gospels is. I mean you had the gnostic gospels and stuff. But This doesn't really seem "Heretical" moreas a "Judas was actually supposed to betray him" or something.

[Arnobius]

Actually, I think this broke a few weeks back.

Isn't it funny how so many want to say that the Gospels were written to discredit other points of view, and not consider that maybe these gnostic works were written to promote their own points of view instead.

I mean AD 300... that's about the same distance of time of the author's time to Christ as we are from George Washington, and many gnostics were beginning to assert themselves in this region at this time and writing self promoting gospels.

[Technomancer]

There are quite a few such apocryphal gospels floating around. They can be an interesting read, although one would generally question them. We know that the four synoptic gospels we are now familiar with were the only ones admitted by the Church (e.g. Iranaeus wrote about them around 180 AD). I haven't read the gospel of Judas, although I probably will try to get my hands on it at some point. From everything I've read it's basically a gnostic tract, which is what Paul had railed against ("knowledge (gnosis) falsely so-called"). However, the actual age of the text may be older than age of the document currently in our possession, Iranaeus commented briefly on it for example, so there is reason to place its authorship in at least the 2nd century AD.

[RubyJewelStone]

Hmm...one "gospel" that popped out of nowhere versus the four that have accepted in all basic copies of the Bible for a long time. Because, yanno, Judas was the only one who could be in on it, winkwink and all...

I'd take it with a lot of salt. Anyone could of wrote it. [quote]“It really would be a miracle if Judas was the author of this document, because he died at least 100 years before it was written,â€

[CDLviking]

I find it slightly amusing that the media is treating this as some amazing new discovery. As Technomancer pointed out St. Iranaeus commented on this gospel over 1800 years ago in his Against Heresies . It seems rather clear that this is simply another gnostic gospel of perhaps some historical interest, but little to no actual religious value.

[Lynx]

anyone ever seen the movie stigmata? it's about the gospel of thomas.

[Arnobius]

anyone ever seen the movie stigmata? it's about the gospel of thomas.

Haven't seen it but I remember even Roger Ebert said the portrayal of religion in it was horrendous

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990101/REVIEWS/901010302/1023

[ClosetOtaku]

A worthy book on this topic is F. F. Bruce's "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?".

Interesting to note that various books considered valid by the early church included the "Epistle of Barnabas" and "The Shepherd of Hermas"; and even as late as the Reformation people were considering ditching James and 2 Peter.

Nevertheless, I've not seen mention of the "Gospel of Judas" in any historical context, meaning either it was of a Gnostic origin, or it may just simply be not legitimate. (Iranaeus may have mentioned it but, it being not part of the fourfold gospel that had taken hold by 180 AD, we can safely assume he considered it less than canonical.)

[CDLviking]

Nevertheless, I've not seen mention of the "Gospel of Judas" in any historical context, meaning either it was of a Gnostic origin, or it may just simply be not legitimate. (Iranaeus may have mentioned it but, it being not part of the fourfold gospel that had taken hold by 180 AD, we can safely assume he considered it less than canonical.)

I think that's quite clear since he mentioned it in a work entitled Against Heresies .

[Arnobius]

[quote="ClosetOtaku"]A worthy book on this topic is F. F. Bruce's "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?".

Interesting to note that various books considered valid by the early church included the "Epistle of Barnabas" and "The Shepherd of Hermas"]
Sort of. I understand Luther thought the epistle of James was "an epistle of straw". Others questioned 2 Peter as possibly having been written after AD 100. Barnabas and Hermas were disputed, held by some and not by others (however they have not been condemned, only considered not divinely inspired).

These gnostic gospels however are a different breed. These groups claimed to be following secret teachings of Jesus that the Church did not know about. For example, the Gospel of Mary Magdeline sought to make it seem the apostles were trying to suppress the real teachings of Christ because of jealousy. Others are essentially Egyptian sorcery taught as secret teachings of Christ. Their "gospels" are self serving, to promote their own teaching over that of the church, claiming to be the "true" followers of Christ.

<edit: I remember Bruce's book. Had to read it during grad school, brings back memories>

[ChristianKitsune]

quick question: Whats Gnostic?

I agree with the 300 year difference... 100 years works because back then everyone was taught to memorize, memorize memorize...

