Gospel of Judas

Remove all ads!

I found this, http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/06/gospel.judas.ap while searching around and I wanted to know what y'all thought about it.

[ April 08, 2006, 15:23: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Your link does not work, but I can give some additional background. The document is about 1800 years old and documents the life of Judas (it's not written by Judas). According to the text, Judas did not in fact betray Jesus, but Jesus actually instructed him to turn him over to the authorities, which is a very different picture than is presented in virtually all of Christianity.

If you get the Discovery Channel, there is a one hour long program on this topic this Sunday and 8:00 P.M. Since it's not a "live" program it should be on at 8:00 no matter what time zone you live in.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4882420.stm

Your link doesn't appear to work, so I've stuck the BBC one in above.

The religious argument, I imagine, will be the same as that for the Nag Hammadi. i.e. Some people (The Gnostics) obviously wanted to discredit the religion and therefore made up some nonsense. The fact that they would appear to have been written by the disciples, most notably Thomas (The Gospel of) is handily ignored, complete with the fact that the writings weren't actually removed from standard teachings until the end of the 4th century. Also seemingly ignored are other changes made, such as Pope Gregory's (The Great) change to make Mary Magdaline a prostitute, ny aligning her with different Mary's.

But no, the Bible is the only accurate and correct source to believe.

The Nag Hammadi can be found here

 

This isn't exactly a new thing for me, my father has been interested in these things for a long time, he even has an english translation of the Nag Hammadi in his library.
The "fact" that Judas did not betray Jesus can also be found in one of the testaments which is now included in the bible. Apparently scientist uncovered an old version of one of those old testaments in a certain language I can not remember now, either Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, that does not really matter, but what does matter is that the word used in that testament for "betrayed" does not mean betrayel as we know it now, but more like a necessary sacrifice.

That is, the sacrifice of the body that was needed for our deliverance. You see, Jesus needed to be crucified to save our souls, and Jesus realised that, Judas was then just an instrument in his divine plan.
The reason why Judas is now seen as the ultimate traitor is most likely because the Western world could not and still can not see how betraying the Saviour could ever be justified. In more eastern cultures, he might be seen as just an instrument.

 

Judas still returned the thirty silver coins to the priests and hanged himself when he realised what he did, so I'm not sure that kind of interpretation can hold. Also, Jesus asked Judas if he was betraying the son of man with a kiss. During Last Supper, Jesus told the Apostles that one of them would betray Him and others started swearing they never would. Jesus also said it would be better for the traitor if he hadn't been born. While even such words don't necessarily have to mean eternal damnation, there's not much room for backing the idea that Judas was doing Jesus's will.

 

I could be complete bunk, I admit. I myself am reserving judgement for the time being until I find out some more information about it. I am definitely going to watch the program, and I will likely do some more internet research on the topic.

The first problem I can see (other than it doesn't corroborate from what we know of the other Gospels) is one commonality between this gospel and three of the four Gospels (and yes, I'm deliberately capitalizing some forms of the word Gospel). Namely, that both this gospel and three of the four Gospels were written a few generations after Jesus' death, and thus the accuracy of some of the information is questionable.

Of the four Gospels, the one that was most recent to Jesus' ministry was the Gospel of Mark, which was thought to be written around 70 AD, just over a generation after Jesus' death. IMO, Mark is an excellent source given at the time he wrote his Gospel, it was very likely that many people who had seen Jesus were still alive. To think that much of what Mark wrote would be false simply doesn't make a lot of sense, because contemporaries of Jesus would have called him on it.

But the Gospel of Judas dates to around 200 AD, meaning it was even further removed from the four Gospels in the New Testament which further questions its accuracy. Of course, the news article released stated that the manuscript itself dated to around 200 AD, not necessarily that this was the original copy produced, but I assume some scholar would be able to interperet if this appears to be the original copy or not.

 

Dear Judas,

Sorry about the whole "traitor" thing. Our bad. Buy you a beer?

Sincerely,
Christianity

EDIT - below: No, it wasn't bad.

[ April 08, 2006, 02:38: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

EDIT: Um, this wasn;t actually funny. My bad.

 

I heard this about Judas being chosen to betray Jesus years ago. This came up on another forum I'm on and my coment there was:

"Some one had to do it."

As far as I'm concerned I'm happy to let God worry about Judas; I have taxes to pay. "Oh render unto Cesaer."

I do find the documents of interest because of other implications.

 

The Gospels were written according to the witness of the authors, Matthew, a tax collector, Mark, the son of the inkeeper, Luke, a physician, and John, an apostle. If there was a private chat between Christ and Judas, then they would not know it.

All the same, I will not endorse this document. From reading a book on Christ that the LDS church recognizes as scripture that Judas did betray Christ, but we are not his judges.

Chev: I think that the actions of Judas after his betrayal do indicate the godly sorrow required as part of repentance, and that this betrayal may fall into the category of the sins of Adam and Eve--sin yes, but necessary to the plan of Salvation.

 

I'm very interested in this - I doubt it actually has much in the way of rammifications for Christianity - but it'll be a nice addition to the story anyway.

Now if only someone would break into the Vatican vaults and see what other heretical documents they have stashed down there...

 

I believe that in the Book of Isaiah, there is a reference to scriptures from people than in the middle East that would come forth to testify that Jesus is the Christ, and that they would come forth in the last days. The Mormons say that the Book of Mormon is one such work.

 

I often wonder at why people feel threatened by works like this. We already know that the existing Gospels contradict each other in some places (for example, in one version Judas hung himself, but in another, he jumped off a cliff). In all seriousness, if the Gospel of Judas were true, it changes nothing about the ultimate message of Christianity......that Christ died for our sins. Whether or not he was betrayed to reach that end is immaterial.

