'GOSPEL OF JUDAS' from NY Post

[imagineNoReligion]

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/62053.htm

I like this quote :

"It is dangerous to re-evaluate Judas and muddy the Gospel accounts by reference to apocryphal writings," Monsignor Giovanni D'Ercole, a top Vatican theologian, said in a recent interview. "This can only create confusion in believers."



God forbid we create confusion in believers, or let them think for themselves.

[Brown]

Here's an idea: If we're going to apply critical analysis to determine the authenticity of the Judas document, then let's apply the same standards of critical analysis to determine the authenticity of the canonical books of the Bible as well.

Anybody want to take bets about whether any Christian church will urge this proposal?

[Bikewer]

Surprisingly, our local newspaper had a nice, balanced article on this. They pointed out the dating of the document fragment and it's provenance, and also pointed out the large number of proto-orthodox Jesus sects or cults which existed prior to the Council of Nicea.

[CapelDodger]

Surprisingly, our local newspaper had a nice, balanced article on this. They pointed out the dating of the document fragment and it's provenance, and also pointed out the large number of proto-orthodox Jesus sects or cults which existed prior to the Council of Nicea.
Sadly that's more likely to bury the matter for Pauline Christians - as just another misinterpretation or even heresy - than to make believers wonder why the original messsage was so ambiguous. If some guy wants to get nailed to a tree to send me a message, I'd like the message to be clear. If they nail their offspring to a tree for the same purpose, I'd demand the message be not only clear but critical, otherwise I'd condemn them as psychotic.

[Meadmaker]

It's exciting when a document like this is uncovered, but it is hardly a blow to the believers. If anything, this will, in their minds at least, strengthen their case. It confirms the words of the church father Iraeneus. (sp?)

[Roadtoad]

Sorry, but I don't trust it. There's something about it that just doesn't pass the smell test.

If, in fact, is is a testament from Judas, there's enough reason to suspect that the man was trying to cover his tracks, trying to wallpaper his way out of the mess he helped create.

[Ducky]

Sorry, but I don't trust it. There's something about it that just doesn't pass the smell test.

If, in fact, is is a testament from Judas, there's enough reason to suspect that the man was trying to cover his tracks, trying to wallpaper his way out of the mess he helped create.


Or it could be that he was reporting the arrangement he had with Jesus that forced Judas to do what he did, and Jesus (as well as Christianity in general) disavowed him for. After all, if your boss says "Report this to the proper authority" and then hangs you out to dry, you'd want to set the record straight too.

I think that if any of this stuff written about even happened, it all had very earthly reasons and explanations which also leads me to believe that the idea of Jesus manufacturing his martyrdom is more sensible an explanation as God killing himself to appease his own wrath.

[kittynh]

I grew up in a church that kind of accepted Judas. Look, the someone had to do it. He represents all of us and our failures. No Judas, no Jesus going to heaven and all that. And let's face it, an old Jesus would just start in about how women shouldn't drive cars and have to be veiled...that was the big problem with some OTHER prophets - they lived into their cranky old age. Like Mark Twain lost his funny, old prophets and such start hating women...

Judas was necessary. Poor guy, this is supposed to be the religion of forgiveness. I was brought up to believe that his betrayal was important and it was really too bad he had to suffer so much for it. In fact, one hoped he wouldn't suffer after he died.

This was in the church going days though.

[ceo_esq]

Here's an idea: If we're going to apply critical analysis to determine the authenticity of the Judas document, then let's apply the same standards of critical analysis to determine the authenticity of the canonical books of the Bible as well.

Anybody want to take bets about whether any Christian church will urge this proposal?

Well, what kind of analysis do you have in mind? Certainly the major Christian denominations have devoted a lot of serious scholarship (historical, archeological, paleographical, etc.) to canonical documents.

[Roadtoad]

Or it could be that he was reporting the arrangement he had with Jesus that forced Judas to do what he did, and Jesus (as well as Christianity in general) disavowed him for. After all, if your boss says "Report this to the proper authority" and then hangs you out to dry, you'd want to set the record straight too.

