The Gospel according to Judas

[Garbarsardar]

The story

The Gospel of Judas, a papyrus document from the 3rd or 4th Century AD, tells the story of Jesus' death from the fallen disciple's point of view. Alleged to be a copy of an even older text, it casts Judas as a benevolent figure, helping Jesus to save mankind. The early Christian Church denounced such teachings as heretical. The 31-page fragile document, written in the Coptic language, was discovered in Egypt in the 1970s. The National Geographic Society in the US is to publish the first English translation of the text on Thursday and show some of the papyrus pages for the first time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4882420.stm

"You will be cursed by the other generations -- and you will come to rule over them," Jesus tells Judas in the document made public Thursday.

In a key passage Jesus tells Judas, "You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me."

Craig Evans, a professor at Acadia Divinity College in Nova Scotia, Canada, said New Testament explanations for Judas' betrayal range from money to the influence of Satan.

"Perhaps more now can be said," he commented. The document "implies that Judas only did what Jesus wanted him to do." Christianity in the ancient world was much more diverse than it is now, with a number of gospels circulating in addition to the four that were finally collected into the New Testament, noted Bart Ehrman, chairman of religious studies at the University of North Carolina.
Eventually, one point of view prevailed and the others were declared heresy, he said, including the Gnostics who believed that salvation depended on secret knowledge that Jesus imparted, particularly to Judas.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/sci....ap/index.html

The questions

I have grown in a very religious-Orthodox environment. Judas was always the ultimate villain, it is a curse word in Greek used to describe traitors anyway.

The more I think about it the more it seems that Judas was intentionally made the fall guy, at least by the Organised Religion. He is such an iconic paradigm of treason that it is too perfect to be true, except in literrary terms. So, traitor or accomplice?

Second ,the Gospels the Church accepts is probably a selection from a great variety that existed in the first ages AD. How can one use historical sources of similar value and connocted under similar circumstances as some being the word of God and others just flights of fancy?

[Eric]

The Gospel of Judas, I never saw that one coming!

[Da Skinna]

This might mean that Jesus actually had a hand in his own fate, not something done unto him by God. Raises questions, and not very positive ones...

[Gaius Baltar]

I had always thought that Jesus knew he was going to die when he went to Jerusulam. The information from the new coptic book translations (if they are correct) just confirms that for me. If he was the son of god then he had much more control of the situation than Judas. I was always disapointed that he died. There are several questions I would like to ask him.

[LegionnaireX]

I had always thought that Jesus knew he was going to die when he went to Jerusulam. The information from the new coptic book translations (if they are correct) just confirms that for me. If he was the son of god then he had much more control of the situation than Judas. I was always disapointed that he died. There are several questions I would like to ask him.

I believe Jesus knew he had to die, even though he did not wish to die.

[David Deas]

Goddamnit. I was looking forward to the National Geographic Sunday special that they're airing April 9th. I just couldn't resist the spoilers here I guess.

[Zuwxiv]

The modern Bible was a compilation of current works collected into a single book for the purposes of:

Uniting Christians.
Uniting an empire.

The Emperor was in many ways more concerned with maintaining the fading Roman Empire than any religious motives. Why do all the Christian holidays fall on ancient Pagan holidays? Because it was easier to convert people. And if everyone is Christian, ruling them is a whole lot easier - you just say "Don't worry, God wants me to rule!" and everyone is okay with everything you do.

The political motives of the bible meant that many religious works were excluded for reasons that have nothing to do with religious accuracy. I believe the Revelation According to Peter was one such work. It stated that in the end, if the people of Heaven rise up and ask God, all those in Hell will be forgiven. Obviously not good in a church - Then why would you bother being good?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

The more I think about it the more it seems that Judas was intentionally made the fall guy, at least by the Organised Religion. He is such an iconic paradigm of treason that it is too perfect to be true, except in literrary terms. So, traitor or accomplice?

Probably traitor. The earliest gospels indicate that the first followers of Jesus certainly remembered him as a traitor and a villain. This is actually a bit of a paradox because, according to the theology that evolved after Jesus' death, that death was actually a triumph and so Judas was instrumental to achieving it. So why the animosity towards Judas?

The most likely answer is it was a raw memory of a genuine, historical betrayal of Jesus by Judas.