BUT 300 years?! HAHa..that's a laugh...that's like me writing something new about the gospels that said Jesus was really a duck..(HE isn't! LOL!) but yeah..same concept right?!

[Mr. SmartyPants]

quick question: Whats Gnostic?

I agree with the 300 year difference... 100 years works because back then everyone was taught to memorize, memorize memorize...

BUT 300 years?! HAHa..that's a laugh...that's like me writing something new about the gospels that said Jesus was really a duck..(HE isn't! LOL!) but yeah..same concept right?!

Here you go!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

[meboeck]

quick question: Whats Gnostic?

Gnostic literally means knowing. Gnostics believe there is secret knowledge that the church is hiding and that that secret knowledge holds the truth about Christ and salvation.

EDIT: Ryan, how dare you sneak in in front of me.

[Syreth]

Yeah, I would say this is easily lumped in with the other gnostic gospels. This is similar to the basis that they used for the supposed "Da Vinci Code." The gospels we have now are much closer to the actual dates the events occured than 300 A.D. Plus we have a multitude of manuscripts to back up their accuracy, whereas the copies of this available seem to be minimal considering the thing almost totally fell apart when they were trying to put it back together.

[Puritan]

The article covers basic Gnosticism pretty well, but I thought it would be good to list a few points about the Gnostics that caused them and their doctrines to be utterly rejected by the early church. The Gnostics are known for denying the Trinity, instead creating a practically pan-theistic god, denying a need for salvation from sin and turning Christ into an enlightened teacher figure, a belief in the innate evil of matter and the innate good of the spirit, and a dualistic universe consisting of two opposing and equal spiritual forces.

I find it interesting that this was translated and published, but I'm not surprised as I have seen copies of many of the gnostic gospels floating around. The idea that we can gain enlightenment or godhood through knowledge has been a common and popular theme in religions for millenia, so it's unsurprising that this type of thing is still published and called Christian despite the fact that the Church has battled these ideas for two thousand years.

[Neko Niisan]

I think people are forgetting the content of this gospel.

It is saying that Judas wasn't just a really evil person and that he had to betray Jesus in order for the crucifiction to happen and all of humanity to be saved from the fate of Hell. Not that I say what Judas did was right as such but there is some truth the the destined side of Judas' action that this puts forht.

As a piece of documentation, I would say this has a point that worth studying, although I haven't read it myself yet so I reserve judgement on it till then but I still doubt it as a piece of divine scripture. If God wanted it in the Bible, wouldn't he have put it in there in the first place instead of waiting 1960+ years before humanity found it.

[termyt]

I am both amazed, yet not surprised that the gnostic heresy continues even to this day. It’s a pretty popular point of view that espouses the way many people want God to be. I view it as man’s attempt to change God instead of allowing God to change man.

There is evidence that the apostle John wrote his gospel and epistles to counter the growing momentum of the gnostic movement. The fact that many of the Gnostic texts are very old yet they were largely dismissed by the various councils attempting to create the canonized Bible we know today further shows their unreliability.

[Puritan]

I think people are forgetting the content of this gospel.

It is saying that Judas wasn't just a really evil person and that he had to betray Jesus in order for the crucifiction to happen and all of humanity to be saved from the fate of Hell. Not that I say what Judas did was right as such but there is some truth the the destined side of Judas' action that this puts forht.

From Irenaeus we know that this gospel alleges more than Judas simply fulfilling what had to be done, it claims that he had been given hidden knowledge by Christ and was above all other disciples because of that knowledge and given secret power by that knowledge. From Scripture we know that Satan entered Judas (Luke 22:3) and at that point Judas betrayed Christ. In fact, Christ says "For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!" (Luke 22:22). This indicates that Judas was an evil person, and that he and his actions were condemned, which is a far cry from the claim that he was knowledgable and powerful above the other disciples.

