Gospel of Judas

[Tenshi no Ai]

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.

Oh I see now... and yeah the guy's name was Panthera. Roman I guess, no Greek (eh, close enough).
Was it also in these gnostics that came up with the idea of Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene and having a son (because I have NO idea where else that idea would come from).

[Puritan]

I believe the idea of Jesus marrying Mary Magdelene and having a son came more from modern ideas than the Gnostics. The Gnostics were against the material world and generally anti-sexuality, so they would be really unlikely to make this assertion.

[Steeltemplar]

It is interesting that the secular world devotes as much effort as it does to discrediting Christianity. One might see it as a further indication of the veracity of the faith that it inspires so much opposition. I doubt that if Christianity were not the truth that there would be nearly as many anti-Christian books, films, and theories as there have been.

This "gospel" of Judas is a prime example of the phenomena. Note the willingness of the media to make a spectacle of this despite its highly questionable nature. If this were any other subject, I doubt that the document would make more than a brief discussion in intellectual circles more as a study of the gnostics themselves than of anything else.

[mitsuki lover]

The way I heard it Jesus and Mary Magdalene were supposed to have had a daugther who married into the Merovengian line of Kings.

The special was on National Geographic Channel yesterday.Basically it was background of how the Gospel of Judas was discovered and then what the findings were when they put it to Carbon Dating.It tested out,that is the copy they had,to around AD 220.
Then there was some things about how Judas=Judah=Jew so the story of Judas Isacriot was supposed to be one of the reasons the early Church was supposed to be anti-Semitic in it's teachings.Although why no-one ever mentioned that Christ had 2 disciples named Judas,the other was also named Thaddeus,I don't know.
Since this is why Judas went by the name of his home town.

[Technomancer]

It is interesting that the secular world devotes as much effort as it does to discrediting Christianity. One might see it as a further indication of the veracity of the faith that it inspires so much opposition. I doubt that if Christianity were not the truth that there would be nearly as many anti-Christian books, films, and theories as there have been.

You know, I don't buy this at all. The Gospel of Judas is a major story because it relates to the earliest years of the Christian church, and is the most significant document from that period to be translated in several decades. Most people in North America identify themselves as Christian in some way, so any news story relating to the origins of their faith is going to be major news (and so it should be!). Understandably, most major media outlets are going to cover this subject because it is of immediate interest to their customers. The fact that they sometimes fail to fully grasp all of the nuances in the story should also be no surprise, given how bad a job they do of reporting many complicated subjects that require specialist knowledge and training (e.g. science).

Apocrypha is what some denominations term the deuterocannonical books

Not exactly. While some people include the deuteros in their definition of the 'apocrypha', the term more generally refers to any sacred books outside of the accepted canon. This includes the various OT and NT books which are outside of any historically accepted canon of scripture (e.g. The Apocalypse of Adam, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, etc)

[Steeltemplar]

You know, I don't buy this at all. The Gospel of Judas is a major story because it relates to the earliest years of the Christian church, and is the most significant document from that period to be translated in several decades. Most people in North America identify themselves as Christian in some way, so any news story relating to the origins of their faith is going to be major news (and so it should be!). Understandably, most major media outlets are going to cover this subject because it is of immediate interest to their customers. The fact that they sometimes fail to fully grasp all of the nuances in the story should also be no surprise, given how bad a job they do of reporting many complicated subjects that require specialist knowledge and training (e.g. science).

Yes, the popular media are going to get some things wrong, and will more often do so as a result of ignorance or laziness than out of any sense of malice. At least they are making people aware of it, and hopefully those interested will be spurred to read more informed discussions of the subject. The fact that some people feel that this is somehow a threat to faith or to orthodoxy does not lessen the importance of the story, nor does it behove one to ascribe as "superfluous or pernicious" any subject outside of their sphere of belief.

The document was a heretical falsehood when it was created by the Gnostics. I do not see what bearing it has at all upon the origins of the faith except for to show the nature of early heresies and Gnosticism (it does have significance there, but I sincerely doubt that the media would give a hang about that aspect of it).