Second the Gospels the Church accepts is probably a selection from a great variety that existed in the first ages AD. How can one use historical sources of similar value and connocted under similar circumstances as some being the word of God and others just flights of fancy?

Because it's not of equal value as works written much closer to the events. The canonical gospels were written 30-90 years after the events they purport to describe, but that still makes them closest in time to those events than any other accounts of Jesus. There is also good evidence in them that they are derived from traditions which arose from Jesus' first followers.

This 'Gospel of Judas' is first mentioned in 180 AD and was probably written no earlier than 150 AD. That makes it considerably later than the canonical material. It also (from what I've read about it so far) presents Gnostic and docetic theological ideas that didn't arise until well after the time of Jesus and his initial followers.

In one passage in the newly deciphered gospel Jesus says to Judas: 'You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.' This is a direct reference to a distinctly late, Gnostic theology - the idea that Jesus was a pure spirit and only appeared to be human. The Gnostics believed the physical was evil and the material world was the product of an evil God. Jesus was a spiritual being sent by the good God to rescue us from the material world by bringing us knowledge (gnosis) of our true spiritual being.

This is what Judas is expressing. Jesus reveals gnosis to Judas, telling him that he will be reviled by the other disciples (ie the founders of the branches of Christianity opposed to Gnosticism) but that Judas' betrayal will actually liberate the true Jesus from his material/physical disguise, just as gnosis releases the Gnostic 'elect' from the material world.

In other words, this new gospel doesn't tell us anything much about what happened in Jerusalem around 30 AD, but it does tell us about the beliefs of the Gnostic branch of Christianity in around 150 AD and about their theological conflict with the rest of Christianity.

This is why this gospel is causing excitement in the media, but is a not so amazing to Biblical scholars and historians. It seems there's nothing earth-shaking in Judas - it's exactly what we'd expect from a Gnostic text of its date. It's a great new insight into Gnosticism, but only the Fruitcake Brigade will manage to convince themselves it's somehow the 'true story'.

But just watch. They will.

The modern Bible was a compilation of current works collected into a single book for the purposes of:

Uniting Christians.
Uniting an empire.

The texts which made up the Bible had been more or less decided on about 100 years before Christianity became a legal religion and about 150 years before it became the official religion of the Empire. If this consensus on which books were 'scriptural' came about long before Christianity had any form of co-operation with the Empire and while it was still being persecuted by it, how could it be due to some 'political' desire to unite the Empire?

This idea that the Bible was compiled to meet some Roman political agenda is fundamentally wrong. It's based on this popular myth that the Bible was compiled by the Emperor Constantine, which is flatly and completely wrong. Neither Constantine nor any other Roman emperor played any part in this process - it had been essentially settled about a century before he was born.

The Emperor was in many ways more concerned with maintaining the fading Roman Empire than any religious motives.

That was why Constantine decided to co-operate with Christianity rather than continue trying to suppress it, certainly. But that had nothing to do with the consensus about which texts were canonical. See above.

Why do all the Christian holidays fall on ancient Pagan holidays? Because it was easier to convert people.

Partly. Christianity took December 25th as the day for Jesus' birth because it was already celebrated as a holy day by Mithraists. Just as the Mithraists had done precisely the same thing because it had been used as a holy day by the earlier Sol Invictus cult. Easter doesn't fall around the same time as spring equinox pagan rites because it was 'stolen' from paganism, however. It falls then because Jesus was executed around Passover - a Jewish spring equinox festival.

The political motives of the bible meant that many religious works were excluded for reasons that have nothing to do with religious accuracy.

The choice of which texts were considered canonical had nothing to do with politics - see above.

I believe the Revelation According to Peter was one such work. It stated that in the end, if the people of Heaven rise up and ask God, all those in Hell will be forgiven. Obviously not good in a church - Then why would you bother being good?

It's also counter to a great deal of other works which were (i) known to be earlier in date that this Apocalypse, (ii) considered to be by Jesus' first followers and (iii) recorded sayings by Jesus on this matter which contradicted this passage in this alleged vision. So this text was rejected on the grounds of its date and its theology. 'Politics' had zero to do with it.