I think that if any of this stuff written about even happened, it all had very earthly reasons and explanations which also leads me to believe that the idea of Jesus manufacturing his martyrdom is more sensible an explanation as God killing himself to appease his own wrath.

Possibly. At this point, if it's genuine, (the parchment is, according to what I heard, a Fourth Century artifact), it's going to have a detrimental effect on the Church. It can't help but do otherwise.

[ceo_esq]

Possibly. At this point, if it's genuine, (the parchment is, according to what I heard, a Fourth Century artifact), it's going to have a detrimental effect on the Church. It can't help but do otherwise.

I can imagine the Gospel of Judas having had some kind of detrimental effect on the Church in the second century - when Irenaeus complained about it in 180AD (assuming it's the same text).

But why would the Gospel of Judas have any materially negative effect now? After all, there's never been any secret as to its existence, its basic gist (Irenaeus gave away the twist at the end), or even the likely date range for its composition (10-50 years prior to Irenaeus' mention of it). And the Church is a lot less fragile now - institutionally, intellectually, and by almost any other conceivable measure - than it was in the days when Irenaeus was panning the Gospel of Judas. I suspect that the appearance of this translation will turn out to be something of a damp squib. A fascinating find for specialists, to be sure; a shocker to the overexcitable Da Vinci Code set, obviously; but a snoozer for everybody else, including, by and large, the Church.

[Roadtoad]

I can imagine the Gospel of Judas having had some kind of detrimental effect on the Church in the second century - when Irenaeus complained about it in 180AD (assuming it's the same text).

But why would the Gospel of Judas have any materially negative effect now? After all, there's never been any secret as to its existence, its basic gist (Irenaeus gave away the twist at the end), or even the likely date range for its composition (10-50 years prior to Irenaeus' mention of it). And the Church is a lot less fragile now - institutionally, intellectually, and by almost any other conceivable measure - than it was in the days when Irenaeus was panning the Gospel of Judas. I suspect that the appearance of this translation will turn out to be something of a damp squib. A fascinating find for specialists, to be sure; a shocker to the overexcitable Da Vinci Code set, obviously; but a snoozer for everybody else, including, by and large, the Church.

While that's true, my contention is that, if, in fact, it's proven authentic, it places the Church in a difficult position. How do you explain centuries of demonization of this one man who, with a kiss, betrayed Christ? If Jesus had, in fact, requested that Judas do what he did, it almost looks as though Judas had no choice. He bore no responsibility for his actions because he was doing what Jesus had asked. It places Jesus in an unenviable position.

You do make a valid point, regarding the Da Vinci Code crowd. My suspicion is they're the same bunch that's out there watching for black helicopters. *(I almost wanted to build a Rotorway Exec and paint the sucker black, just to freak that crowd out, but it looks like the Federal Marshals already beat me to it.) This is the same bunch that's also making big deals over crop circles, but I think you already knew that.

[Pauliesonne]

Didn't Stephen Fry call the Da Vinci Code written down feces on a recent episode of QI?

[davefoc]

I have had an interest in the historiocity of Jesus for awhile. My suspicion is that this find is authentic and that it will have very little probitive value as to the actual history of Jesus.

My cut at this is that there were lots of "gospels" written around the time this was. They were written by people who often just made stuff up about events that took place much earlier. Assuming that this work is roughly consistent with the four well known gospels and several other lesser known gospels (see gospels found at Nag Hammadi like gospel of thomas) it will present details that are not quite consistent with known history of the time it is supposed to represent and not quite consistent with any of the other known works on Jesus dating from this time. In other words it will be completely consistent with another work of partial and arguably complete fiction describing the life and times of Jesus.

The title of this recently publicized work might lead an individual to think it was written by Judas. This is wildly unlikely. Jesus (assuming he existed) was not widely known enough at the time of his life to have inspired much if any writing about him. And even if he was written about, none of that writing has survived so an actual contemporaneous document about the life of Jesus would be much larger news than this story. Interestingly, John the Baptist, appears to have been a much more well known individual and is mentionedy numerous times by the historian Josephus. Jesus was mentioned (I believe) three times in two places in the works of Josephus and the legitimacy of those references is subject to dispute.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Here in Milwaukee, we have a pair of admittedly right-wing Christians who DJ the morning, drive-time, radio show for a the hard rock/heavy metal station. (Yes, I note the irony.) This morning they brought up the alledged Gospel as an example of the "War On Christianity" and how the "god-haters" want to use it as a means to discredit their relgion.