 

Check out this link for a rational look at this wannabe gospel, courtesy of the "Volokh Conspiracy" blog (no friend to Christianity). Opening paragraphs:

 

And it doesn't seem like that was the reason that it was deemed heretical either. I watched the program last night, and I did gain some insight into several of the gospel writers. First of all, "gospel" meant good word or good news, so all of them tended to carry a positive message. Given that many people had different interpretation's of Jesus's ministry, it isn't surprising that there were a great many gospels. In fact, according to the show, there were no fewer than 30, of which only 4 were selected as true, and the rest deemed heretical.

So of the more popular ones included the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Phillip, and the gospel of Mary Magdeline. It appears that the gospels were used as a means to spread Chritianity in the early days. Since there wasn't yet a formalized Bible, or formalized churches, people met in private homes and spread the faith using various gospels.

Of more interest is why Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were the four that now comprises the New Testament. As it turns out there were practical and logical reasons for their selections. First of all Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were very popular gospels. All four basically just tell a story of Jesus's life, with some lessons learned along the way. Many of the other gospels get into spiritual and philosophical analyses, which isn't very fun for the typical listener. So one reason these four made it was that they were easy to understand.

However, popularity wasn't the only criteria. Central to the message of Christianity is the divinity of Christ. No matter what form of Christianity you believe in, all of them believe that Jesus was divine, and that he died and was resurrected. And this is where the gospel of Judas runs into a problem. There is no mention of Jesus's resurrection, or any account of his deeds following his ressurection. As such, it wasn't considered worthy for inclusion into the New Testament, as it failed to make any mention of the primary tenant of Christianity. Regardless of whether or not it was true is ultimately irrelevant, as it does nothing to explain the basis of Christianity, which has to be considered the primary purpose of the four accepted Gospels.

Don't forget - there were people being executed simply for being Christian back in the early days of the Christianity, so it seems logical that people would want to know what they were dying for, and simply put, the gospel of Judas doesn't contain the main message of Christianity.

The final interesting point made was that it doesn't appear that there was one universal Christianity in the early days of the Church. Many of the different Christian sects were based largely on whatever gospel that sect used. The Gnostics (who incidentally were Christian, and didn't refer to themselves as Gnostics), for example, believed that the spirit of Jesus had to be freed from its mortal cage in order for his resurrection to occur. They didn't view Judas as a traitor, but rather said he was part of the master plan.

I still don't know for sure how I feel about the different gospels, and why some were chosen and others not. Regardless of this, the gospel of Judas does have value simply from a historical perpective to see how many different forms of Christianity were practiced in the early days of the church.

 

The Gospels in the New Testament, and likely other refered to were the personal testimony and witness of those who wrote them. Since Judas Iscariat committed Suicide before the Crucifiction, we would have no first hand account of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Further, if Judas Iscariat was villified, then his own testimony would be less valued. Personally, I'd prefer to wait until Judgement day to hear the word on Judas...

 

The Last Temptation of Christ has Jesus asking Judas to betray him. Very interesting movie.

 

Gnarff, they don't think Judas wrote the Gospel of Judas. They actually think that it was written around the time of the other Gospels, by someone other than Judas, seeing as how he was dead. In fact, none of the Gospels are thought to give a first-hand account of the life of Christ as all of them were written in the decades following his death. The earliest one that is currently in the New Testament - Mark I believe - dates to around 60 AD. While it was certain that people were still alive at the time that remembered Christ, Mark would have been a child at the time of Christ's ministry. The Gospel of John was written in the early 2nd century, and John wasn't even born yet at the time of Christ's ministry, and there were very few if any people still alive who would have remembered it at all (I doubt many people back then lived into their 90s.) So it's really not accurate to say they were all first-hand accounts. I think most of them are based on oral traditions written down a couple of generations after the fact.

However, from a literary standpoint, it makes perfect sense that the Gospel ends with Chirst's arrest. The Gospel of Judas presented the life of Christ through the eyes of Judas, and therefore, since Judas was thought to have committed suicide shortly after Christ's arrest, it makes sense not to include the resurrection, as Judas was likely not alive to have witnessed it.

[ April 11, 2006, 15:12: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Actually, there's a little debate over the timing the Gospels were written in. All four were probably written between 55 AD and 75 AD, but there's some arguement as to when which was written and in what order. Also, Matthew and John were both apostles of Christ, so they're Gospels do indeed give a first hand account, and the other two were students of apostles, so they give second-hand accounts at worst.
The idea that the Gospels were written 'in the generations following' Jesus's death is also Bogus. Jesus probably died around 30 AD, the latest of these was written no more than 45 years later, in a time when the official Jewish time period of a generation (and thus a more or less reliable source for a lifespan) was 70 years. Concidering how young some of the disciples were (John probably no more than 18) this is not generations following Jesus's death, but the generation that witnessed it.

@Drew:
The Gospels don't actually contradict each other. They just give different perspectives of the same events. One Gospel says Judas hung himself, another says he fell from a cliff, another says he hung himself over a cliff, the rope broke, and his body fell onto the field below, bursting open on impact (which can happen). We can see here how the first two only tell part of what happened, the part the author knew about/remembered. This doesn't mean they contradict each other.

 

NOG,

You have the wrong John. Yes, there was an apostle named John, but the writer of the Gospel was a John who was the student of Paul. John's Gospel is different from the other three in many ways, most notably it's the only one that's not a synoptic gospel.

Here's a link comparing the Gospel writers. There is a lot of historical evidence that the Gospel of John was not even begun until after 90 AD, and may not have been finished until 150 AD. If it was John the Apostle writing it, he would have been well over 100 years old at the time of his death.