[Gaius Baltar]

Even the Catholic Church bases its doctrine on works that were written many decades or even centuries after the death of Jesus. The main support for these, as like many of the old testament, is that the writers were "inspired by God". Im not sure we know or will ever know the accurate recollection of these events. We know that the Roman Empire existed. Beyond that, there is no physical proof of the life and death of Jesus.

The Discovery channel show will be very interesting to me. Ill even freeze down a 6 of my favorite brew. God Bless America.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Even the Catholic Church bases its doctrine on works that were written many decades or even centuries after the death of Jesus.

Christianity generally bases its doctrines on works written decades after the death of Jesus. But no, not 'centuries'.

The main support for these, as like many of the old testament, is that the writers were "inspired by God".

That and the fact that some were known to be in circulation very early, while others were known to have arisen a long time afterwards. All scholars - Christian, Jewish and secular - agree that the four gospels which came to be considered 'canonical' and 'inspired by God' are actually the earliest gospels. Which is how they got that status.

Beyond that, there is no physical proof of the life and death of Jesus.

There is no physical proof of the life and death of 99.999999999% of people in history. So?

(And I'll remind people that I'm an atheist, in case they think I have some religious axe to grind. I'm looking at this subject purely as a secular historian).

[hellheaven1987]

Damned it, I don't have National Geography channel. Please tell me after anyone see the show!!!

From my point of view, probably Judas was not a traitor. In fact, I never believe he was a traitor. The main reason is at least he knew his fail in the end, and it was ok as God will forgive anyone who know his or her fails before they die. Besides that, it was normal to put Jesus to die if you look the event from the direction of that time. Jesus was just another Osama from the Jews' eyes during the time.

[Dromikaites]

In one passage in the newly deciphered gospel Jesus says to Judas: 'You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.' This is a direct reference to a distinctly late, Gnostic theology - the idea that Jesus was a pure spirit and only appeared to be human. The Gnostics believed the physical was evil and the material world was the product of an evil God. Jesus was a spiritual being sent by the good God to rescue us from the material world by bringing us knowledge (gnosis) of our true spiritual being.

This is what Judas is expressing. Jesus reveals gnosis to Judas, telling him that he will be reviled by the other disciples (ie the founders of the branches of Christianity opposed to Gnosticism) but that Judas' betrayal will actually liberate the true Jesus from his material/physical disguise, just as gnosis releases the Gnostic 'elect' from the material world.

In other words, this new gospel doesn't tell us anything much about what happened in Jerusalem around 30 AD, but it does tell us about the beliefs of the Gnostic branch of Christianity in around 150 AD and about their theological conflict with the rest of Christianity.

This is why this gospel is causing excitement in the media, but is a not so amazing to Biblical scholars and historians. It seems there's nothing earth-shaking in Judas - it's exactly what we'd expect from a Gnostic text of its date. It's a great new insight into Gnosticism, but only the Fruitcake Brigade will manage to convince themselves it's somehow the 'true story'.

But just watch. They will.

I fully agree with you: the "Gospel of Judas" doesn't actually tell anything about what happened in the garden of Ghetsemani. Of course it's a genuine text, but a genuine Gnostic text. To put it into a modern context, "The daVinci Code" is also a genuine text (now that Dan Brown won against those who had accused him of plagiarising ). However that's a genuine Dan Brown text which has little in common (if anything ) with what has actually happened with the historical Jesus.

[DarkKnight]

That and the fact that some were known to be in circulation very early, while others were known to have arisen a long time afterwards. All scholars - Christian, Jewish and secular - agree that the four gospels which came to be considered 'canonical' and 'inspired by God' are actually the earliest gospels. Which is how they got that status.

The good old argumentum ad numerum et populum arguement. It can only be true if it is widespread and accepted by others. If it isn't it can't be true regardless of any other validity it might possess.

[Gaidin]

The good old argumentum ad numerum et populum arguement. It can only be true if it is widespread and accepted by others. If it isn't it can't be true regardless of any other validity it might possess.

statistical accuracy regarding the memory of the authors and/or their research would side with them due to the fact that if they're the ones written the soonest after Jesus' death, then they would be the most historically accurate. Emotion regarding certain characters is where your point stands.

