BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

The Gospel of Judas

  
 
Triumvir
05:14 / 08.04.06
In Ancient Document, Judas, Minus the Betrayal

As it turns out, Judas may not have been as bad as he is cracked up to be. A new scroll found in a cave in egypt has the only known copy of the Gospel of Judas, detailing the life and death of Jesus Christ from Judas's perspective. It was written in greek in the 4th century AD. Supposedly, Judas, rather than being a betrayer, was the favored disciple of Christ, and Christ used Judas as his instrument to attain godhood. This scroll could possibly change christianity forever. What do you all think about it?
 
 
*
05:17 / 08.04.06
I think it's not going to change Christianity forever any more than the Gospel of Thomas has. I think the people who were inclined to that reading had already come up with that story (see The Last Temptation of Christ, IIRC) and this will certainly be very attractive to them and probably interesting to a great majority of people. I think mainstream Christian churches will dismiss it as apocryphal and/or heretical and continue relatively unaffected.
 
 
Triumvir
05:21 / 08.04.06
Thtats probably true. It says something though, about the inflexibility and desire for the maitnence of the status quo that our modern church has. Heh, why am I even surpriesd? Maintaining the status quo is what the church is all about.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
06:37 / 08.04.06
It's kind of odd because I'd always thought about the fact that Jesus told Judas he would betray him that Judas was doing it with Jesus's blessing in order to fulfil his messianic kick (this is all based on the story in the Bible natch, I'm not talking about what may or may not have happened IRL), so why he was damned down the century for his part in Jesus' plan, without Judas Jesus wouldn't have died to redeem us.

Seeing as there's no evidence that any of the Gospels were written by the Apostles (this is not a problem with things like Mark, but apparently a reason why the Gospel of Judas won't be accepted as legit) I do wonder where they came from and why... Sorry, this is wandering off-topic.
 
 
Mistoffelees
09:46 / 08.04.06
I agree with Lady of the flowers.

I always see Judas like Mephistophelees in Goethe´s Faust [my rough translation]:

"I´m a part of that force, that wants to do evil, but does good."

Judas was a pawn of God, and he played his part. His betrayal was necessary, and therefore should not be condemned, but seen as a heroic act, that none of the other disciples had the guts to pull through.
 
 
Loomis
11:38 / 08.04.06
I highly recommend The Last Temptation of Christ to anyone interested in this idea, as already mentioned by (id)entity. I haven't seen the film but the book is brilliant. Judas is the only one Jesus trusts to perform this horrible task for him and it's actually quite moving when Jesus is convincing him to do it. It's the best telling of the life of Jesus I've read, and anyone interested in Jesus' humanity should give it a shot, regardless of their doctrinal position. It really dramatises his struggle with what he had to do.

And in terms of the church not wanting to accept the TRUTH!!11!, there are a number of reasons why they initially chose the four that made it into the bible, some good and some not so good. It's not only that they're trying to preserve their chosen doctrine (although of course that's part of it), but issues of textual reliability come into it too. There are fragments of lots of gospels around, but I think there would need to be a text found that could be dated to earlier than 100AD to really have any major impact on Christian doctrine.
 
 
Slim
12:25 / 08.04.06
I know that if I betrayed my lord and savior, I'd probably want to convince people that I was actually the good guy, too.

As for Judas' betrayal being celebrated as heroic, I find that to be rather suspect. It doesn't make much sense for Jesus, who was supposed to die for our sins, die because an act of goodness and heroism.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
20:42 / 08.04.06
As for Judas' betrayal being celebrated as heroic, I find that to be rather suspect. It doesn't make much sense for Jesus, who was supposed to die for our sins, die because an act of goodness and heroism.

Am I missing something? Doesn't it make perfect sense? Jesus needed to die (or rather, be killed) in order to redeem humanity's sins*. Apart from imparting his teachings that was the point of the story. It makes sense for him to have some agency in bringing it about, and I really can't see why Christians are getting worked up about it- it's consistant with Christ's character and mythology, it adds to our image of him as somebody willing to sacrifice and forgive.

*To some Gnostics, to redeem God's sin of creating an imperfect world, to most Christians to free all the people who'd gone to hell before he was born, though my knowledge of the meaning of the crucifixion is incomplete.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
22:46 / 08.04.06
Hmm. I suppose it fits with the idea of loving even the moneylenders and the prostitutes- it goes so far as to even love the one who betrays and kills you, or at least, it goes so far as to put that person in a respected position.

I'd like to find a scan of that document (even though it's in coptic). I hope they release one.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
03:15 / 09.04.06
Here's the text, with links to PDFs of English and Coptic translations.
The best part: Judas says to Jesus: 'I know who you are, you are from the immortal realm of Barbelo. And I am not worthy to utter the name of the one who has sent you'.
OMG GEORGE MORRISON WROTE TEH GOSPEL OF JOODAS IN THE FUTURE!!!23!!!
 
 
■
08:45 / 09.04.06
Andrew Rilstone (also very good at debunking "PC gone Maaaad" Mail and Express stories) has a nice take on this.
 
 
Triumvir
16:31 / 09.04.06
Andrew Rilstone (also very good at debunking "PC gone Maaaad" Mail and Express stories) has a nice take on this.

