Gospel of Judas

[August1991]

The Gospel of Judas, which dates from around 300 AD and was discovered in Egypt in 1970, may shed new light on the relationship between Christ and the apostle reviled for so long.

... in the document made public yesterday by the National Geographic Society, Judas emerges as a favourite disciple whose apparent treachery enabled the foundation of Christianity, as a result of the crucifixion.

Irish Examiner

It’s a revelation conjuring heated debate: According to a recently translated ancient text called the Gospel of Judas, the disciple infamous for betraying Jesus may well have been Christ’s most faithful servant and—because the Savior asked him to—accepted perpetual disgrace to bring about Jesus' death.

National Geographic

I first heard about this on Radio-Canada radio while driving this afternoon. There was an interview with a professor in Geneva. I switched over to CBC Radio and I heard silly English-Canadian-nationalist guitar music. [The CBC is not bad because it's biased and Leftist; it's bad because it's incompetent.]

IMV, Tim Rice wrote the libretto of a post-1960s opera with such a premise as this and then Norman Jewison cast an African-American as Judas in the film version of Jesus Christ Superstar. The idea that Judas was a part of the story is as old as western belief itself. Without Judas, there's no Jesus.

Revisionism and skepticism, these queries are a product of the Scientific Method. Western Christians are willing to consider the argument and measure its merits.

Similar questions about Mohammed and his wives or mistresses, or his children and parents, or his brothers and sisters, or even about the exact words he uttered, would likely lead to death threats and suicide bombs.

[Riverwind]

Similar questions about Mohammed and his wives or mistresses, or his children and parents, or his brothers and sisters, would likely lead to death threats and suicide bombs.

Without a doubt. However, many people make the mistaken claim that the religion of Christianity is some how more tolerant than the the religion of Islam. It isn't. Both religions preach a message that is extremely intolerant of the other viewpoints. The difference the culture of the societies where these religions exist. The culture of scientific enquiry and secular humanism that dominates western societies has forced most Christians to tolerate other viewpoints even if they disagree with them.

[Slavik44]

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscri...ospel_of_judas/

For those with some time on there hands there is an english translation of the gospel of Judas on the site, it is a little chopped up and misisng large portions of text.

[Michael Hardner]

There are many such documents, including the fascinating 'Gospel of the Infancy' which I have read.

Of course, they're interesting to read but the history of what happened to Jesus will likely never be clear.

Without a doubt. However, many people make the mistaken claim that the religion of Christianity is some how more tolerant than the the religion of Islam. It isn't.

I disagree. Jesus preached something altogether different than what came before him. He taught tolerance, forgiveness and acceptance.

Both religions preach a message that is extremely intolerant of the other viewpoints. The difference the culture of the societies where these religions exist. The culture of scientific enquiry and secular humanism that dominates western societies has forced most Christians to tolerate other viewpoints even if they disagree with them.

The bastardization of Christianity (which he predicted) shouldn't be confused with the source message.

You are correct about the evolution of Christianity in a secular society. The violence that erupted after the reformation is starting to happen now as the Islamic world moves towards secular democracy.

[Riverwind]

I disagree. Jesus preached something altogether different than what came before him. He taught tolerance, forgiveness and acceptance.

Christianity pushes the idea that the only way to be saved is to believe in Jesus Christ. It does not make a difference whether you live a good life and are a moral person - you still go to hell if you don't believe in Jesus. No matter how you spin it that is an extremely intolerant and unforgiving philosophy. That said, many Christians choose not to emphasize this part of their religion because of the society they live in. Islam can be an equally tolerant religion when its believers choose to do the same thing.

[Michael Hardner]

Christianity pushes the idea that the only way to be saved is to believe in Jesus Christ. It does not make a difference whether you live a good life and are a moral person - you still go to hell if you don't believe in Jesus. No matter how you spin it that is an extremely intolerant and unforgiving philosophy. That said, many Christians choose not to emphasize this part of their religion because of the society they live in. Islam can be an equally tolerant religion when its believers choose to do the same thing.

