The Gospel Of Judas

"The Holy Family with the infant St. John the Baptist (the Doni tondo)" by Michelangelo c.1506, Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence

 

An early Christian manuscript, including the only known text of what is known as the Gospel of Judas, has surfaced after 1,700 years. The text gives new insights into the relationship of Jesus and the disciple who betrayed him, scholars reported today. In this version, Jesus asked Judas, as a close friend, to sell him out to the authorities, telling Judas he will "exceed" the other disciples by doing so.

Though some theologians have hypothesized this, scholars who have studied the new-found text said, this is the first time an ancient document defends the idea.

The discovery in the desert of Egypt of the leather-bound papyrus manuscript, and now its translation, was announced by the National Geographic Society at a news conference in Washington. The 26-page Judas text is said to be a copy in Coptic, made around A. D. 300, of the original Gospel of Judas, written in Greek the century before.[...]

Unlike the accounts in the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the anonymous author of the Gospel of Judas believed that Judas Iscariot alone among the 12 disciples understood the meaning of Jesus' teachings and acceded to his will. In the diversity of early Christian thought, a group known as Gnostics believed in a secret knowledge of how people could escape the prisons of their material bodies and return to the spiritual realm from which they came.

Elaine Pagels, a professor of religion at Princeton who specializes in studies of the Gnostics, said in a statement, "These discoveries are exploding the myth of a monolithic religion, and demonstrating how diverse — and fascinating — the early Christian movement really was."

Laurie Goodstein discusses how when in 1959 it was published in English, we were all amazed to discover the Gospel of St. Thomas, (it was actually discovered in upper Egypt in 1945) having believed that Matthew, Mark Luke and John were the only ones in existence.

These Gospels belong to the era of the so called Gnostics, who were "Christian communities in the second through fourth centuries whose scriptures and spiritual beliefs barely resemble what is now thought of as traditional Christianity. But the Gospel of Judas, another piece of Gnostic scripture, has been released in a very different era. It is a time when many Christians have been bombarded by competing claims about their faith and its history, and some are grappling with how to absorb it all."

The codex has been authenticated as a genuine work of ancient Christian apocryphal literature," Mr. Garcia said, citing extensive tests of radiocarbon dating, ink analysis and multispectral imaging and studies of the script and linguistic style. The ink, for example, was consistent with ink of that era, and there was no evidence of multiple rewriting.

"This is absolutely typical of ancient Coptic manuscripts," said Stephen Emmel, professor of Coptic studies at the University of Munster in Germany. "I am completely convinced."

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

The Gospel of Judas is only the latest crumbling [papyrus] to surface in the sands of Egypt like an ancient time capsule. Even before its formal introduction at a National Geographic Society news conference yesterday, scholars have been part of a debate that will soon be echoing in churches, on the Web and in Christian publishing.

The real debate is whether the text says anything historically legitimate about Jesus and Judas.

Some of the scholars on National Geographic's advisory committee said the text should prompt a reassessment of Judas. In it, Jesus speaks privately to Judas, telling him he will share with Judas alone "the mysteries of the kingdom." Jesus asks Judas to turn him over to the Roman authorities so that his body can be sacrificed.

So how do we as Christians, or Jews for that matter, process this information when since before the close of the first century, we have been told that Judas Iscariot was the one who betrayed Christ, and not the one who according to this Gospel was responsible for fulfilling the prophecy of the Passion?

Already, some scholars are saying that this Gospel sheds new light on the historical relationship between Jesus and Judas. They find strands of secret Jewish mysticism running through the beliefs expressed by some branches of early Christianity.

But others say the text is merely one more scripture produced by a marginalized Christian cult of Gnostics, who lived so many years after Jesus' day that they could not possibly produce anything accurate about his life. For these reasons, the discoveries are expected to intrigue theologians and historians of religion and perhaps be deeply troubling to some church leaders and lay believers.

"We will be talking about this gospel for generations to come," said Marvin Meyer, a professor of religion at Chapman University in Orange, Calif.

To say that the newly translated Gospel simply portrays Judas in a better light is the understatement of enormous proportions. The truth is, if it were found to be so, it would abandon the curse of generations. My guess is however that as is our usual modus operandi, we will spend the next 1900 years debating it.

The Junkyard Blog dubs it "the pre-Easter attack" in breathless expectation of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code movie due to come out this summer. The Anchoress calls it simply "junk" , quoting excerpts from the writings of a Jesuit scholar, Father O'Collins, Professor of Christology at Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University, who feels it does not merit the name "Gospel". She points me to Dr Bob who hangs the Gospel with the help of Mark D. Roberts, who calls it a tempest in a teapot, and is a must read.

Read Professor John Reynolds' excellent article, where he avers that the Gospel should be called "Hugh Hewitt is a Democrat Operative" instead! (Thanks Hugh)

Take the blood pressure medication, and enter at your own peril:

Excerpts from The Gospel
Explore The Document

UPDATE: Blogger/scholars who have also written about the Gospel are: Mark Daniels, Ben Witherington, Albert Mohler, and Scott McKnight.

Comments

[eli mcbett]

why... It's said that Juda's Gospel has been fund right now,but few say it is well knows already in greek and someone, in 2002, pubblished a book about it, after a dozen of years of studies even in the Vatican and travels in the middle east? this has been recorded and registred.
why it becomes important just know?
Unfortunately the author of the quoting book died just few years ago.
these documents should be unveiled from those who keep them hidden to make the truth to be what they wish it should be only... that is a certain lie.
was this man a seer or is the new "researcher" a bluff to not bring people to think that this script exhists already and it is well read and known by the church and some others?....

[Kenny Pierce]

Michelle,

No need to go crazy. We already knew that a Gospel of Judas existed, along with numerous other works that claimed to be gospels produced by the apostles. The fact that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion exists, is hardly proof (despite its widespread acceptance as such in the Arab world) that a secret cabal of Jews is engaged in a plot for worldwide domination; and the fact that The Gospel of Judas exists is hardly more meaningful. It tells us what Gnostics of the mid-second-century and later liked to believe about Jesus, just as the brisk Damascene sales of the Protocols tells us what many Syrians like to believe about Jews; but as far as actually giving us any worthwhile information about either Jesus or the Jews, neither document is worth betting the neighbor's gerbil's life on.