[UrsulaV]

As far as I know, nobody's claiming that Judas actually wrote the Gospel of Judas--it's dated centuries after the fact.

My gut feeling is that it's early Christian Judas fan fiction written by someone of the time who felt the antihero got a bad rap. Not that that neccessarily makes it any less legitimate--I'm given to understand plenty of early Christian texts come across that way.

I actually think it's legit, I just don't think it's all that important. The advertising is all very histrionic naturally--Judas is an interesting character! Everybody loves hearing about the bad guy!--but in the long run, I think this is just one more of a fair number of early Christian texts that didn't square with what the early Church wanted in the Bible.

I think any danger to Christianity it represents lies far more in people learning about the process of editing of the Bible than about the rehabilitation of Judas as a figure.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Makes sense to me. After all, what would have happened if Judas hadn't ratted out Christ? No trial, no crucifixion, no Savior, no Christianity. If I'd have been Christ, I would have guaranteed my death.

~~ Paul

[cyborg]

Reminds me of a Ben Stiller skit where he played a Terminator sent back in time to 33 A.D. to protect Jesus - he kept shotgunning Judas to death and Jesus kept reviving him because he HAS to die and the Terminator was getting in the damn way by killing Judas.

[Meadmaker]

I think any danger to Christianity it represents lies far more in people learning about the process of editing of the Bible than about the rehabilitation of Judas as a figure.

I think that pretty much nails it on the head.

The document itself just notes a different view of one aspect of Christian history, and it is one that was already identified and noted as heretical.

On the other hand, a lot of us grew up with an idea that Jesus lived, and then his apostles went out and started preaching the gospel, and slowly pagans turned to Christ.


That's a much simpler story than Jesus lived, and then the apostles started preaching, and then some other apostles said that the first apostles got it wrong, and then some Roman guy ordered everyone to get their act together and agree on one book so it could all get under control. The very fact that there was all this squabbling going on will make some people question the faith.

[pgwenthold]

As far as I know, nobody's claiming that Judas actually wrote the Gospel of Judas--it's dated centuries after the fact.

My gut feeling is that it's early Christian Judas fan fiction written by someone of the time who felt the antihero got a bad rap.

Personally, I think that this is probably the most significant message that this discoverty sends. That people back then were writing a lot of fictional stories, surrounding a common theme. Of course, as soon as you admit the possibility that they didn't just write history, then that has big consequences on the gospels.

OTOH, I don't think this will have any impact. People who are objective about the matter already know this, and people who start with the premise that the gospels are authentic will continue on that.

[Roadtoad]

Didn't Stephen Fry call the Da Vinci Code written down feces on a recent episode of QI?

Stephen Fry needs to be more careful about what he says. Otherwise, the publishers will use that in the next round of advertising for the book.

[Roadtoad]

Here in Milwaukee, we have a pair of admittedly right-wing Christians who DJ the morning, drive-time, radio show for a the hard rock/heavy metal station. (Yes, I note the irony.) This morning they brought up the alledged Gospel as an example of the "War On Christianity" and how the "god-haters" want to use it as a means to discredit their relgion.

This is nothing new, really. Half the time, you have evangelicals whining about how people "just don't understand." And the reality is that people understand just fine, thanks. That's why they're not coming to Church.

[ceo_esq]

While that's true, my contention is that, if, in fact, it's proven authentic, it places the Church in a difficult position. How do you explain centuries of demonization of this one man who, with a kiss, betrayed Christ? If Jesus had, in fact, requested that Judas do what he did, it almost looks as though Judas had no choice. He bore no responsibility for his actions because he was doing what Jesus had asked. It places Jesus in an unenviable position.

