Judas Gospel To Be Published

I don't know if this has been done (search didn't yield anything concrete).

The Gospel According To Judas Iscariot is to be published in Washington in April this year.

The first translation of an ancient, self-proclaimed “Gospel of Judas” will be published in late April, bringing to light what some scholars believe are the writings of an early Christian sect suppressed for supporting Jesus Christ's infamous betrayer.

I saw an article about this in the news today and there was a photograph of the parchment with the story and I must say, it looks a bit ragged to say the least, though modern science can work wonders I suppose.

The Roman Catholic Church is aware of the manuscript, which a Vatican historian calls “religious fantasy.”

I wonder which particular passages the historian has in mind?

According to scholars who have seen photographs of the brittle manuscript, it argues that Judas Iscariot was carrying out God's will when he handed Christ over to his executioners. The manuscript could bring momentum to a broader academic movement that argues Judas has gotten a bum rap among both historians and theologians, as well as in popular culture.

A couple of things came to mind when I first read this.

Firstly, is this document really what it claims to be?

Secondly, whatever is presented as being the contents of this manuscript by the 'experts', can we be sure that that is what was originally intended to be conveyed by the author?

And thirdly, any objections raised regarding a revision of the Judas character may be met with derision in some quarters. This leads me to wonder whether there is some sort of requirement for a 'bad guy', a personification of 'evil' (if that isn't too strong) if you will. And not just in religion per se, but perhaps even in the human psyche.

Link

Judas was doing the devils work when he betrayed Jesus. Thats why his punishment from God was so bad.

A sect that supports him? well I guess its kind of like having a religion that glorifies the Devils work, like second hand satanism.... lol

Well, it does say he was carrying out god's will ...

We already know the christian faith has no problem with lying about thing's. Changing jesus' birthday to win over a few pagan's, as well as other holiday's. Interpreting the bible in such a way as to justify the awfull crime's they've commited through out the centuries. Hell, they're the only one's who think jesus was the son of god. No one else worships him. He was supposedly jewish, and yet the jewish people say he wasn't the messiah. And why wouldn't the early christians try and supress the gospel of judas? It knocks them down even more. Invaildate's their faith even more.

I've heard of some intpretations of the language of the gospels as indicating that Jesus, rather than foretelling that 'one of you would betray me', actually picked judas at the last supper as the one that woudl have to carry out the necessary task, and that that explains why he rejects the payment later on and other inconsistencies in the text.

Anyway, I would be cautious about this sort of claim, I don't recall hearing about any gospel of judas discovery, which would certainly precedde a translation and pubication of it, nor do i recall actually hearing about a cult that actually did hold those beleifs. Consider that, in the modern era, there was a fake "Gospel of Pilate" published, this might very much be the same thing.

Anyway, do they have preists? Judas Preists?????

Originally posted by Nygdan
Anyway, I would be cautious about this sort of claim, I don't recall hearing about any gospel of judas discovery, which would certainly precedde a translation and pubication of it, nor do i recall actually hearing about a cult that actually did hold those beleifs. Consider that, in the modern era, there was a fake "Gospel of Pilate" published, this might very much be the same thing.

There is certainly an ancient papyrus manuscript in existence which contains a Coptic text calling itself the 'Gospel of Judas.' The origins of this manuscript are very unclear. It has been circulating in the antiquities trade for 20 years at least, after being smuggled out of Egypt in a very dubious manner. The find site is unknown, given the illegality that has surrounded the whole business. The manuscript sounds as if it is 4th or 5th century.

Such details as I have are here.

The text contained in this manuscript is undoubtedly nothing to do with Judas Iscariot, but the product of gnosticism. In the second century AD there was a trend among heretical groups to compose texts which they placed in the mouth of one apostle or another in order to propagate their doctrines among unwary Christians. Thomas ended up with several such texts from different groups, all purporting to be by him! Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses refers to a 'gospel of Judas' used by the Cainites; whether this text is the same remains to be seen.

I hope that this helps. The publishers are trying to hype the publication by pretending that it challenges Christianity; it does not.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

There is a show on National Geographic channel in April about the Judas gospel. I imagine we might know more after seeing that. I haven't heard of it before, you'd think it would have been in MSM by now. Go figure.

-Forestlady

Originally posted by MadGreebo
Judas was doing the devils work when he betrayed Jesus.