[slowtrain]

Alexandra,

Great post, as usual. It is now probably normal to expect that you’re incapable of anything less than great. This topic is of high interest to me, of course as a Christian, but perhaps more so, as a truth seeker. I would hope that it is equally so to every other truth seeker. Unfortunately, I have not been able to participate in this discussion sooner and as much as I would have liked to. I must also confess that I have not read every comment on this particular post, please bear with me, if my comment or aspects thereof appear presumptious. Nevertheless, the post is still very much current and the issue still very much alive, so I thought I might still be able to throw in my two cents, so to speak.

Throughout the human history, the propagation of lies has been the most insidious weapon in the war of ideas, said Ravi Zacharias, in The Inextinguishable Light. Even more subtle, yet more powerful and deleterious is the enterprise of casting doubts on truth, of which Apostle Paul also wrote about. Such is the relentless attack on the person of Jesus Christ and the foundation of Christianity, from Martin Scorsese’s production of Nikos Kazantzakis’ novel to Dan Brown’s plagiarized DaVinci Code, and now the so-called “gospel of Judas”, to mention just a few.

The fatal thing about this engagement is that it steals common sense and rationality from those who practice it and those who in idiosyncratic eagerness embrace the resulting notions. After all, people only believe what they want to believe.

The so-called “gospel of Judas” which has long been discredited for what it is—a fraud, is now being revived in the effort to cast doubt on the essence of Christianity, and what better time to do so than the era that glories in doubt, relativism and meaningless; of which the sole aim is the destruction of Christianity and to do away with Judeo-Christian morality.

In the end, the document in question will be discarded for what it is—a fabrication, unfortunately it would still have planted doubt in the minds of some. Those who gleefully and sensationally push this document as authentic understand this implication, and in light of their objective, it is a satisfactory result. I call this the tabloid effect—an engagement in mischief or malice.

A few facts should standout for anyone who cares to look at the issue objectively, the first is, if, as the so-called gospel of Judas claims, Jesus Christ desired to be captured and executed by those who sought to do so, why would he need to arrange for Judas to betray him, when he could simply turn himself over to those who sought him and his execution. It is not like they would have had difficulty in identifying Jesus if he turned himself over to them; after all he was frequently at the temple, where he also read from the Torah. We all also know that those who testified against him had to have recognized him to be able to do so. Mat 26:55, also proves this point, Jesus said to the multitudes, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to seize me? Day after day I sat teaching in the temple area, yet you did not arrest me.”

The second fact is that from Jesus’ words in Mat 26:39, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” and in verse 42, “O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done”, it did not appear as if he eagerly looked forward to the manner of death that awaited him, as to arrange with Judas to bring it about. That is not to say that Jesus was not willing to die for the cause for which he came, but it is to say that he did not have a death wish nor was he suicidal as to eagerly orchestrate his crucifixion. Moreover, these verses of the Scripture and more, contradict the claim of the so-called gospel of Judas, that Judas was doing Jesus a favor by betraying him, and that a high place awaits Judas in heaven for his role.

The third fact is that Judas was clearly disillusioned about Jesus Christ, in fact he felt betrayed by Jesus Christ, he did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah whom he had expected and hoped for. As with all disinformation, it is easy to see that the claims of the “gospel of Judas” are perversions of Matthew 26:21, 23, 25, 45 and 50.

Also, the claim that Judas was Jesus’ favorite disciple and the only disciple that was privy to some highly secret information — teaching or revelation, is as bold a lie, as it is patently malicious. It should be clear to anyone, that people, who were so determined to crucify Jesus Christ, would equally be concerned about making him a martyr, as to be inclined to produce false documents such as the “gospel of Judas”. The suggestion that, because the materials and writing style— language and parlance, associated with the so-called gospel of Judas are of the era when the event took place, therefore the document must be authentic and therefore credible, is at best foolish and at worst dubious.

[Kenny Pierce]

Coming into this very late, I didn't expect to add anything useful, but I seem to have a slightly different perspective from anybody else, namely, a particularly empiricist approach to religious fact. When it comes to evaluating the reliability of competing gospels I have not the slightest interest in the opinions of third- and fourth-century bishops, or of either the Catholic or Baptist churches.

To a historian of religious movements in the second- and third-century religious world, the Naj Hammurabi texts and the Gospel of Judas are fascinating primary documents, full of value and insight -- insight, that is, into what second- and third-century Gnostics believed. If that is your interest, then you'll want to study the Gnostic gospels closely.

However, if your interest is in trying to get at the historical reality of the man Jesus and what he taught and did, these gospels are of vanishingly small value. There is no manuscript tradition that would give textual criticism the controls necessary to distinguish original text from later improved versions, to name just a single problem. There is no evidence that they have any value at all in tying back to archaeological evidence (as opposed to Luke, whose Acts has been indispensable for archaeologists in Asia Minor for a century). At every stage in which the gnostic gospels contradict the canonical ones, the gnostic gospels lose -- they get their asses kicked about as thoroughly as I'd get whooped in one-on-one against Michael Jordan, in fact -- by every standard real historians use to evaluate the comparative reliability of competing ancient texts.

There is only one reason that anybody would tell himself that the Jesus portrayed by the Gospels of "Judas" or "Thomas" is more likely to be accurate than those of Luke, John, "Matthew" and Mark -- and that's because he likes the Gnostic Jesus better than the canonical one. (Actually, since the majority of the undergraduates and media types who will spend the next month congratulating each other on how the new gospel sheds new light on Jesus, will never bother to read the new gospel and would be repelled by what they would find there if they did, it's as often as not just because you don't like the Jesus of the canonicals, period, and any stick will do to beat the stepchild with.) It certainly is never going to be on the basis of objective standards of historical evidence. By those standards, either Jesus was essentially the Jesus of the canonicals, or else we have no idea what Jesus was like. In particular, while we know (because of the limitations of language and communication) that the real Jesus must surely have varied somewhat from the Jesus of the canonicals (even if in theologically insignificant ways), we have no decent means of saying with confidence where, and in what respect, the record is to be emended. Of course we can always pull a Jesus Seminar and devise standards that allow us to declare that the parts that need to be emended are precisely the parts that our modern prejudices find unpalatable, but by "decent" I mean "having some semblance of intellectual integrity." I mean, I like to think of Jesus as having a streak of the practical joker in him, but I'm not such an ass as to claim that the evidence does much more than hint at it, nor silly enough to hide from myself the fact that I'd like to think of Jesus as a practical joker mostly because that would make him more like myself. But then, I'm not a tenured professor in an American Department of Religion; so my powers of self-deception lack the requisite degree of professional enhancement.

Hmm, I am still in a crappy mood. Clearly the Lenten disciplines haven't done much good this year, alas...