[mitsuki lover]

GNostics believed that there were two and not one God.The God who created the universe and therefore Matter was an Evil God.Marcion equated this God with the
God of the Old Testament,Marcion being an ancient Roman Gnostic 'Christian' who was famous for forming his own 'Bible'.He believed that only the God of the New Testament was good.This is why he rejected the Old Testament and those parts of
the New Testament that had 'Jewish influence'.
Because the Gnostics believed matter to be so Evil they believed that Jesus could not be God in Flesh because for that to be true then it meant that Christ was represenatitive of the Evil God.So they said that Christ had not really come in the
flesh but only Spiritually.Please read the proper verses in 1 and 2 John for the proper response to this part of their heresy.
The Gospel of Judas says nothing new on this matter.I read in the paper that Jesus was supposed to tell Judas in them that the rest of the Disciples worshipped a lesser God and he,Christ was revealing the True God to Judas,etc. ad nauesam.
Gnosticism was one of the biggest heresies the Apostles and other earlier Christian leaders had to fight.

[Debitt]

I am bothered by the media buzz surrounding the Book of Judas, and it hurts to know that people are going to look at this and hold it as something that will disproove Christianity's basic tenets.

I'm not saying that this document is inheritly evil in nature - far from it, and it seems like it would be a very interesting read.

However, it seems as though people are putting this on the same level as the 4 canon gospels - which it is not. Pure logic defeats that idea entirely: Judas hanged himself even before Christ was executed. Thus, he could not have written this text, nor could he have narrated it to someone.

That leaves two options for its origin: either it was divinely inspired, since no one else was privy to the "secret" between Jesus and Judas, or it was written in the same manner that one would write any other regular piece of literature. However, it could not have been divinely inspired, as it contradicts what we are told in the canon gospels (Judas was not a favorable guy, even before he betrayed Jesus), so the only option left is that it is NOT the word of God on paper, but the word of man.

[EireWolf]

To be totally irreverent... it sounds a lot like a Judas fanfic to me.

[Arnobius]

I am bothered by the media buzz surrounding the Book of Judas, and it hurts to know that people are going to look at this and hold it as something that will disproove Christianity's basic tenets.

I'm not saying that this document is inheritly evil in nature - far from it, and it seems like it would be a very interesting read.

However, it seems as though people are putting this on the same level as the 4 canon gospels - which it is not. Pure logic defeats that idea entirely: Judas hanged himself even before Christ was executed. Thus, he could not have written this text, nor could he have narrated it to someone.

That leaves two options for its origin: either it was divinely inspired, since no one else was privy to the "secret" between Jesus and Judas, or it was written in the same manner that one would write any other regular piece of literature. However, it could not have been divinely inspired, as it contradicts what we are told in the canon gospels (Judas was not a favorable guy, even before he betrayed Jesus), so the only option left is that it is NOT the word of God on paper, but the word of man.

Yes it is a work written by man, but I think we may want to consider that the intent of the work can determine whether it is good or evil. Take Mein Kampf. It was a work written to promote Hitler's views on race and politics. I don't think it can be said to be a neutral work. Or "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", which was a book written claiming to show a conspiracy among Jews to control the world. This was a falsehood written with a malicious intent. Likewise this "Gospel of Judas" was written to deceive people about the truth of Christ and promote the gnostic teaching they held to. Books can promote evil (even unintentionally) by portraying a lie to be the truth

[dreamhacker]

Just wondering, how far back can the true gospels be dated, and what kinda evidence supports this?

Most of the Gnostic texts are from 200 AD and later, though the Gospel of Thomas is said to be either from around 50-70 AD (or something like that) or 150 AD or later. Which one is right? Can that "gospel" be dated that far back?

[Sammy Boy]

The Christian Polycarp quoted from the gospel of Matthew in his letter to the Philippians around 110AD, and he also noted the existence of the four gospels by that time [1].

The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were brought together by about 150AD [2].

One textbook dates the gospels of Luke and Matthew to around 117AD at most [3], so I'd say the gospels most likely existed no later than 150AD.

I hope that helps.

----------
Sources:

[1] Barnett, Paul 1986, Is the New Testament history?, Hodder & Stoughton, Australia, pp.38-39.

[2] Shelley, Bruce L. 1995, Church history in plain language (2nd ed.), Zondervan, USA, p.67.

[3] Gonzalez, Justo L. 1984, The story of Christianity (vol. 1), HarperCollins, USA, p.2.

[termyt]

I am bothered by the media buzz surrounding the Book of Judas, and it hurts to know that people are going to look at this and hold it as something that will disproove Christianity's basic tenets.

I'm not saying that this document is inheritly evil in nature - far from it, and it seems like it would be a very interesting read.