I agree with your analysis of the Judas story, but how is the Church placed in a more difficult position than before? After all, the theological tradition already is cognizant of the fact that (1) a Judas-themed gospel was certainly in circulation in the late 2nd century and (2) such gospel cast Judas as a hero who received a special revelation. So even if the newly translated text is the genuine article (and by "authentic", I interpret you to mean "essentially the same text to which Irenaeus of Lyons referred"), there's no smoking gun here. The Church has had to cope, in some sense, with the existence of this document for almost its entire history.


I think any danger to Christianity it represents lies far more in people learning about the process of editing of the Bible than about the rehabilitation of Judas as a figure.

I have to wonder, though: is this discovery really going to teach people much more about that process than they could learn (or have learned) from a good study edition of the Bible, or the ubiquitous reference works (the Oxford Companion, et al.) already widely used by Christians and non-Christians alike?

[geetarmoore]

My gut feeling is that it's early Christian Judas fan fiction written by someone of the time who felt the antihero got a bad rap. Not that that neccessarily makes it any less legitimate--I'm given to understand plenty of early Christian texts come across that way.


I believe this to be true.

All of the Gospels are fiction, written from a point of view. This is just another in that long tradition.

Here is a link to the full translated text of the Gospel of Judas, if you haven't seen it yet...

http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf

[CFLarsen]

Here is a link to the full translated text of the Gospel of Judas, if you haven't seen it yet...

http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf

How long before the Bible Code people come up with something spectacular? :)



"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13.

Two men kissing. Hmmm.....

[UrsulaV]

I have to wonder, though: is this discovery really going to teach people much more about that process than they could learn (or have learned) from a good study edition of the Bible, or the ubiquitous reference works (the Oxford Companion, et al.) already widely used by Christians and non-Christians alike?

It's not really a matter of teaching them stuff they couldn't have already learned, it's a matter of getting the popular imagination engaged in learning about it. The benefit of this isn't scholarly so much as it is that it's interesting enough to engage the public, who, by and large, are not exactly wading through the Oxford companion over drinks on a Saturday night.

Christians and non-Christians alike may be widely using reference books and study editions of the Bible, but I suspect not nearly so many as read the Da Vinci Code. This is all about pop culture.

In that regard, the danger of the Gospel of Judas is getting the public, which by and large DOESN'T know about how the Bible was put together, to think about and read about the process by which the Bible was assembled. Which can be a rather startling experience. Certainly blew my mind in college, and I wasn't even a Christian by then...

[Achán hiNidráne]

This morning my Dad went off on the "Gospel." I don't know what set him off about it, but at one point he started screaming about how "they'll do anything to debunk Christianity!" Of course, he didn't elaborate on who "they" were but knowing him I'm sure it involves John Kerry, Geroge Soros, the "Gay Agenda," and the "Culture Of Death."

[CapelDodger]

At least Irenaeus is getting some of the press he deserves. He's often validated by his reliance on the later canon. His influence on what that canon is is neglected. One hand washes the other ...

Eusebius, if you're reading this, give me a call. You really need an agent right now. :cool:

[ceo_esq]

It's not really a matter of teaching them stuff they couldn't have already learned, it's a matter of getting the popular imagination engaged in learning about it. The benefit of this isn't scholarly so much as it is that it's interesting enough to engage the public, who, by and large, are not exactly wading through the Oxford companion over drinks on a Saturday night.

Christians and non-Christians alike may be widely using reference books and study editions of the Bible, but I suspect not nearly so many as read the Da Vinci Code. This is all about pop culture.

In that regard, the danger of the Gospel of Judas is getting the public, which by and large DOESN'T know about how the Bible was put together, to think about and read about the process by which the Bible was assembled. Which can be a rather startling experience. Certainly blew my mind in college, and I wasn't even a Christian by then...

Your points are well taken. I just don't know that the process whereby the Bible was assembled poses any problem for the Church, which seems pretty sanguine about the whole thing.

[Huntster]

This morning my Dad went off on the "Gospel." I don't know what set him off about it, but at one point he started screaming about how "they'll do anything to debunk Christianity!" Of course, he didn't elaborate on who "they" were but knowing him I'm sure it involves John Kerry, Geroge Soros, the "Gay Agenda," and the "Culture Of Death."

Your Dad sounds like he's figured a few things out.