At any rate, I have quite a bit more respect for our Guest's take than for, say, Elaine Pagels's tendentious pseudohistorical crapfest The Gnostic Gospels. I still think, my dear Guest, that in taking the position that Jesus was misrepresented significantly by the texts, you choose the weaker evidence over the stronger; your expectations of what Jesus could have "really" taught are I suspect shaped on historical evidence that itself has to be measured against the canonicals if you're going to trust it more than the canonicals. But I think you're way closer to solid ground than are the fantasists -- oh, sorry, professors of religion -- who claim that the canonical gospels must be late first-century because their theology/Christology/polemic is "highly developed," yet give Queen-Mary-sized amounts of credibility to texts that represent full-blown second-century-or-later Gnosticism. Besides, you and I haven't gotten around to discussing in any detail your grounds for your suspicion of the canonicals; so you could have better grounds for your position than I imagine.

(And while I'm at it, fellow Feaster, my apologies for being two weeks behind on e-mail. Bad couple of weeks. Haven't forgotten you.)

[Nasty90]

The Gnostic concept of salvation is entirely at odds with the accepted Christian doctrine. In Gnostic belief, one must seek reuinion with God, dissolution of the body, and a return to the state prior to the Fall- the first cause. This contradicts the common Christian doctrine that the death of Christ was a sacrifice to atone for the sins of mankind, and that man achieves salvation simply be believing in this sacrifice. Gnostics, in their turn, believe that Christ was not truly human, but an Avatar or messenger who only had the appearance of humanity. (This doctrine is known as Docetism) Among these 'Avatars' is counted the serpent in the garden, a radical and dangerous (in the eyes of the Church) departure from accepted doctrine.
In Gnostic cosmology, Sophia (the Holy spirit), a divine emanation, seeks to know God, and in doing, falls outside the "Pleroma," or divine light. As She falls, she gives birth to Yaldaboth, who is also Satan/Yahweh, who believes himself to be God, and creates the material world and mankind, trapping Sophia within. The serpent in the Garden, and later, Jesus himself, are manifestations of the Holy spirit attempting to free mankind from slavery. Gnostics taught that because of this, the material world is abhorrent. (source : http://altreligion.about.com/library/faqs/bl_gnosticism.htm)

All that is being done with this Gospel of Judas is to deceive and dupe those who do not know what the Bible says about the real Jesus and any of those who were involved with him.

[gringoman]

Interesting idea gringman, to speak approvingly of a God who doesn't like to mix much with the hoi polloi. I would have thought that a negative.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot | Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 10:05 PM

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AVI,

Or is it a hoi polloi that doesn't like to mix with such a God? At any rate, un-relieved Gnostic-bashing might not be cosmologically fair and balanced.

[liquid]

I was thinking about this whole invention of "another Jesus" in this "other gospel" and thinking where it could take some in their faith and I started to think about these verses
-----------------------

Matthew 7

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

---------------------------

I have always understood this as a result of not doing the actions of love when we have turned our eyes and walked away instead of helping the poor and feeding the poor; those that have been put in our path to help in any way that we can and that if we didn't act our our faith and bear good fruit then we were dead in Christ. So reading this today, I was thinking maybe it also applies to this newly found Judas gospel...because if we connect to "another Jesus" and teach others to do so then we are not bearing good fruit when we join in and teach another Jesus than the one the apostles taught. Feeding others can also apply to how we feed each other spiritually from our own examples and from our own free will. So I was thinking about it, and I thought how this whole "other gospel" is feeding something too...and how we should really very carefully examine our own hearts on this matter before we sit down and partake of "this" type of feast laid out before us and ask ourself honestly, how much good fruit has this "other gospel" produced since it's existence.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

Interesting idea gringman, to speak approvingly of a God who doesn't like to mix much with the hoi polloi. I would have thought that a negative.

[gringman]

Far be it from non-theological me to pass judgement on the intriguing "Gospel of Judas." (And kudos to Alexandra, who's done it again as a trouble-maker of a higher order.) Many commenters here have done that better than I could or should. One of the best remarks in the rush to orthodox judgement, it seems, came from the commenter who wondered why, if Judas was not indeed a villain, he accepted the 30 pieces of silver. (Of course, this seems to beg the question of whether gnostics even accept the silver detail.) One strand in this not uninteresting thread that stood out, I found, was a rather persistent degree of Gnostic-bashing. Many of the faithful, whether of the Christian or Jewish persuasion, seem to find this de riguer, almost. The gnostics are seen as nothing but a religious form of hooligans or nutcakes or misanthropes or just hopeless heretics who even refuse to worship the God of the Old Testament, who they see as some sort of wrathful tribal deity. I'm not here to argue for or against. But in the interests of cosmological fair and balanced, I'd like to add just a snippet of a gnostic point of view---if no Christian or Jew minds.http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/gnintro.htm

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Gnostic God concept is more subtle than that of most religions. In its way, it unites and reconciles the recognitions of Monotheism and Polytheism, as well as of Theism, Deism and Pantheism.

William Blake: In the Gnostic view, there is a true, ultimate and transcendent God, who is beyond all created universes and who never created anything in the sense in which the word “create” is ordinarily understood. While this True God did not fashion or create anything, He (or, It) “emanated” or brought forth from within Himself the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and invisible. In a certain sense, it may therefore be true to say that all is God, for all consists of the substance of God. By the same token, it must also be recognized that many portions of the original divine essence have been projected so far from their source that they underwent unwholesome changes in the process. To worship the cosmos, or nature, or embodied creatures is thus tantamount to worshipping alienated and corrupt portions of the emanated divine essence....he basic Gnostic myth has many variations, but all of these refer to Aeons, intermediate deific beings who exist between the ultimate, True God and ourselves. They, together with the True God, comprise the realm of Fullness (Pleroma) wherein the potency of divinity operates fully. The Fullness stands in contrast to our existential state, which in comparison may be called emptiness.

One of the aeonial beings who bears the name Sophia (“Wisdom”) is of great importance to the Gnostic world view. In the course of her journeyings, Sophia came to emanate from her own being a flawed consciousness, a being who became the creator of the material and psychic cosmos, all of which he created in the image of his own flaw. This being, unaware of his origins, imagined himself to be the ultimate and absolute God. Since he took the already existing divine essence and fashioned it into various forms, he is also called the Demiurgos or “half-maker” There is an authentic half, a true deific component within creation, but it is not recognized by the half-maker and by his cosmic minions, the Archons or “rulers”.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

gringo commentary: This snippet alone probably indicates why gnosticism could never be a popular religion, a faith for the masses, not having a tragic drama to compare with the Crucifixion, or the even greater simplicity and honed-to-the-bone monotheism of Islam On the other hand, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shinto-ism etc, seen by some as forbidding variations on atheism, have done better than one might expect in the World Mall of Religion.

