The Gospel Of Judas Found

[Antlerman]

The newly discovered MS of the Gospel of Judas is dates to 300 A.D (see link). It is the only known copy, and begins"

The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week, three days before he celebrated Passover.

Judas was instructed by Jesus to deliberately turn him over to the authorities, promising him that in doing this he will be above all the disciples:

you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me

The "man that clothes me" is understood by scholars to be a gnostic reference of him being able to get rid of his physical flesh, to allow him to become his true spiritual self.

 

What's wonderful about this? Yet one more look at the diversity of early Christian belief that challenges those who have but one, and only one way of looking at things. These sorts of discoveries are responsible for the shift in into viewing the Bible as a non-literal work.

 

Judas was a hero to the world according to this. Imagine seeing this sign as you drive down the street: "Judas Iscariot Community Church"

 

 

 

[All Gods Fail]

Wow - that's mind boggling.

 

Of course, I can hear the fundy response:

 

"Remember, Paul said the Anti-Christ was already around back then. This heretical gospel is proof he was trying to destroy the One True Church™!"

[duderonomy]

I don't see the big deal of this 'Gospel of Judas'.

 

Jesus told His Twelve Disciples at The Last Supper which of them would betray Him. "Is it I?" my ass. Judas knew. Jesus knew. Judas already had a deal worked out with the leaders of the 'church'.

But Jesus knew this... "what thou doest, do quickly" He said to his friend Judas, the one entrusted to carry the purse..."one of you will betray me", "have I not chosen twelve? And one of you is a devil"

 

So then...why would Jesus choose 'a devil'?

 

Anyway, for me it's more fun to stick to the books at hand, then to look into some new one.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I'm a bit confused about the date. The New York Times said today that this new Gospel of Judas can't be later than second century A.D. So, do they mean the literary work is pre-200, but this particular manuscript copy of it is around 300?

[Ouroboros]

The dating of the Gospel itself is 130-170 C.E, but the manuscript is probably newer. The reason they know the original document must be before 170, is because of Irenaeus makes reference to it. They knew about the gospel long ago, but didn't have a copy until now.

 

So the Gossip of Judas isn't much younger than the Gossips of Matt, Mark, Luke and Johnny Boy.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Do they know that this piece of writing is the same work as that which Irenaeus called the gospel of judas? Or do they just assume that because Judas is the central figure, as though only one gospel of Judas was written? Are there quotations in Irenaeus that agree with the text of this new papyrus find?

[Artur]

*

[♦ ficino ♦]

Artur, thanks for supplying the quotation from Irenaeus. Hmm... what is said there about the Gospel of Judas does sound consistent with what has been reported in the press about the content of the new papyrus find. I don't see how the new find answers questions that we all tend to debate on this website, but it's interesting for throwing more light on what are called "gnostic" movements by the orthodox. I'm calling the new fragment gnostic because it makes a point of saying that it contains secret knowledge hidden from the christian masses.

[Ouroboros]

Do they know that this piece of writing is the same work as that which Irenaeus called the gospel of judas? Or do they just assume that because Judas is the central figure, as though only one gospel of Judas was written? Are there quotations in Irenaeus that agree with the text of this new papyrus find?

I think that is the big question right now.

 

edit:

 

And I just saw Artur's post. It's unfortunate that Irenaeus didn't quote the Gossip, now the fundy-extremo-biblio-thumpers will of course say it's a fraud, etc.

[Artur]

*

[Jedah]

Ahhh but the fundies dont have to listen to it because "The cannon is closed !"

[Antlerman]

I don't see how the new find answers questions that we all tend to debate on this website, but it's interesting for throwing more light on what are called "gnostic" movements by the orthodox. I'm calling the new fragment gnostic because it makes a point of saying that it contains secret knowledge hidden from the christian masses.

It's relevant as all these MSS have been in showing that the early Xian beliefs were extremely diverse. This has led to the Bible being taken far less literally. It is far from a book handed down by god, but one that was the result of politics. Every bit like this sheds further light as to the world in those early days of the church.