[DarkKnight]

statistical accuracy regarding the memory of the authors and/or their research would side with them due to the fact that if they're the ones written the soonest after Jesus' death, then they would be the most historically accurate. Emotion regarding certain characters is where your point stands.

We are not talking about historical accuracy though. Christian's believe that the authors of the books of the bible were guided by the holy spirit. The memory thing is not an issue when discussing the theological validity. We can't know for sure exactly how it fits with the bible until we see the full text. What I am saying is don't dismiss it before you have any evidence.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

We are not talking about historical accuracy though. Christian's believe that the authors of the books of the bible were guided by the holy spirit. The memory thing is not an issue when discussing the theological validity.

He's not talking about 'theological validity', he's talking about the likelihood that these canonical texts are the earliest. As I said, the scholarly consensus, on purely non-theological grounds, is that they are.

We can't know for sure exactly how it fits with the bible until we see the full text. What I am saying is don't dismiss it before you have any evidence.

People who have seen the full text agree that it's a Gnostic work of the Second Century. So we already know how it 'fits with the Bible' - its a work by a branch of Christianity which held very different views to the branch that developed into the Christian churches of today and which arose long after the events of Jesus' time.

Sorry to be a spoilsport but, as interesting as this text is for the history of Gnosticism, it's not early enough to be any great revelation about the historical Jesus.

[Gaidin]

We are not talking about historical accuracy though. Christian's believe that the authors of the books of the bible were guided by the holy spirit. The memory thing is not an issue when discussing the theological validity. We can't know for sure exactly how it fits with the bible until we see the full text. What I am saying is don't dismiss it before you have any evidence.

The historical accuracy is where the authority of this document would stand though. The church has been standing upon the idea that Judas was a cold-hearted traitor who felt some remorse for CENTURIES. If a copy of this document were found in such a fashion so as to stand, age-wise, in the timeline of the others, there'd be a *serious* clash of facts and to maintain any legitimacy with the (claimed)historic reality of Jesus' actions, the church would have to address that.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

The good old argumentum ad numerum et populum arguement. It can only be true if it is widespread and accepted by others. If it isn't it can't be true regardless of any other validity it might possess.

Er, no - not exactly. I was pointing out that there is a broad scholarly consensus that the canonical gospels are also the earliest gospels. That doesn't mean that this is definitely correct, but since scholars tend to disagree on as much as possible, a consensus is a fairly decent indication that there is some validity to this position; particularly since it's shared by scholars from a wide variety of religious backgrounds and by secular historians (a very relevant consideration in this particular field of scholarship).

Noting a broad and long-held scholarly consensus is not an 'argumentum ad numerum et populum' - these aren't just any old people; they are specialists in the relevant fields. And ones that disagree on just about anything else you care to mention.

Yes. But it is claimed that for such a prolific individual going around performing all these miracles and talking crazy, there should have been at least *one* historical recollection of this guy written somewhere. Even if its just a single sentence in someone's journal.

This is assuming that the stories about him performing amazing miracles and preaching to vast crowds are true. It's far more likely that this was simply yet another dusty peasant preacher and faith healer from the back of nowhere preaching an esoteric message about the end of the world that even most other Jews thought was crackpot nonsense.

So why would we expect aristocratic Roman historians and sophisticated Greek writers to have even heard of such a kook in a far off corner of the Empire, let alone be moved to bother mentioning him?

There is only one historian of the time who took an interest in that corner of the Empire and had a reason to mention dusty Galilean kooks - Flavius Josephus. And he mentions him at least once and probably twice in his Antiquities of the Jews. Besides, Gaius Baltar said there was no 'physical evidence' of Jesus, which is true but hardly an astounding statement. If he meant there is no extra-Biblical documentary evidence of him, that's untrue. There's about as much as we'd expect - ie not much.

[David Deas]

There is no physical proof of the life and death of 99.999999999% of people in history. So?

Yes. But it is claimed that for such a prolific individual going around performing all these miracles and talking crazy, there should have been at least *one* historical recollection of this guy written somewhere. Even if its just a single sentence in someone's journal.

Not saying I agree or disagree, here. Just saying.

[Ummon]

"You will be cursed by the other generations -- and you will come to rule over them,"

The prophecy, for sure, never came true for what concerns its second part.