This is not true of all flavours of Christianity. Certainly it doesn't say in the Gospels that not believing in Jesus means you're going to hell.

You're mixing up the teachings with the false interpretations that dominate popular culture. This is the same mixtake people make when they try to equate Islam with hate. It's lazy thinking.

Jesus' teachings told his adherents to live by example, to love your enemy and so forth. Christianity is best summarized in the golden rule, which tells us to treat others as we would want to be treated. He is arguably the single most important philosopher in the effect he had on shaping western culture.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

Christianity is best summarized in the golden rule, which tells us to treat others as we would want to be treated. He is arguably the single most important philosopher in the effect he had on shaping western culture.

Confucius put the 'golden rule' down on paper long before Jesus. In fact, I believe it is 'the oldest rule', the foundation for society and morality. However, Jesus' influence in 'respreading' the message is no doubt gigantic.

Christianity pushes the idea that the only way to be saved is to believe in Jesus Christ. It does not make a difference whether you live a good life and are a moral person - you still go to hell if you don't believe in Jesus.

Riverwind's comment is common to all religions, if you don't believe in 'x', then you go to hell. Only a portion of zealots in each religion believe it is such a hard and fast rule.

August1991,

IMV, Tim Rice wrote the libretto of a post-1960s opera with such a premise as this

I have the original LP. Brilliant, groovy and irreverent. The story wouldn't be so compelling if Judas were some shady, also-ran apostle, would it? Some of Rice's lyrics do allude to the fact that both Jesus and Judas knew that they were both acting out a play, that fate had written the outcome, and they were both only doing what was neccesary to bring about the final act.

[Michael Hardner]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

Confucius put the 'golden rule' down on paper long before Jesus. In fact, I believe it is 'the oldest rule', the foundation for society and morality. However, Jesus' influence in 'respreading' the message is no doubt gigantic.

Yes. Another more likely source for the Golden Rule is Rabbi Hillell.

Riverwind's comment is common to all religions, if you don't believe in 'x', then you go to hell. Only a portion of zealots in each religion believe it is such a hard and fast rule.

Agreed. Even the Catholic religion has abandoned the notion of 'hell'.

[August1991]

Certainly it doesn't say in the Gospels that not believing in Jesus means you're going to hell.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

John 14:6

That seems unequivocal to me.

To be frank, I doubt early Christians could have said anything else if they wanted their religion to succeed.

[i once had a long series of conversations with a devout buddhist and I recall well her answer to my question about how Buddhists view non-Buddhists. She said, "Well, if you want to live your life and ignore the precepts of the Lord Buddha, you can. But that would be like living your life and ignoring the laws of gravity. Why would you?"]

Jesus' teachings told his adherents to live by example, to love your enemy and so forth. Christianity is best summarized in the golden rule, which tells us to treat others as we would want to be treated. He is arguably the single most important philosopher in the effect he had on shaping western culture.

I think the main message of the New Testament is to "turn the other cheek". The idea would be to continue to co-operate with someone even when that person has been opportunistic. In simple game theory, this is not a successful strategy but it might make sense in a situation of market relations.

You're mixing up the teachings with the false interpretations that dominate popular culture. This is the same mixtake people make when they try to equate Islam with hate. It's lazy thinking.

False interpretations? In the 2000 years that Christianity has existed, it has had to undergo numerous changes and re-interpretations.

At its origin, Christianity was largely superstition. Most of us in the West don't live by superstition anymore. So of course Christianity has had to change. And that is why even pious Christians can calmly accept and analyze such papryus texts as this Gospel of Judas.

That is not the case elsewhere in the world where it is common, for example, for people to clap their hands when a plane lands.

----

As a final point, I think we have so thoroughly altered Christianity that for many people, it means nothing anymore. As BD once asked, why should the words of some guys in the desert several thousand years ago have any relevance today? Most of what is written is wrong.