There are lots of others you can lump in there with Kerry, Soros, the homosexual community, and the Culture of Death.

[Roadtoad]

Your Dad sounds like he's figured a few things out.

There are lots of others you can lump in there with Kerry, Soros, the homosexual community, and the Culture of Death.

And there are some who don't see it as a bad thing. :rolleyes:

[davefoc]

It's not really a matter of teaching them stuff they couldn't have already learned, it's a matter of getting the popular imagination engaged in learning about it. The benefit of this isn't scholarly so much as it is that it's interesting enough to engage the public, who, by and large, are not exactly wading through the Oxford companion over drinks on a Saturday night.

Christians and non-Christians alike may be widely using reference books and study editions of the Bible, but I suspect not nearly so many as read the Da Vinci Code. This is all about pop culture.

In that regard, the danger of the Gospel of Judas is getting the public, which by and large DOESN'T know about how the Bible was put together, to think about and read about the process by which the Bible was assembled. Which can be a rather startling experience. Certainly blew my mind in college, and I wasn't even a Christian by then...

ceo_esq responded:
Your points are well taken. I just don't know that the process whereby the Bible was assembled poses any problem for the Church, which seems pretty sanguine about the whole thing.

I suspect ceo_esq is essentially correct. There are two ways of attempting to devine the actual historical nature of Jesus:
1. approach it as an historical investigation with the goal of coming up with the most likely version of the actual events.
2. approach it from the viewpoint that your beliefs are essentially correct and any apparent problems with bilbical reliability are actually just errors in interpretation or analysis.

If you are of the second mindset there may not be any information that can not be reconciled with your belief structure. One of the things that became clear to me in a thread on the topic of internal conflicts within different areas of the bilble is that with a little effort, plausible (but not necessarily likely) explanations can be found for essentially all of them. If you are a believer plausible is good enough.

I am quite sympathetic to UrsulaV's thought because I had the same notion when the passion of the Christ was released. I thought it might trigger a real interest with investigating the historical nature of Jesus which would lead to large numbers of people questioning their faith because of the shaky historical underpinnings of Christianity. Alas, as near as I can tell, I was completely wrong and I expect the release of this Judas Gospel will not have any effect either on the great majority of Christians.

[Belz...]

Your Dad sounds like he's figured a few things out.

There are lots of others you can lump in there with Kerry, Soros, the homosexual community, and the Culture of Death.

My, my. Another very smart comment from the crusader.

ETA::rolleyes:

[UrsulaV]

I am quite sympathetic to UrsulaV's thought because I had the same notion when the passion of the Christ was released. I thought it might trigger a real interest with investigating the historical nature of Jesus which would lead to large numbers of people questioning their faith because of the shaky historical underpinnings of Christianity. Alas, as near as I can tell, I was completely wrong and I expect the release of this Judas Gospel will not have any effect either on the great majority of Christians.

*grin* Well, hope springs eternal...

I don't really think it'll have that huge an impact, let me hasten to add, but I think any impact it's LIKELY to have will derive more from people learning about the history of the Bible than about Judas's rehabilitation as a figure.

[Morrigan]

That would have to be either Stained Class or Sad Wings of Destiny.

(Sorry...)

[Phrost]

Does anyone actually seriously believe the gospels were written by the apostles they're named after?

[davefoc]

I think it is conceivable that a guy with a name somewhat similar to Luke wrote the Gospel we know of as Luke.

My favorite historical Jesus site argues against it, but ceo_esq argued for at least the possibility and he did so well enough that he convinced me that it was at least a reasonable possibility.

There is a kind of reasonable scenario based on the fact that Luke mentions a benefactor who the work was being written for. Maybe Luke was some sort of local knows about Jesus kind of guy that traveled a bit with Paul and he got a gig doing Gospel writing from this rich guy.

[Pauliesonne]

ceo_esq responded:


I suspect ceo_esq is essentially correct. There are two ways of attempting to devine the actual historical nature of Jesus:


Personally, considering that in the first century, with all those " messiah's " walking around at the same time, doing the same " miracles " - that any rational, free-thinking person would come to the same logical conclusion as me that none of them were anything but nomal people.

That's if any of them existed at all!