[weekenderman]

Guest: The problem with surmising that the very words of Jesus in Scripture are in dispute is that we lose the base from which we're discussing Christ and Scripture.

Most (though not all) of what we know of the life of Jesus Christ is through the words of Holy Scripture, which is backed up as true by other historical papers from that era.

Are you questioning that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God?

[Assistant Village Idiot]

Guest at the Feast. I have had the Lewis - Three Choices discussion before, without great success at convincing anyone. Your objection is the common one -- that there actually are more than three choices. I would submit that all the other proposed choices eventually resolve into one of Lewis's three, though some take a bit of pushing and shoving before they get there. Your particular offering, which seems to fall into the "Jesus was misquoted/misunderstood" category, leaves us with a fourth choice which is no choice at all. Jesus made the claim so many times, in so many ways. He made the claim fiercely before the High Priest, resignedly before Pilate, alarmingly but in passing with his "I am" statements. If we are to remove these claims from the accounts of what he said, then we can rely on absolutely nothing said about him, and must disregard what else "he said" altogether.

One thing that convinces me that the doctrine of the Trinity, the claim to godhead, is true is that the early church accepted it with such difficulty (!) It was counterintuitive to them, they feared it was indeed a blasphemy, and early on, they stressed Messiahship. I believe they were driven inexorably to full embrace of the doctrine, almost against their wills, on the basis of Jesus's words. They came eventually (but within the lifetime of the Apostles) to the conclusion, in the words of Tevye "There is no other hand."

I accept through long experience that this is unlikely to convince you, but request that you at least tell me why.

Ghost: Irony is not contradiction. You're reaching.

[liquid]

Why is that?

Because the same Catholic bishop would have disposed of Protestantism as "heresy".
----

Seneca, ghost and I were debating about how protestants would or would not be the "only ones" to have a problem with this "other gospel" so instead of adding to that thought your remark is more about speaking for and about how the Catholic Church views protestants than how protestants veiw the canonized text?

[Seneca]

I especially enjoy Protestants who make the argument that this text should be discounted because a Catholic bishop disposed of it as "heresy."
======

Why is that?

Because the same Catholic bishop would have disposed of Protestantism as "heresy".

[Nasty90]

I think that there are all too many people who really don't know who the Jesus of the Bible really is. I don't think they have ever read the Bible to become familiar with who He claimed to be. Consiquently, when false gospels get presented, it only serves to undermine the Bible. That is how people get deceived.

[liquid]

Who would use this time of Passover and Easter to glorify the one that betrayed Jesus and make him into a hero? Who is always trying to create "another Jesus" and "another story about Jesus" so that it is substituted for the one in your heart? Who is paving a seed in your heart that it's good to betray Jesus because it might be the will of Jesus that you do so? IMHO, I can see why this gospel of Judas was tossed out just on the fact it supposedly offers the reader some 'secret about Judas and Jesus' and in turn leaves you with Judas as some hero and how Judas was part of such sacrifice as if Jesus couldn't have accomplished His work without Judas, as if Jesus needed some man to help him escape the body that clothed him! Do you believe that Jesus was not strong enough to do what He came to do? Why does this gospel suddenly stop at the betrayal? Why does it want you to focus on the betrayal? Now think of this people...Jesus had done great miracles and yet according to this gospel of Judas, He suddenly needed to trick and scheme up a ruse in front of his other apostles in order to get one to betray Him? This was such a good ruse and deception that it fooled the others so much huh? since we don't see this type of Judas in the gospels in the canonical New Testament. Who else would want to prepare you to doubt and to glorify any type of betrayal? Oh those other apostles were soooo fooled lets have a laugh on them huh? Who is always rewriting the story so that you will have doubt in your heart on the strength of your savior? Who has spent their existence betraying God? Ask yourself why would Jesus use a deception of betrayal in His work to save you? Does this sound like the Jesus you know? John 13:2 teaches us...
"And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him."
Now suddenly some would want you to substitute what was evil as good? Ask yourself what this gospel of Judas is asking you to do. For you to believe this "other gospel" wouldn't it mean for you to believe that Jesus resorted to decieving his other apostles to achieve what He did? Is your Jesus a deciever? Would your Jesus use another in the act of betrayal and allow him to take money for the act? Would your Jesus, in telling the story of His greatest gift allow his other apostles to lie to you about it? Oh No...I forgot, they wouldn't be really lying because they were decieved into believing that Judas had truly betrayed Jesus...right?

The good thing about this whole "other gospel" is that it forces us to redefine Who is the Jesus in our hearts and it allows us to share with one another as we define who that Jesus is for each of us.

[Omri Ceren]

Although the publicity that the Gospel of Judas has been getting is definitely fortuitous timing for the Da Vinci Code folks, there's really nothing new in this Gospel.

Philosophically and theologically, the proposal that Judas was a necessary instrument of Christ's sacrifice is hardly a revolutionary insight. Easy test: if it's an idea that's already been clearly expressed in any Rice and Webber co-production, it can't count as a "challenge". On the other hand, Alexandra, that "Hugh Hewitt Democratic operative" article that you link to is overly glib tripe. It's not so much that he's wrong about the historical trajectory of Gnosticism (disagreeing with orthodox Catholic genius Eric Voegelin's assessment of Gnosticism's infiltration of modernity is not a happy place to be) or that he's myopic as to the scope of the theological debate that it dismisses (much better philosophers than John Reynolds give much more credit to the idea that Judas was Christ's instrument) - it's that he's blood-pressure-inducingly self-assured in his snark. But anyway, we didn't need this Gospel translated in order to know that there's a debate to be had about Judas's relationship to Christ's mission.

Historically, we've known about the existence and the rough content of this gospel since St. Irenaeus attacked it in the 2nd century AD. Irenaeus, of course, ranks just behind Plato as "most responsible for preserving the works of his intellectual enemies". But such is history's perverse sense of humor...

In any case, although I haven't seen any of the text from this Gospel, almost all credible people who've been getting quoted (read: not the idiot on the National Geographic commercial) have been unanimous in their total lack of surprise. Not lack of excitement, mind you, but lack of surprise. Serious scholars of religion will be thrilled to get their hands on this text - but as a contribution to theological debates, it promises to be underwhelming. It's overwhelmingly unlikely that there will be anything in it that hasn't already been known or debated.