However, here are the sorts of headlines that we see in the news media:

The Boston Globe - "A new Judas emerges from rediscovered gospel"

BBC - "Judas 'helped Jesus save mankind'"

The Times - "Judas did as Jesus asked – 'gospel' reveals the other face of a traitor"

USA Today - "Long-lost gospel of Judas recasts 'traitor'"

ABC - "'Gospel of Judas' gives new view of Jesus' betrayer"

National Geographic - "Lost Gospel Revealed; Says Jesus Asked Judas to Betray Him"


Of course, there are some which do not follow this line. However, as you can see, all of these herald the lost "gospel" with the implication of veracity. That is the anti-Christian bent of which I speak. The media has seized upon the document as a possible way that traditional Christianity could be discredited, despite the fact that the document is quite clearly a falsehood. As a piece from its time, I am sure that it is real. The Gnostics probably did write this. That does not make it significant as any part of the history of Christendom other than being an example of the heresies of that era.

[Technomancer]

The last three headlines you have posted are perfectly accurate. On the other hand, I would take issue with the first three though since they do not properly indicate the nature of the source. While one could certainly say that may represent some antagonism, it could just as easily be written off as bad writing.

The document was a heretical falsehood when it was created by the Gnostics. I do not see what bearing it has at all upon the origins of the faith except for to show the nature of early heresies and Gnosticism

And that is the point. It is important to understand the milieu in which early Christianity existed, and the various sects that existed in competition with orthodox Christianity. It is important to understand these because they relate to how the books of the bible were chosen, how doctrine was developed and so on.

(it does have significance there, but I sincerely doubt that the media would give a hang about that aspect of it).

As I have already mentioned, common science journalism is often just as bad. Complex issues are being simplified for non-experts by non-experts, which almost always means some loss of clarity. Laziness and shoddy writing are deplorable, but they are not evidence of animus or of a conspiracy.

[ChristianKitsune]

I agree with ST. This is just another negative ploy to downside our faith...the atheists are gunna eat this up.

Check out this verse! ^_^

Revelations 22: 18-19

18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

[CDLviking]

Technomancer has a point as well. While the Gospel of Judas may not have much worth to the average believer, those who study Church history and theology may be quite interested in it. I start theological studies next year, and it would be interesting to have a copy of the Gospel of Judas to read alongside Ireneaus' Against Heresies, to see exactly what he is writing about.

[Arnobius]

You know, I don't buy this at all. The Gospel of Judas is a major story because it relates to the earliest years of the Christian church, and is the most significant document from that period to be translated in several decades. Most people in North America identify themselves as Christian in some way, so any news story relating to the origins of their faith is going to be major news (and so it should be!). Understandably, most major media outlets are going to cover this subject because it is of immediate interest to their customers. The fact that they sometimes fail to fully grasp all of the nuances in the story should also be no surprise, given how bad a job they do of reporting many complicated subjects that require specialist knowledge and training (e.g. science).

First of all the "discovery" is not new. It was discovered in the 1970's. Some work may have been done in translation that was released recently, but the 26 pages the NYT talks about were known in 1999. So much for "New Discovery," this is nothing more than old news in the scientific community. Keep in mind every Christmas and Easter season we get media coverage about a"new discovery" that tries to prove Christians got it wrong. This year is no different.

Second, yes it is historical in that it teaches us what a heretical group believed in the era of aproximately 180 AD (When it was mentioned by St Irenaeus in Adversus Haeresies), but it is not accurate to say it teaches us about "Christianity" except in the loosest sense. There are countless documents about the early years of the Church all in agreement. What makes this one "newsworthy" is the fact that it is about a group who disagreed with Christianity and sought to set themselves up as knowing secrets that Jesus didn't teach the other disciples.

Not exactly. While some people include the deuteros in their definition of the 'apocrypha', the term more generally refers to any sacred books outside of the accepted canon. This includes the various OT and NT books which are outside of any historically accepted canon of scripture (e.g. The Apocalypse of Adam, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, etc)

Yes, but I was using the common term to distinguish it from the gnostics to clear up the misconception a previous poster had. I am quite aware of the full meaning of the term.