Devil's work!?! And by devil you mean god? If Jesus (assuming any of the story is true) didn't die in that specific way at that specific time, then do you really believe he would have been remembered in the way that he is today? The only thing more inspiring then a hero is a martyr.

Originally posted by forestlady
There is a show on National Geographic channel in April about the Judas gospel. I imagine we might know more after seeing that. I haven't heard of it before, you'd think it would have been in MSM by now. Go figure.

The people who own it are rather dubious, supposedly. They have done a deal with National Geographic to publicise it in the US. That's why no-one else has a look in.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by Produkt
Well, it does say he was carrying out god's will ...

Produkt -

I am just using your quote here, and this is not directed at you but to the group as a whole.

Exodus 14:8 NIV red letter bible "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, so that he pursued the Israelites, who were marching out boldly."


I was raised Quaker, and I was always taught that man had free will. Maybe it hasn't "clicked" yet with me, but the above passage has always stood out to me about God and man.

If I apply this same train of thought to Judas, he WOULD be carrying out the will of God, but the idea that God would "control" a person goes against the philosophy of free will in my opinion. Argh! *headache*

Any thoughts are welcome.

JDub

Fragments from Mr. Pearse's site:

www.tertullian.org...

1...Be like those in this world and eat of my possessions! Take silver, gold and other things for yourself. "But Allogenes answered him: "Away from me, Satan! It is not you I search, but my Father who is raised high above all great Aeons = arches of heavens each with their own god. For I am him you call Allogenes, I am from a different family line, I am not from your family line." And then he who rules the world spoke to him …

Interesting that there is the usage of Aeons, which is certainly what I am familiar with as being gnostic terminology, from a greek line of thought. I like the name 'allogenes', and then 'i am from a different family line', which is just what 'allo gene' would mean, no?

For him, Saklas, times are limited. He comes, the first star of their family line

Interesting repetition of that 'family line' terminology. Perhaps the gospel is very much in the 'dualistic' vein, since this seems to set up Allogenes as being in contrast with him?

And they are the stars that are perfect in all respects.

Is this some neoplatonic thought in there, the pre-existence of souls and the movement into the world through solistitial gates, the heavens as an analogy of man, etc? Or am I reading way too much into a perhaps common reference?

But you have not found an escape from this prison yet

If prison means the material form, then this would be persian dualism no? Seems, from my uneducated standpoint, that this might be a syncresis of platonic and persian thought, rather than a unique product of israel alone?

is destroyed, because of the big family line

There's that "family line" again, this time a 'big' one, intruiging.
No doubt, davinci-codists will take that in their peculiar sense.

It also says on your page that the translation was supposed to be published in 2005, looks like there was a delay. What possible purpose can it serve to consistently delay this thing? Regular peopel aren't going to read it anyway, the first translation would have to be published for a somewhat academic audience anyways no??

Originally posted by Nygdan
I like the name 'allogenes'...

I don't know, but it might be the same word translated as 'the stranger' in Plato's Laws.

It also says on your page that the translation was supposed to be published in 2005, looks like there was a delay. What possible purpose can it serve to consistently delay this thing? Regular peopel aren't going to read it anyway, the first translation would have to be published for a somewhat academic audience anyways no??

It's now being scheduled for Easter 2006 and I have seen publicity claiming that it is a great blow to Christian teaching, etc etc, which is nonsense.

I do wish that instead of turning Christians (billions of them) OFF these ancient texts, they would instead try to interest them in it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Allogenes means one who is genetically different although belonging to or obtained from the same species. It's not so much about family but the soul's origin--the genes are DNA, in the blood; and 'the life of the soul is in the blood.'
As in 'those who are not of this world' yet as still just as human as the next guy (who is of this world.)

At least, from a interpretive perspective, that is.

This Gospel of Judas might be a smoke screen to cover the newly released second Gospel of Mark, which clearly speaks of homosexual activity between Jesus and a disciple. This Gospel has been verified legitimate by many Biblical Scholars, but there is always dissention with controversial material.
It is no secret in the scholarly world that there are many, many books that were rejected while the church worked out its doctrine and that some of these books have been re-discovered recently in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Havagatti, and are in control of the Roman Catholic Scholars who are supposedly studying and translating them while making it difficult for other scholars to view them.