Anyone so theologically rational and nuanced as to be affected by this text has already known of its existence - and the full range of opinions as to the challenges that it offers. Anyone whose faith is more... er... workaday... will not particularly care about what it has to offer.

[Alexandra]

Saul,

I sent you an e-mail re-Iraqi docs.

[Nasty90]

This Gospel wasn't "just discovered", it is a Gnostic Gospel. Gnosticism was an early heresy and condemned as such. It seems there are many attacks on Christianty whether in movies or the presenting of these ancient false Gospels that the Apostle Paul firmly warned against in Galatians 1:6-9

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

[Darrell]

A great discussion from all involved! This is where the Web really shines!

[Saul Davis]

Alexandra: I hope this finds you well; I am a relatively new visitor to your wonderful site; I enjoy your articles; I generally read them all, comment on a few, and try to go back to your "archives"/prior publications for your pearls of wisdom; I normally have a strict policy of saying anything off-topic, but I tried to email you directly from your email link and I kept getting an error message; so with your forgiveness (I hope) for going off-topic here, I would greatly appreciate your views and perhaps "update" of an article you published, I think it was on March 6, quoting extensively from Michael Barrone (?); the reason for my request was a recent link by the fellows at Powerline Blog to Investor's Business Daily [http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060407]regarding the newly disclosed Iraqi documents relating to Iraq's involvement with Al Queda, and planning terrorist attacks against U.S. interests; this, I feel is an unusually important topic for all of us -- conservative, liberal, LLL and moonbats included. I once commented here that history is not finalized after a few years, and even after decades; these documents, I believe, prove that fact and provide much greater credence to the justifications for the War on Terror, and its extension to Iraq; while many of us may have believed this to be the case, these new revelations are important. They deserve, I believe much greater discussion. My apologies again for going off topic, but I was unable to email you directly.

[Guest at the Feast]

Weekenderman, Lewis's statement was a fallacy; there are other possibilities, most prominently, that the Gospel texts are, at least in art, not entirely accurate, and attribute to him things that he did not say.
Obviously, this is not the orthodox Christian position, but it does explain how reasonable people can disagree on Jesus without having to merely write him off as a madman.

[liquid]

I especially enjoy Protestants who make the argument that this text should be discounted because a Catholic bishop disposed of it as "heresy."
======

Why is that?

[liquid]

Ghost,
My point was that you shouldn't classify "protestants" as the "only ones" that will have a problem with this "other" gospel. I don't think anyone will argue that its some historical finding or for that matter maybe this person (which they do not know the author) might have truly felt what they wrote was their truth...but the fact is that the early leaders of the Church tossed it to the side as heretic. The way you presented your statements were as if the Catholic Church had accepted it as divine and canonized it already as if it would be "only protestants" that would be left to reject it because it conflicts with what was already canonized due to their final authority to check things with scripture. IMHO, I really do not see the Pope jumping on this as anything but another gnostic historical writing. Now don't get me wrong, I think many liberal minds will embrace it but that is their decision. Our faith gets tested all the time. In fact maybe even alot of liberal protestants will hold it dear, but nothing is going to change the possibility that a heretic or "wrong gnostic" could have written it and possibly wrote it with an agenda---even distortion can be written into a historical text. Some religions have been created on distorting the gospels and so the dark spirit that has been working since the time of the garden of eden probably will use anything to distort and decieve whomever will lend themselves to it. Like what so many others have said here, it comes down to your own faith and if one wants to accept not only this "other" gospel but all the other gnostics gospels, that would be left to their own free will and choice. But Ghost, in all your questions might you add to them, "How would one know if all the gnostics were truth or which one would or could be of an evil spirit?" Because if you are going to base your eternity on it...it can't be all of them can it since they say opposite things?

[Seneca]

Hmmm. An apparently authentic 2nd century text, or 1600-1800 years of accumulated bureacr... er, orthodoxy. Who'll win? I wonder.

I especially enjoy Protestants who make the argument that this text should be discounted because a Catholic bishop disposed of it as "heresy."

[Ghost Dansing]

Christ looks OK to me...God had to be made flesh in order for Man to even have a chance at understanding. We saw the flesh...crucified it. Did you kill God? Did you kill Christ for that matter? God prevails, God is victorious.

"Forgive them Father, they know not what they do."

Heck, forgive them Father, Man contemplating God is like a pig contemplating a pocketwatch.

Please, read the Bible. It's all about Man misunderstanding God.

[weekenderman]

As C.S. Lewis stated, Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic or Lord. Therefore, someone who accepts these "gospels" has a decision to make -- which was He?

Each of these non-canonincal books portrays Jesus as either a liar or a lunatic, and I think that was the goal of gnosticism in the first place, was it not?

[Assistant Village Idiot]

Despite trying to bend this to a favorite soapbox, I doubt that Ghost Dansing will be witnessing the warm embrace of the G of J by fundamentalists anytime in the near future -- or far future. I agree with his views on "Sola Scriptura," but still think he misrepresents those Protestants who would hold to that.

I think I am out of my depth in knowledge of the Gnostics and early non-canonical writings, but I have an additional bit of evidence to submit. There are many bits of knowledge about Jesus and the early church that are preserved and accepted by many, but not insisted upon because their attestation in not sufficient. Church tradition claims that Thomas went eventually to India, but no doctrines hang on this, for example. It was widely believed among early Christians that the correspondence between Jesus and the King of Edessa occurred, though this was dropped pretty quickly, even though there is little objectionable about it.

The ideas about Judas from the G of J not only didn't make it into the gospels, they didn't make it into these traditions that were held with less certainty and insistence. They come out of left field. As C.S. Lewis noted, if Peter, John, Matthew, etc didn't understand Jesus's teaching, then no one did, and there's no use trying to hold on to him as a "great teacher."

I think that NG, the NYT, and many professors of religion are really asking "Can't something else be true? Anything?"

[Ghost Dansing]

It's a good point you bring up Liquid, and I tried not to to overgeneralize. I noted that there were Protestants near to Catholicism that also would have nothing to do with "Sola Scriptura" as dogma.

The problematic aspect for Protestants professing "Sola Scriptura", and mainly those of the fundamentalist, evangelical and dominionist typology is a matter indoctrination and ignorance supplied the typical sectarian "believer".

Why is it that when Science finds another "missing link" ,as they did recently, supporting evolution, it becomes an issue for those who are taught to believe strictly in the Bible for all faith and knowledge?

It is because the information, freely spread in the public media, challenges the knowledge base of the fundamentalist sectarian. The larger story is that it is problem for those who know little of either the nature of science, or the nature of religion. But that really goes beyond this as a parallel example.