Nevertheless, people still wonder about existence, and they want to be reassured. Texts such as this, or books like the Da Vinci Code attract interest.

[Michael Hardner]

John 14:6

That seems unequivocal to me.

To be frank, I doubt early Christians could have said anything else if they wanted their religion to succeed.

I wondered if there was someone on the board who knew scripture enough to quote that.

I may have lost my faith in god, but I should never lose faith in you, Auguste.

Of course, nowhere in that quote is hell mentioned. Hell, as it is popularly imagined (and I'm sure as Riverwind) isn't just "not heaven". It's a place with flames, devils poking you, etc. etc. At the time of Christ, I believe there wasn't such an idea of hell but of an in-between place. Throughout the ages, places between heaven and hell have been invented and debated, such as purgatory, limbo, etc.

I think the main message of the New Testament is to "turn the other cheek". The idea would be to continue to co-operate with someone even when that person has been opportunistic. In simple game theory, this is not a successful strategy but it might make sense in a situation of market relations.

Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

False interpretations? In the 2000 years that Christianity has existed, it has had to undergo numerous changes and re-interpretations.

Yes, as in false prophets. The Pat Robertsons of the world are anti-Christians in the guise of Christians.

At its origin, Christianity was largely superstition. Most of us in the West don't live by superstition anymore. So of course Christianity has had to change. And that is why even pious Christians can calmly accept and analyze such papryus texts as this Gospel of Judas.

I would think that the teachings of Christ might be more important to Christianity than the superstitions.

That is not the case elsewhere in the world where it is common, for example, for people to clap their hands when a plane lands.

That happened the last time I flew back from Vegas.

As a final point, I think we have so thoroughly altered Christianity that for many people, it means nothing anymore. As BD once asked, why should the words of some guys in the desert several thousand years ago have any relevance today? Most of what is written is wrong.

That's a personal choice.

If you want to ridicule somebody's belief system, well I think that's pretty smug. But at least if you want to show how your superior rationality makes you better than religious people, you should at least discriminate against all religions equally. And separate the hypocrites from the benevolantly deluded.

Nevertheless, people still wonder about existence, and they want to be reassured. Texts such as this, or books like the Da Vinci Code attract interest.

Too many preachers sell the sizzle and not the steak, so to speak, in order to get bums in seats. They recreate Christianity as a hypocrites club, but it is rude to say all Christians are like that.

[geoffrey]

So someone wrote a 300AD opinion or editorial.

I sure hope that people don't read our newspapers and books 1700 years from now and think that everything that was written is gospel fact (pun intended).

[Slavik44]

Certainly it doesn't say in the Gospels that not believing in Jesus means you're going to hell.

- He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

-Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

- Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

- He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

- He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

- Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

- Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

- Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

- I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

- Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

[August1991]

That's a very sensible post, Michael. In ordinary life, I occasionally ridicule people's beliefs in horoscopes but I usually draw the line at religious beliefs - if I sense the beliefs are personal and not meant to advance a political agenda.

I certainly didn't intend to be smug, nor to pretend to any superior rationality. I merely meant to say that Christianity, over time, has changed. Most modern Christians don't think the same way as Christians a thousand years ago thought.

Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

I have never quite understood this Golden Rule, and I'm fairly certain that it's a poor moral guide.

A good marriage is usually made up of two people who complement each other. Each understands that to treat well another is often to do what one would never want done to oneself.

I addition, the Golden Rule is akin to tit-for-tat. If you hit me, I'll hit you.

In any case, I still think the great innovation of the New Testament (and Christianity) is the following:

Mathew 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

Link

The quote even draws the distinction with the Old Testament.

[Michael Hardner]

I have never quite understood this Golden Rule, and I'm fairly certain that it's a poor moral guide.

A good marriage is usually made up of two people who complement each other. Each understands that to treat well another is often to do what one would never want done to oneself.

I addition, the Golden Rule is akin to tit-for-tat. If you hit me, I'll hit you.