Originally posted by Thinker_1
It is no secret in the scholarly world that there are many, many books that were rejected while the church worked out its doctrine and that some of these books have been re-discovered recently in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Havagatti, and are in control of the Roman Catholic Scholars who are supposedly studying and translating them while making it difficult for other scholars to view them.

Actually, most of the Dead Sea Scrolls are housed in Israel under the care and custody of the Israel Antiquities Authority. The remaining scrolls are either in Amman, Jordan or Paris, France. The Nag Hammadi texts are at the Coptic Museum in Cairo, Egypt.

Originally posted by Thinker_1
This Gospel of Judas might be a smoke screen to cover the newly released second Gospel of Mark, which clearly speaks of homosexual activity between Jesus and a disciple. This Gospel has been verified legitimate by many Biblical Scholars, but there is always dissention with controversial material.

Is this a rather confused mention of 'Secret Mark'? If so, Stephen C. Carlson has just shown (2005) fairly convincingly that this text, published in the 1950's, is a forgery by Morton Smith, who claimed to have discovered it.

It is no secret in the scholarly world that there are many, many books that were rejected while the church worked out its doctrine and that some of these books have been re-discovered recently in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Havagatti, and are in control of the Roman Catholic Scholars who are supposedly studying and translating them while making it difficult for other scholars to view them.

Nothing about this paragraph reflects the opinion of 'the scholarly world' -- this is low-grade conspiracy stuff. There is no trace of a time in the church when other gospels than the 4 were used; indeed Irenaeus, who was taught by S. John's disciple Polycarp, rejects the whole idea of any other gospels.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by queenannie38
Allogenes means one who is genetically different although belonging to or obtained from the same species.

Where are you getting this definition from, I am not familiar with it. Clearly, such a definition wasn't existant in the early centuries AD, even teh concept of a species wasn't around back then, let alone genes.

--the genes are DNA, in the blood; and 'the life of the soul is in the blood.'

But blood is distinguished from the other body tissues in that its dominant component, Red Blood Cells, contain no DNA.

As in 'those who are not of this world' yet as still just as human as the next guy (who is of this world.)

Interesting. I am more curious at the moment about the contemporary usage of the word. Its not a typical biblical word, as far as I know anyways, it seems to me to smack of greek philosophical thought (though I suppose that the word is constructed of latin bases no?)

thinker_1
This Gospel of Judas might be a smoke screen

? This particular news announcement or the entire history of the manuscript, along with the photos, translations, and trade history of it???

This Gospel has been verified legitimate

Define legitimate in this context. Its legitimately written by a guy named mark who was an apostle of jesus? Its legitimately written by one of the people that wrote the 'standard' gospel of mark, irrespective of who they were? Its a legitimate document of, say, the first two centuries ad????

roger_pearse
indeed Irenaeus, who was taught by S. John's disciple Polycarp, rejects the whole idea of any other gospels.

Rejects there as being other gospels used amougn the various christian groups, or considers the any other gospels and letters and acts to be forgeries?

As an aside, if Ireneus was a student of polycarp, who was personally taugh by john the apostle, is there any extrabiblical information about john the apostle through polycarp and ireneus? Any commentary on writtings too?

Originally posted by Nygdan

roger_pearse
indeed Irenaeus, who was taught by S. John's disciple Polycarp, rejects the whole idea of any other gospels.

Rejects there as being other gospels used amougn the various christian groups, or considers the any other gospels and letters and acts to be forgeries?

Considers forged. Which, let's face it, they were. Creating such things has been a cottage industry ever since. In a sense, the Da Vinci Code is just another attempt to rewrite Christian origins for profit.

As an aside, if Ireneus was a student of polycarp, who was personally taugh by john the apostle, is there any extrabiblical information about john the apostle through polycarp and ireneus? Any commentary on writtings too?

There are quite a few stories about John which are preserved in Irenaeus and Eusebius. John could be quite a forceful character, it seems. Once he was in the bath at Ephesus, when he was told that Cerinthus (an early heretic) was there also. "Let's get out of here," he said. "That man is so dishonest that if he leans against a pillar, the roof will fall in." There is another story about him going out and facing down a gang of bandits who had abducted one of his converts. Whether or not these stories are accurate, or have grown in the telling, it is conspicuous how many of an early date there are, compared with the silence about most of the apostles. He lived on to ca. 100 AD, with the result that a lot of people knew, or knew about John.