How many "average" Protestant believers, in general, let alone fundamentalist, evangelican, dominionist sects, have been schooled in the evolution of "The Bible", its history within what became the Catholic Church, the politics, selectivity and ambiguity involved...let alone the problems of interpretation and factual conflicts resolved by fiat Ex Cathedra long before the first schism that began the dissolution of the Catholic monolith into over 2000 denominations?

When a new "Gospel" is found, how do you think that sounds to someone who believes that "The Bible" somehow dropped God into Man's hands written in the Queen's English, complete, perfect and literal for any man to read and heed? Certainly this is an oversimplification...however the cognitive construct for the average believer in the Elmer Gantrian Traveling Medicine Wagon Show that passes for Christianity in the United States and elsewhere approximates this depth of understanding.

And even with the "Sola Scriptura" Protestants...how often do they give due service to the role and history of Papal Authority in the very compilation of the definitive text upon which they base ALL faith and understanding of God? Were the Papal Agencies infallable in compiling "The Bible"...has their infalliblity end? Can there be new additions to "The Bible"? By whose authority would a "Newly Gospel" be included or excluded?

Infrequently I suppose...infrequently because it generates questions, and questions are anethema to those seeking to indoctrinate; to eliminate questioning.

Why this text, not that...how many more codeces were there...who decided what was "The Bible" and what wasn't...why are there Catholic and Protestant versions of "The Bible"...has all revelation already occured, or is there more?

Has God spoken, or is He still Speaking? These kinds of questions lead to humility and a Liberal Theology and mind...not the rigidity of pure dogmatics and the heresy of Pharisees.

That's why information of this sort would be a problem to them.

[Mark Daniels]

Alexandra:
Thank you for linking to my post and for your interesting presentation here. One thing I should say in the interest of full disclosure is that while I have an M. Div. and am a pastor, I'm not a Biblical scholar, just a longtime student.

Blessings in Christ,
Mark Daniels

[liquid]

Ghost states: "The only "christians" who have problems with such discoveries are those whose protestant faith is built on the heretical concept of "Sola Scriptura"...that authority in religion exists in the scripture alone, and in most sects, specifically "The Bible"..
______________________

Ghost, this is kinda generalizing isn't it or is it just a poke at protestants? Since years ago this "judas gospel" and others like it were rejected! It's been around just now being offered to the public. So how can it ONLY bother those that don't even include such as "the scripture?" The Catholic Church and the Protestants would both reject it wouldn't they since it was not included or do you claim that being offered to the public now because it was restored all of sudden some divine revelation to you? What you state here or are trying to state makes no sense at all since in closing your statement --you yourself add that it and others like it were "outside" the bible! I think what will be most telling in the future are those that do embrace it. Time will tell won't it who really will end up having "problems with it" and who will not be moved by it at all.

[Ghost Dansing]

The only "christians" who have problems with such discoveries are those whose protestant faith is built on the heretical concept of "Sola Scriptura"...that authority in religion exists in the scripture alone, and in most sects, specifically "The Bible"..

The next step, after that is, of course, fundamentalism, where "The Bible" is then interpreted literally, in all cases.

The Catholic Church rejects "Sola Scriptura" because they know how the sausage was made, so to speak...since the creation of "The Bible" was a selective historical process of inclusion and exclusion of many texts of antiquity toward the purpose of deconfliction and standardization. This historical evolution paralleled the evolution of "The Church" as it established central dominion over all things of faith, as an organization of governance, including, of course, that which was to be included in "The Bible".

Thus, the Catholic Church, and many near Protestant denominations would have nothing to do with "Sola Scriptura" as dogma, because they literally knew better than that.

Juda's Gospel is an interesting find, that was already suspected due to reference in ancient texts, and joins the group of texts that are outside "The Bible" for scholoraly and religious study.

When I refer to "The Bible", of course, I refer only to printings carrying the authorizing Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat of the Church...so we can avoid any heretical variations based on unfortunate misinterpretations.

[weekenderman]

Nice thread, and especially "ironic" considering this was the very topic the pastor at my church preached on this morning. :)

[liquid]

Obviously, this is part of the "dump on orthodoxy" (at least, when it comes to Judaism or Christianity- for reasons of "diversity", no doubt, orthodox Islam is always being given a pass by the lefty media); the media's way of marking the Easter season, if you will.
Wishing all of you Christians out there a joyous Easter- and a "chag Kasher ve-sameach" to everyone celebrating Passover this week.
Posted by: Guest at the Feast | Sunday, April 09, 2006 at 10:30 AM
---------------------

thank you for sharing Guest at the Feat, I always enjoy your input on Alexandra's blog, You know who will embrace this whole new concept?
ISLAM...because so many muslims believe that Judas was a hero and that he actually took Jesus's place on the cross. It's been a part for some of their "Jesus was never crucified story" and I can see this whole Judas Gospel being used by Islam to add to that. Hopefully Christians will not be fooled. It amazes me how many are sucking it up.

Hopefully good will come from it though in the long run, I think this will build stronger faith actually for some and hopefully open doors for more good communication between many. I also think for Christians, one has to not ignore the question that if this is used as evil to teach another Jesus or present a new gospel WHO would use it to turn betrayal into a heroic act? Who always comes behind "real truth" and presents a bit of truth only to twist it to decieve others?

Galatians 1:6-9 teaches us this...

6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Paul taught us to be skeptical of any 'other Jesus' or any " different spirit" or 'different gospel' so that we wouldn't be decieved.
------------------
If we look at 2 Corinthians 11: 3-6

3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 5But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles." 6I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way.

[antimedia]

As one who has read extensively in this milieu, I suspect this work (not having read it and being unwilling to take the word of reporters) will read like many other of the Gnostic and non-canonical works. If one has read extensively of the scriptures (both old and new testament), one gets the sense rather quickly, when reading the apocryphal writings, that they are of a different breed than those that have been chosen as canonical.

I'm struggling to understand how Judas' knowledge of the end game would change the reprehensible nature of his act. He accepted money to betray his leader and chose a most intimate form (kissing) to identify him to his captors. (I have often wondered about this scene. How could the Roman guards not already have known who Jesus was at that point? How could they have not recognized him instantly, without the aid of one so craven?) Were Judas' intentions and actions noble, would he not have rejected the payment of filty lucre for the betrayal of his Lord?

From what's been described here, this is clearly a Gnostic work, citing hidden knowledge (that of Judas, conferred upon him by Jesus) that brings awareness of a greater truth. With all the previous commenters I would concur - this changes nothing. To see it so breathlessly cited in the media is expected, mundane and symptomatic of the endemic decay within an institution that hires wordsmiths rather than knowledgeable reporters. When you pry back the crust, the pie is stale and moldy.