The way I heard it Jesus and Mary Magdalene were supposed to have had a daugther who married into the Merovengian line of Kings.

A theory done in a 1980's book "Holy Blood Holy Grail" which is considered junk science and the basis of "The DaVinci Code"

Technomancer has a point as well. While the Gospel of Judas may not have much worth to the average believer, those who study Church history and theology may be quite interested in it. I start theological studies next year, and it would be interesting to have a copy of the Gospel of Judas to read alongside Ireneaus' Against Heresies, to see exactly what he is writing about.

As far as that goes, yes I agree, but it does not have the earth shaking effect on Christianity that the media implies it does. It has historical value as a text, but not something that will force Christians to re-evaluate Judas.

[Steeltemplar]

The last three headlines you have posted are perfectly accurate. On the other hand, I would take issue with the first three though since they do not properly indicate the nature of the source. While one could certainly say that may represent some antagonism, it could just as easily be written off as bad writing.



And that is the point. It is important to understand the milieu in which early Christianity existed, and the various sects that existed in competition with orthodox Christianity. It is important to understand these because they relate to how the books of the bible were chosen, how doctrine was developed and so on.



As I have already mentioned, common science journalism is often just as bad. Complex issues are being simplified for non-experts by non-experts, which almost always means some loss of clarity. Laziness and shoddy writing are deplorable, but they are not evidence of animus or of a conspiracy.

I really cannot agree that the media would be giving this level of coverage to the document purely as a matter of intellectual interest. The sensational headline style seems to focus on the possible veracity of the ideas in document rather than the historical aspects of it as they relate to the Gnostics. If it were indeed the latter situation, would they not say something more along the lines of "Heretical Gnostic Texts Translated" or some such? The very idea that the document supposedly "recasts" or "gives new view" is basically lending it a false credibility which it likely has not enjoyed since it was created.

Yes, it is significant in the sense that it is a part of Christian history as a heresy. Just as CDL points out, it would be interesting in that respect. However, I think the significance of it is rather pale in comparison to the high profile coverage it receives.

I suppose that we might agree to disagree on this, but that is my case. AnimeHeretic also made a very good post on the subject, I should like to say.

[Technomancer]

First of all the "discovery" is not new. It was discovered in the 1970's. Some work may have been done in translation that was released recently, but the 26 pages the NYT talks about were known in 1999.

I am well aware that the document has been kicking around for a long time. However, it's news now because the translation and restoration work has been completed and made public.

In 2001, Frieda Nussberger-Tchacos and Maecenas foundation director Mario Roberty engaged a Swiss scholar, the veteran Coptologist Rodolphe Kasser to undertake and supervise translation and restoration.

I do regret that more of the manuscript could not have beens saved. Unfortunately that's nothing new; some portions of the Nag Hammadi find were used as cooking fuel.

[Mithrandir]

... to say nothing of the Great Library.

[Steeltemplar]

... to say nothing of the Great Library.

In Alexandria, you mean? That was also burned, yes?

[Technomancer]

In Alexandria, you mean? That was also burned, yes?

Yes, portions of it were torched by different people at different times. First by the Romans during the war between Caeser and Pompey. The Christians took a stab at it as well. What was left was ultimately destroyed by the Muslims under Caliph Umar.

[mitsuki lover]

Let's be careful though that we don't leave people with the wrong idea.It wasn't the
Church as a whole that was responsible for burning the Library of Alexanderia the second time around,it was a particuliar sect led by a particuliar bishop that was responsible.Let's not give people who are looking for conspiracies fuel for the fire.

[Arnobius]

Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria burned a temple, the Serapeum, devoted to Serapis. It was a seperate building from the original great library and in a different part of the city. There seems to be no evidence to establish whether or not there was in fact a library there in the Serapeum. The main source is Edward Gibbon's notably innaccurate "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."

[mitsuki lover]

Gibbon's was supposed to be notorious for his hatred of Christianity so it wouldn't surprise me in the least.