Not really. Matthew explains it best later in your post:

Mathew 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

It's the opposite of 'an eye for an eye'. It tells you to treat hate with love, treat people better than you are treated.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

from...

http://www.crystalinks.com/confucius.html

Confucius himself had a simple moral and political teaching: to love others; to honor one's parents; to do what is right instead of what is of advantage; to practice "reciprocity," i.e. "don't do to others what you would not want yourself"; to rule by moral example (dé) instead of by force and violence; and so forth. Confucius thought that a ruler who had to resort to force had already failed as a ruler. "Your job is to govern, not to kill"

'Reciprocity' could be taken as 'an eye for an eye', but in conjunction with one's other 'moral gudielines', it could easily also lead one to forgiveness.

[piercj2]

To say that chirstiany and Islam are equally intolerant is just utterly irresponsable. In the New Testament, which Jesus came, hate was not preached not commanded like it is in the Quran. Men were taught to love eachother and respect each other-- take the Quran for instance

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves

Now, give me lines anything like this in the New Testament of the Bible, in which Jesus come to forgive mankind. ??????? There are not lines that promote this king of violence. Maybe, just maybe, that is why Islamic nations are still murdering, oppressing and oposing themselves and other nations, often on the ground that they are, "not beleivers." Saying christianing is not as tolerant as Islam, as just not factual.

[Michael Hardner]

To say that chirstiany and Islam are equally intolerant is just utterly irresponsable. In the New Testament, which Jesus came, hate was not preached not commanded like it is in the Quran. Men were taught to love eachother and respect each other-- take the Quran for instance

You are correct, but because Christians and Jews also accept the old testament as the word of God, you have to deal with that as well. Of course, there are famous directions in Leviticus to stone sinners and so forth.

Anyone attempting to explain Islamic fundamentalism by faulting the Koran is wrong if they say that Christianity and Judaism have holy books that are fundamentally different with respect to violence.

[piercj2]

Thats true, the old testament does have its bulk of violence and revenge, often involving prophets or nations of people that disobeyed the lord. (as written in the bible) This often took place when people would disobey the Lord, opress the lords prophets, or falsely prophesy in the name of the lord, or opress the chosen people of the lord. However, when Jesus came he stood for the forgiveness of all sins, no matter what ethnicicy, background, or demographic people were from, and now matter how bad thier deeds, and christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus, and the fact that are men are guildty of sin, and are forgiven

[Riverwind]

Jesus came he stood for the forgiveness of all sins, no matter what ethnicicy, background, or demographic people were from, and now matter how bad thier deeds. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus, and the fact that are men are guilty of sin, and are forgiven

Not correct. Christianity teaches that only those who believe in Christ are forgiven. Everyone else - including people such as Gandhi and the Dali Lama - will not receive God's forgiveness and will be denied entry into the kingdom of heaven.

This intolerance is at the root of _all_ religions because all religions believe they have a monopoly on the 'truth' (whatever that means). Christians have used this intolerance to justify innumerable injustices over the centuries. Just like Muslims use the same ideas to justify atrocities today.

[piercj2]

Yes, of course all religions have a monopoly on, "truth," because every religion prides itself on obtaining some kind of truth that is universal in which mortals must look up too, thus making it a religion- which has to be supreme. All religions deal with some kind of obediance or aspect of repentance to have the name religion, which usually implies something greater than mortal experience, or something (someone) that has supreme ability or enlightment. That being said, all religions hold some individual or presence in high asteem that everyone must accept to be apart of the religion. Of course, christianity is no different, you must accept that Jesus is supreme and that he is the way to cleanse your heart from sin. Once you accept this and try to live the life he lived or follow the advice he gave you are accepted. That being said, Ghandi, or whoever does not accept it is not considered a Christian. It is not different from any other major religion. I mean if you don't beleive in the profit muhamad, can you be muslim??? It is about beleiving and accepting, and whoever beleives is promised acceptance no matter what kind of background they are from or what they have done in the past.