[dymphna]

The thing about these Gnostic texts is that they fail to include material from the very earliest strands of collected oral material -- for example, the Q document, which the Synoptic gospels no doubt used to flesh out their material.

Paul's letters are actually the earliest written material about Christ, and Paul -- though almost of His generation -- never even met the man.

What I find interesting is the great differences between say, Paul, and the Gospel of John. What radically different perspectives! And so many decades apart. Paul is probably 55 or so AD and John is perhaps 100 AD.

What I like to ponder is what the Church would have looked like had Rome not smashed Jerusalem in 70 AD. That permitted Paul's view, message, and audience to advance and the Church of Peter, of Jerusalem, to decline. Thus, circumcision was abandoned, as was the need to enter Judaism to get to Christ's word...

...a very different Church it would have been without the Hellenization of Paul.

(That's not a complaint, Lord, merely an observation...now I ceratainly *could* complain about what happened to the Church in Syria, Mesopotamia, etc. What an aching loss. In fact, the destruction of churches going on now is irreperable).

[David]

The gnostics who plagued the early church were nothing new in the 2nd-4th century, though it was during this period that they had their greatest impact. John denounced gnosticism early on. In fact, gnosticism was fairly widespread in Greek culture in the First Century A.D., and had been for quite some time, having grown out of post-Cyrus Babylonian syncretism.

It was an old, non-Jewish mysticism that had been around the Greek world for centuries and simply thought to hitch its wagon to the rising star of the more popular Christian teachings. Imagine that: although Christianity was still a fledgling religion in the second century, the surge of gnostic "evangelism" tying itself to Jesus' coat tails indicates this fledgling religion had a lot more popular appeal than the centuries old gnostic philosophy that had never quite caught on with folks. But that was simply the pattern of gnostic behavior: latch onto whatever religion had local currency. It had little success with Judaism; fair success as a philosophical argument in Grecian philosophy (the Greeks would argue about anything, of course :-)). And along came Christianisy, spreading through the Geek-Roman world... looked like easy pickings.

But it wasn't. The Apostle John, widely recognized by the early church as the brother of Jesus--an authority on the life of Christ who was to be listened to--his disciple Polycarp and Polycarp's disciple Irenaeus remained clear on the issue of gnosticism: each of them, in unbroken line from the apostle, rebutted the heresy.

(BTW, the NYT's "coverage" of this not-news about the G of J casts a slur on Irenaeus that should not go unanswered. All they can say of the Bishop of Lyons is that he was "a hunter of gnostics"—a base cannard. He wrote and spoke refuting the gnostic teachings, but hunt them? There exists no record to indicate that, so the NYT simply continues its silly campaign to chip away at anything remotely honorable with tinny slurs. The rest of the NYT piece I saw is of the same sub-literate, ahistorical quality.)

The biggest surge in gnostic followers came with Marcion's writings in the second century. IF the G of J had existed since the time of Christ or even was current in the second century you'd think Marcion and other gnostic writers of the day would have cited it, don't you? Of course they did not. It pretty much stands alone, with no other gnostic writings actually quoting it. It, of course, echoes the general gnostic thought of the time, which had not changed since Babylon, just gathered unto itself new religions.

Read the G of J. An English translation can be downloaded here:

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

From its very first mention of "Barbelos" it reveals itself to be outside not only Christian writings but Jewish, as well. It's insteresting to read, if only for the historical anachronisms, similar in kind to the foolishness of The Book of Mormon, though scarecely as polished as that still transparently fictitious work.

Anyone with even a scant knowledge of the history of the Middle East, of Judaism and of the times during which the early Christian church came into being can have no trouble reading the thing and knowing it's a fraud, and not a particularly good one. Anyone who is historically literate and can read the thing claiming not to discern this either has an agenda-driven response to it that is couding their view or an agenda-driven "response" to it that is entirely disingenuous.

It would be more profitable to read sources with fewer degrees of separation from the events of the New testament, and such would be the practice of honest scholars. It'd be nice for once if Mass Media Podpeople would mention, for example,

"These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak in mild terms, are not of sound doctrine; these opinions are not consonant to the Church, and involve their votaries in the utmost impiety; these opinions, even the heretics beyond the Church's pale have never ventured to broach; these opinions, those presbyters who preceded us, and who were conversant with the apostles, did not hand down to thee. For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp, distinguishing thyself in the royal court, and endeavouring to gain his approbation. For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse--his going out, too, and his coming in--his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures."

(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0134.htm)

...or other "fragments of the lost writings of Irenaeus" instead of trumpeting old saws of heresies long laid to rest issued in the form of a "Gospel" not even popular enough with those heretics to have any citations in other gnostic heretics' writings.

This is the best they can come up with?

*yawn*

[Guest at the Feast]

Intriguing thought by S, C, & A: what you say corresponds closely with the traditional Jewish interpretation of the "suffering servant" passage of Isaiah: namely, the servant is Israel, bearing in some mysterious way the sins of mankind. I was absolutely floored when I came across an old sermon of then-Cardinal Ratzinger's (Lent, 1983) in which he talked about the salvific nature of Israel's suffering, which he acknowledged but integrated with classic Christian theology by interpreting it as a sort of privileged, participatory co-redemptory suffering along with Jesus. No doubt it was he, as the Pope's chief theologian, who inspired JPII to call Auschwitz "the Golgotha of the Jewish people."
Benedict writes then:
"Israel no longer has its Temple, the only legitimate place in which to adore God. So it seems exiled from God also--forlorn in the desert. No longer can sacrifices or expiation and praise be offered. The inevitable question arises: how can there now exist any relationship with God, on which depends the salvation of the people and of the world? In this passion, in this suffering of a life lived away from their homeland, a life far from their own culture, Israel underwent a new experience: the solemn praises of God could no longer be celebrated. The only possibility for drawing near to God was suffering for God. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Prophets understood that the suffering of believing Israel was the true sacrifice, the new liturgy, and that in this true liturgy Israel represented the world before the face of God."
As a Jew, I find this beautiful but a bit reductionist (and his understanding of the function of the temple quite mechanistic; I'd be really curious to see how he explains the end of the First Exile, and the fact that prayer and contrition were indeed found equally effective then): we worship and adore God, ideally, with every breath, every good action, every deed performed in an effort to accord with God's will as revealed explicitly in the Bible- and not just through our collective and individual suffering. But this does not detract from the fact that B-XVI's view seems to me quite true, and beautiful in a characteristically Benedictine mystical fashion.