 

Personally, my thoughts about those early church counsels was like them deciding which ones of the Harry Potter books reflected what really happened to Harry. They're all the same thing. Which myth is the true myth? I think they should reconvene and add all these other gospels to the New, New American Revised New Standard Re-edition version of the Growing Word of God.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I don't see how the new find answers questions that we all tend to debate on this website, but it's interesting for throwing more light on what are called "gnostic" movements by the orthodox. I'm calling the new fragment gnostic because it makes a point of saying that it contains secret knowledge hidden from the christian masses.

It's relevant as all these MSS have been in showing that the early Xian beliefs were extremely diverse. This has led to the Bible being taken far less literally. It is far from a book handed down by god, but one that was the result of politics. Every bit like this sheds further light as to the world in those early days of the church.

 

 

 

True, but even fundies who know the NT well can see evidence of doctrinal controversy in the epistles of Paul and Acts. Colossians seems to contain condemnations of proto-gnosticism. From the viewpoint I learned so well as a fundy Calvinist, the new gospel of Judas fragment just sheds light on what was known already.

 

It's long been an argument of Catholic controversialists, though, that the Church precedes the Bible as we have it. The formation of the canon is a case in point. None of my Calvinist professors ever had a good answer for that one except to take refuge in some form of TAG, i.e. "we all stand in some presuppositional circle, and ours is just better."

[Lycorth]

Like I've said, this find will undermine the belief of the common man, and will draw Xianity's real source of life from it, slowly. The churches will all have a way to explain it away, such as the Catholics saying that the Gospel of Judas wasn't even involved in the Council of Nicea and if it were a true book it would have magically been there, or the Protestants claiming that the book is no more true than the Apocryphal books of the Catholic Babble they already reject.

 

The churches will make up reasons that sound good to them and allow them to continue to promote their theology despite the increased burden of evidence against it, but simpler folk will just find one more reason to doubt and discard the cult. Bit by bit, Xianity will be sapped of the foundation it was built on, the common people, and only fanatics in time will warm any pews.

[Amethyst]

Yeah, I agree, stuff like this will cause people to doubt their religion more and more. Only the fundies will be left in the end, and most of them will be old and gray.

 

Personally, my thoughts about those early church counsels was like them deciding which ones of the Harry Potter books reflected what really happened to Harry. They're all the same thing. Which myth is the true myth? I think they should reconvene and add all these other gospels to the New, New American Revised New Standard Re-edition version of the Growing Word of God.

 

I agree, but you know they're never going to because they don't believe in adding anything to the bible, even if it was originally part of it.

 

[Antlerman]

 

I agree, but you know they're never going to because they don't believe in adding anything to the bible, even if it was originally part of it.

 

Yes and what does that say?? I've never really thought about that until now. What if they found a gospel or a lost letter of Paul that squared with their theology? Would they seek to include it in the new canon? Why not, if it was deemed legitimate? Perhaps the reason they wouldn't is because they consider the Bible a holy book. By that I mean they have deified it. You can't add a something new to something that is a god. God's don't change.

 

The Bible is a holy relic, like the bones of Jesus. Oh wait those aren't here anymore, they went to heaven in Jesus’ new spiritual body - that has his old bones still in it. Happy Easter everyone!

[Amethyst]

 

I agree, but you know they're never going to because they don't believe in adding anything to the bible, even if it was originally part of it.

 

Yes and what does that say?? I've never really thought about that until now. What if they found a gospel or a lost letter of Paul that squared with their theology? Would they seek to include it in the new canon? Why not, if it was deemed legitimate? Perhaps the reason they wouldn't is because they consider the Bible a holy book. By that I mean they have deified it. You can't add a something new to something that is a god. God's don't change.

 

IMHO, it says how stubborn and obsessed with their beliefs they are. And I agree, they have deified their book.

[mwc]

There was a good show on the National Geographic channel about the discovery of the book in 1978 and the journey it took to get to the here and now (it almost didn't make it). Good show except they spent very little time on the actual contents of the gospel itself so I downloaded it. It's only something like 13 pages so I suggest it to everyone (I think Amanda would get a kick out of it).