The works of Polycarp himself have mostly perished, but Irenaeus records him preaching in Rome ca 150 AD, and converting people back from heresies etc by telling them what he had heard himself from John in person.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by queenannie38
Allogenes means one who is genetically different although belonging to or obtained from the same species.

Where are you getting this definition from, I am not familiar with it. Clearly, such a definition wasn't existant in the early centuries AD, even teh concept of a species wasn't around back then, let alone genes.

What we call 'species' used to be 'race.' As in 'the human race.'
My definition comes straight from the Greek etymology:
'auto-' means 'self, same' and the opposite is 'allo-'
'-genea' means 'race, descent, generation'

'Allogenes' is a a greek word, invented by the translators of the Septuagint, meaning 'foreigner' or 'alien.'

We can't be sure what concepts were around 2 thousand (+ or -) years ago--directly, that is. That's where the language meets difficulty--there is nothing that can perfectly preserve conceptual understanding in that way. We must combine what we do have and then, we're still guessing.

Surely they had the concept of unique traits in families, and of bloodline resemblances, etc...

--the genes are DNA, in the blood; and 'the life of the soul is in the blood.'

But blood is distinguished from the other body tissues in that its dominant component, Red Blood Cells, contain no DNA.

RBC's have a brief life-cycle--about 120 days. As far as not having any DNA--if they didn't, there would be no such thing as blood-typing. Blood-type is a genetic trait. All cells carry DNA--it is usually just not operational.

External source: Columbia Encyclopedia
blood groups, differentiation of blood by type, classified according to immunological (antigenic) properties, which are determined by specific substances on the surface of red blood cells. Blood groups are genetically determined and each is characterized by the presence of a specific complex carbohydrate carbohydrate, any member of a large class of chemical compounds that includes sugars, starches, cellulose, and related compounds.

Interesting. I am more curious at the moment about the contemporary usage of the word.

Do you mean the definition I gave? That's not really qualified as 'contemporary usage.' It's just my understanding of the word's meaning, as used in the texts being discussed. There is still no word 'allogenes.' Just 'allogeneic.' But--basically the same--although applicable in an entirely different field of study.

Its not a typical biblical word, as far as I know anyways, it seems to me to smack of greek philosophical thought (though I suppose that the word is constructed of latin bases no?)

No, it's Greek and it's in the Septuagint. Typical, though? Probably not.

RBC's have a brief life-cycle--about 120 days. As far as not having any DNA--if they didn't, there would be no such thing as blood-typing. Blood-type is a genetic trait. All cells carry DNA--it is usually just not operational.

Mature RBC's don't have DNA, RBC's only have DNA when they are developing in the marrow of our bone's. Blood type is determined from the antigens on the surface of mature RBC's. When the RBC mature's, it eject's everything but the cytoplasm. Including the DNA.



[edit on 17-3-2006 by Produkt]

Originally posted by roger_pearse

Nothing about this paragraph reflects the opinion of 'the scholarly world' -- this is low-grade conspiracy stuff. There is no trace of a time in the church when other gospels than the 4 were used; indeed Irenaeus, who was taught by S. John's disciple Polycarp, rejects the whole idea of any other gospels.


The Merton forgery is still contested rather actively while the idea that Polycarp was a disciple of St. John has found very little support beyond legend.
I did not say these books were "Gospels" - I said they were 'Books', as the Gospels were called before around 150 C.E. Many writings were written by so called Gnostics and other fringe Christain sects that were either eradicated by what became the Christian main-line or the Romans or both after Constantine turned Bishops into Generals with his acceptance of Christianity as the Empire's religion. This was the development of Doctrine, generally considered to be the time when the Church was formed - so in a way you are correct in saying "There is no trace of a time in the CHURCH when other gospels...". I am speaking of the time before the Church proper was formed, before Doctrine was developed to homogenize the belief system and eradicate the 'heretics'. The Alexandra library housed many such Gnostic writings since Alexandra was home to many of these sects, and the reason why it was burned. The Gospel of Thomas comes from this time and place of Alexandria and was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls - it is thought to have Buddhist influences since its literary character resembles more Buddhist tradition with no story, just 'wisdom' sayings and Koans. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is historically recorded by the victors of the dispute who stand self-convicted.

[edit on 3/17/2006 by Thinker_1]