[Patrick O'Hannigan]

One wee correction to the otherwise-excellent post by "Guest at the Feast"-- there are three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), not four. John's gospel is canonical, but his view is different-- "Christology from above" as opposed to "Christology from below," as a professor of systematic theology said to me once.

Troublemakers in theology classes go for the trick question, too, i.e., "how many gospels are there?" Most people say four, at which point the smarty pantsers say, "no, just one: the gospel of Jesus, in four separate accounts."

[Guest at the Feast]

I concur heartily with Patrick- and I am not Christian.
This document is not at all unique; there are many texts written by early Christians in the first few centuries of Christianity, including the "Gospel of Thomas," "Gospel of Judas," etc. This really needn't concern any Christian, however, for the following reasons: 1) The fact that the four synoptic Gospels were canonized means that the Christian community felt these to be the most reliable record- that's why all the other dozens were NOT. No doubt, if we had any purely Jewish or Roman records of the events surrounding Jesus's death, those accounts would also look quite different from those of the New Testament authors- and that wouldn't matter one whit to a Christian.
2) A Christian, presumably, believes in the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, particularly through the Ecumenical Councils of the Primitive Church. Thus, the fact that the Holy Spirit inspired the bishops to choose the Gospels they chose, means that for the believers, all the rest are utterly irrelevant.
3) Even from a critical historical standpoint, people have different motives and perspective when they compose historical literary accounts; as a result, some of those accounts are closer to the empirical truth than are others. Again, the Body of Christ chose the four that it did, and rejected the rest. In this case, one can see that the gospel in question had an aim and an axe to grind: the exculpation of Judas Iscariot. Moreover, it smacks of the extreme matter-hating early heresies so condemned by the Church Fathers, which automatically renders it somewhat suspect in my eyes. It also seems redolent of hindsight- i.e. Jesus had to die for the salvation of mankind, hence Judas must have done a Good Thing. This kind of thinking won't wash; I am quoting from memory, and the New Testament is not my Bible, but I seem to recall: "For offences must need come into the world, but woe unto him by whom the offences come."
Besides: let's assume for a moment that there was some kind of truth underlying the account; let's suppose for an instant that Judas THOUGHT Jesus wanted him to move along the process of the Passion- that doesn't mean that Judas did not do wrong, or was not fatally tempted by the Devil in this case.
4) It is funny that the same people who are so eager to impugn the truth of the 4 canonical Gospels are suddenly devotees of the literal truth and integrity of this one, which was rejected by the early Christian church as a canonical source. An interesting historical source? By all means. A refutation of the Christian faith? Risible.
5) All the scholars already admitted that this is a Gnostic text. There are MANY Gnostic gospels from the first centuries of Christianity, none of which is considered sacred or religiously relevant by Christians. Why should this one be any more significant than any other heretical gospel?
6) As for the comment about a "monolithic" early church: who on earth believes that? Let's face it, heretics produced a lot of literature, none of which any Christian considers theologically instructive- on the contrary, in fact. Why should a text produced around the time of Tertullian, by a sect specifically condemned and refuted by him, shake any orthodox Christian's faith?
Obviously, this is part of the "dump on orthodoxy" (at least, when it comes to Judaism or Christianity- for reasons of "diversity", no doubt, orthodox Islam is always being given a pass by the lefty media); the media's way of marking the Easter season, if you will.
Wishing all of you Christians out there a joyous Easter- and a "chag Kasher ve-sameach" to everyone celebrating Passover this week.

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

An excellent post, as usual.

I am far more sanguine about it all. As you correctly note, accepting the Gospel of Judas means that "it would abandon the curse of generations."

Isn't that already a reality? We are taught that we are not to blame the the blamesless- those who betrayed Christ were the only ones to be held accountable- and not their descendants. Every Pope since Paul VI, climaxing with JPII, has made that an integral part of Church doctrine. Does not John Paul II asking for forgiveness from the Jews for 'past sins' (yes, sins,as he clearly stated) make that clear? Do you think he was referring to Christianity not providing dance lessons to their Jewish brethren?

We didn't need the Gospel of Judas to clarify those truths.

Perhaps Jesus did ask Judas to betray him. Perhaps the sacrifice of Christ was not the only sacrifice made. Perhaps Jesus offered up the Jews, too, as part of the 'plan.' Jesus was to be the salvation of all people, and the Jews were offered as the salvation for nations.

Maybe Judas is reviled because he didn't argue with Jesus- he did as asked, with no questions.

Abraham, Moses, and a host of prophets argued with God when they resisted His word and plan.

Perhaps that is Judas 'crime'- he didn't resist or argue enough.

[Patrick O"Hannigan]

Postscript: Had Judas been the apostle who understood Jesus and His message best, then the profession of faith attributed to Peter would probably have come from Judas, instead. But the premise of Judas as the one who most gets it is suspect, to put it gently. He's more in league with James and John, those whom Jesus nicknamed "sons of thunder" because they wanted to call fire from heaven down on an unfriendly Samaritan town.

[Patrick O'Hannigan]

Best reaction I've read so far is a satire from Diogenes at Catholic World News, found here.

But seriously, I don't think this discovery will mean much to most Christians. We're not averse to discovery, but even the postmodern theologians most excited about it acknowledge this codex as a Gnostic product, and the fathers of the church put the definitive kibosh on gnosticism back in the day. Beyond that, the canon of scripture was settled long ago, which means that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John retain pride of place for every Christian. And while we're always free to imagine Judas in a new light, our portraits must square with what Jesus says about the man in those gospels acknowledged as canonical. At best, he was misguided. To call him heroic is to mistake frustration for heroism.

[jholyfen]

The closer you look at this thing, the far less there genuinely is.

The great minds of the media -- eg, NY Post gossip columnist Cindy Adams -- have bloviated much on how the G of J will destroy the foundations of Christianisty as we know it. Just like the "fact" of Jesus marrying Mary and birthing the merovingian line. as documented by "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and the daVinci Code (the movie coming soon to a theater near you... did the good scholars at NG time the pub of the G of J story to coincide? Naaa!)

All the G of J demonstrates is that a small sect of gnostics thought Judas was a conspirator in the drama of salvation. The rest of the "lost gospel" is just the typical dualist twaddle; if you read Elaine Pagels book twenty years ago, this stuff is nothing new.

And if the NG editors think that this is an actual historical document that should prompt a re-assessment, they're as silly as Trevor-Roper when he fell for the Hitler diaries.