 

I think that, in quite a few ways, this text makes sense. It explains the origin of "god" (who is not looked kindly upon) and the angels. It also shows a story that makes more sense in regard to Judas. He simply had to "betray" jesus otherwise all the rest of the story could never have happened. Judas truly is the hero of the entire xian faith and they fail to see it. Jesus had to die and come back and Judas made that happen. The gentiles used him to wage a hate war against the Jews though and so he was villified by the mainstream. I'd love to see the movement to make him a saint succeed. Judas strikes back (after 2000 years).

 

mwc

[theunraveler]

There was a very interesting article I read on the net that postulated that Judas was the real savior of humanity since it was his actions that facilitate the functions of the Christ. Within the article was arugements that refute freewill of Judas vs his destiny...

 

now if only i can find it once more...

[Amethyst]

*Waits for the inevitable Judas cult to start up and overtake mainstream Christianity as the next big thing*

[redneck22]

Would this confidant hang himself after throwing down those thirty pieces of silver—if he and Jesus were really just carrying out a plan? Does this sound like someone who had become the closest confidant to Jesus?

[Amethyst]

Would this confidant hang himself after throwing down those thirty pieces of silver—if he and Jesus were really just carrying out a plan? Does this sound like someone who had become the closest confidant to Jesus?

 

You're forgetting that not all of us believe this actually happened. Just because something is written down, even if it was 2000 years ago on ancient papyrus or something and claims to be real and other people believe it's real, DOES NOT MAKE IT REAL.

[Ouroboros]

In a sense Judas sacrificed much more than Jesus. He sacrificed his reputation (for thousands of years), and according to traditional Christians he went to hell for it. He didn't go to hell just for 3 puny days, but has been there for 2000 years, for obeying God's will. Judas kicks Jesus' ass! (No, don't call in PETA, I didn't refer to the donkey.)

 

Would this confidant hang himself after throwing down those thirty pieces of silver—if he and Jesus were really just carrying out a plan? Does this sound like someone who had become the closest confidant to Jesus?

He executed the plan, and the money was part of the plan, because how would it look like going to the Pharisees and say "Hey, me and Jesus have a plan. We want you to take him and kill him and..." Wouldn't that be weird? So to make it look real, it had to look like betrayal. If he had told them the plan, they would have thought it was a setup or a trap. So, it had to be deceitful.

 

Secondly, after he had done it, he had regrets. Maybe because he really loved Jesus and he thought he might had done a mistake after all.

 

There's so many ways of explaining the plot and give it reasonable arguments. That you fail to see it, only proves your ingrained mind.

[Antlerman]

Would this confidant hang himself after throwing down those thirty pieces of silver—if he and Jesus were really just carrying out a plan? Does this sound like someone who had become the closest confidant to Jesus?

If Judas were being ultimately true to the Gnostic doctrine, then yes, killing himself would release his spirit from its earthly prison for him to find his true self. This is what Jesus asked him to do in betraying him, "you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me," a Gnostic reference to shedding his physical body.

 

What's more though, you are assuming the gospels that got included into the canon through political maneuverings are somehow telling the real story. If Marcion had enough clout back then, today you would be arguing against the Gospels of Mark, Mark, Luke, and John as heresy! That's something to think about.

[Ouroboros]

Would this confidant hang himself after throwing down those thirty pieces of silver—if he and Jesus were really just carrying out a plan? Does this sound like someone who had become the closest confidant to Jesus?

After thinking about this I've realized that's exactly what a confidant would likely do.

 

Consider the two options:

Alternative 1: Judas was evil, so evil that he betrayed God himself. Would a person like that regret what he did? He's pure evil, full of hate and demons, even possessed by the Devil himself, and he regrets it? Shouldn't he be joyful and have a party? And if he did regret it, and was sorry afterwards, wouldn't God forgive him? Or was he beyond forgiveness, but not beyond regret?

 

Alternative 2: Judas was in on a plot, and as an unwilling participant but he obeyed (because he loved his leader) and when it was done, he realized how bad it was, and got depressed and killed himself in panic.

 

I think the second option is more likely than the explanation the Bible gives.