I would say the document is evil. Any person who intentionally alters the gospel in an intent to deceive the faithful is among the most vile of human beings. Jesus Himself curses those who would lead the children of God astray.

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!â€

[K. Ayato]

To be totally irreverent... it sounds a lot like a Judas fanfic to me.

I'd have to agree with you there. My pastor yesterday addressed the topic somewhat, explaining that Judas' betrayal wasn't a complete surprise. It was a fullfillment of prophecy. And Jesus Himself pronounced woe unto Judas in all the gospels.

I don't mean to start debate here. Sorry if it sounded like it.

[Tenshi no Ai]

So in my anthropology class today this Book of Judas was mentioned, and I remembered that there was some topic on the same name on here^^ Apparently on some special on TV, amusingly enough when commercials rolled, the documentary was sponsered by the Divinchi Code (yes, I still can't spell his name >_<).

Don't know much about the gnostics... I guess the Apocrapha would count too? I still have a Catholic Bible from when I used to go and never did read the extra books... apparently Jesus turns people into frogs in one of them from what I hear 0_o.

Like mentioned above, seems like so many people are trying to disprove Christianity and exploit the "true" religion of it :/ The Divinchi Code is bad enough from what I've heard, and I won't get into my thoughts on it^^ But I was just watching an ep of 20/20 a couple nights ago on some guy that apparently found the tomb of Mary and James. Now this guy had some VERY bizzare ideas! Apparently he's "pro Christian" but doesn't believe in virgin birth, resserection or anything like that! According to him, Jesus' real dad was some guy from a Greek military! An how "Jesus shouldn't be thought of as some sort of deity, because he was the son of some military dude" or something like that :/ *shrugs* Yeah that guy was something else... anyone else see that? (Seriously though, I wonder where people come up with this stuff!)

[Puritan]

The Apocrypha are not Gnostic (if you're referring to the Deuterocannonical books contained in all Catholic bibles and some Protestant bibles). While they are not accepted by most Protestants, they weren't rejected because their message was Gnostic, but generally because there was dispute about their legitimacy (it's a really long story we shouldn't get into here). Suffice it to say that the Deuterocannonical books in the Catholic bible are not Gnostic, just of disputed legitimacy. However, apocryphal works include the Gospel of Judas as well as many other works which were left out of the Bible for a number of reasons, and there are many different works in this category. All apochryphal literature is not the same, and the works range from works that may be legitimate to forgeries with a pious message to heretical works like the Gospel of Judas.

[Arnobius]

So in my anthropology class today this Book of Judas was mentioned, and I remembered that there was some topic on the same name on here^^ Apparently on some special on TV, amusingly enough when commercials rolled, the documentary was sponsered by the Divinchi Code (yes, I still can't spell his name >_<).

Don't know much about the gnostics... I guess the Apocrapha would count too? I still have a Catholic Bible from when I used to go and never did read the extra books... apparently Jesus turns people into frogs in one of them from what I hear 0_o.

Like mentioned above, seems like so many people are trying to disprove Christianity and exploit the "true" religion of it :/ The Divinchi Code is bad enough from what I've heard, and I won't get into my thoughts on it^^ But I was just watching an ep of 20/20 a couple nights ago on some guy that apparently found the tomb of Mary and James. Now this guy had some VERY bizzare ideas! Apparently he's "pro Christian" but doesn't believe in virgin birth, resserection or anything like that! According to him, Jesus' real dad was some guy from a Greek military! An how "Jesus shouldn't be thought of as some sort of deity, because he was the son of some military dude" or something like that :/ *shrugs* Yeah that guy was something else... anyone else see that? (Seriously though, I wonder where people come up with this stuff!)

No this is not true about the Catholic Bible. Apocrypha is what some denominations term the deuterocannonical books See here. note they are all old Testament, and were generally accepted until the Protestant Revolt, when as Puritan says there was a dispute on their authenticity. The Gnostics are completely apart from the Deuterocannonical books.

As to what you are referring to: There is an apocryphal gnostic "Gospel of Thomas" where a child Jesus turns clay birds into real birds, and the story of Jesus being the son of Mary and a Roman legionary named Panthera is a myth from pagan Rome to try to discredit Christianity. These are old stories getting a new lease on life from the Da Vinci Code etc.