Doesn't seem to be 'debunking' anything. Just making fun of it.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
17:25 / 09.04.06
Fundamentally this gospel means nothing to Christianity because the books of the bible have already been carefully selected to be followed by the majority of the religion anyway. Like other gospels discovered over the centuries- Mary Magdalene stands out- this will become something of historical interest, particularly in charting the growth and structure of Christianity. This gospel was in a sense followed by the gnostics* and theologians and historians will find it interesting in that sense. However it won't have any bearing on the view of the religion because other gospels were actively chosen for their coherence, that one group focused on Judas as having been given a divine duty to kill Christ makes no odds to the wider, contemporary religion.

*specifically meaning the 2nd century sect.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
18:49 / 09.04.06
'The Last Temptation of Christ' is indeed a fantastic film, that actually has something to say rather than the emotionally empty snuff film that is 'The Passion of the Christ' (Off-topic: I've blogged more here)

Slim I know that if I betrayed my lord and savior, I'd probably want to convince people that I was actually the good guy, too.

Well, I suppose it depends on what you think Jesus came to do, if you believe he came at all. Was he prevented from beginning a physical revolution or did Judas enable him to start a spiritual revolution? With the Bible's rather poor grasp of character arcs it does seem as though Judas is following a role (as indeed do they all) rather than deciding to sell Jesus down the river. After all, what's his motivation?
 
 
■
22:46 / 09.04.06
Doesn't seem to be 'debunking' anything. Just making fun of it.

Go here and scroll down to November 19th. All it took was a couple of phone calls.

Or maybe the rainbow sheep debacle (March 20th). I know there is a lot of Christian angst, which we all scoffed at when he did RPG fanzines in the 1980s, but it's pretty well-considered stuff.
 
 
Baz Auckland
00:52 / 10.04.06
Has anyone read the Jorge Luis Borges story "The Three Versions of Judas"? It was the first thing I thought of when this story appeared...

It's a great short story about a theologian who first comes to the same 'Judas was necessary' heresy, then comes to the conclusion that since Judas made the supreme sacrifice in betraying a friend, spending eternity in hell, and having his name cursed by the world forever, that in fact Judas was the Son of God rather than Jesus...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
01:01 / 10.04.06
Yeah, I was trying to remember what it was called... Borges also turns up in today's Guardian letters page with a reader asking "Anyone else think that the Gospel of Judas is just a retelling of Borges' Theme of the Traitor and the Hero?"
 
 
Woodsurfer
10:05 / 10.04.06
I think this is going to cause a great number of Christians to reflect on their pre-conception of Judas -- and an equally great number to turn over and hide under the covers.

There was a bit of commentary on National Public Radio yesterday -- one preacher man denouncing the new text because all the gospel you'll ever need was set in stone in 97 AD and another saying that he was prepared to accept that Judas was not the most reviled man in history by see Andrew Lloyd Weber's treatment of him in "Jesus Christ Superstar". Weird juxtaposition but that's NPR: Gospel Paints Judas in Not-So-New Light

One thing that struck me in the commentary was what was said about "the Judas kids were taught to revile in Sunday School". I remember getting this message pretty strongly. How can you square teaching little children to "revile" someone with Jesus' message of forgiveness and loving your enemy? No wonder we're as screwed up as we are.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
14:30 / 10.04.06
Exactly, Christ teaches forgiveness but Dante has Judas sitting in the mouth of the devil in Inferno.

Gimme a good old testement angry God any day, at least then you know where you stand (under His foot actually...).
 
 
grant
16:24 / 10.04.06
My mind is clearer now. At last, all too well, I can see where we all soon will be....

Ach, no, sorry!

OK.

Here, Nina says: Like other gospels discovered over the centuries- Mary Magdalene stands out- this will become something of historical interest, particularly in charting the growth and structure of Christianity. This gospel was in a sense followed by the gnostics* and theologians and historians will find it interesting in that sense.

This is basically what I'd think, but taking a longer view, there's been a tremendous revival of Gnosticism-as-religion since the discovery of the texts at Nag Hammadi and subsequent finds like this one. Basically, until 1945, people knew these texts existed (and some of them were even part of some denominations' canons, like the Book of Enoch in some Ethiopian Orthodox offshoots), but for the most part, only knew what was in the texts based on what contemporaneous critics quoted while doing their criticism, and from a few badly damaged fragments dug up in various places.

Then, in 1945, some dude plowing a field in Egypt finds a clay pot stuffed with parchments and hey! actual source texts that people can read! And then similar finds along the Dead Sea two years later.

And now there are denominations springing up that are embracing these texts as scriptures. I doubt they'll ever be as influential as the Roman Catholic Church was, but I also kind of doubt the Roman Catholic Church will ever be that influential, either. We seem to be moving into a time of heterodoxy (must be my word of the day). Anyway, there are some actual big-G Gnostics who'll be all over this thing in a more-than historical sense.

Of course, they also read for authority in a different sense than orthodox Christian culture -- not for historical fact (Judas probably didn't write this gospel), but for essential truth (there's wisdom to be gained by studying this text).
 
 
ibis the being
21:14 / 10.04.06
I know that if I betrayed my lord and savior, I'd probably want to convince people that I was actually the good guy, too.

The Gospel of Judas is not written by Judas. It was written over 100 years after Christ's death. I believe they're calling it The Gospel of Judas because its sympathy for Judas is its main defining difference from the canonic gospels.

As for Judas' betrayal being celebrated as heroic, I find that to be rather suspect. It doesn't make much sense for Jesus, who was supposed to die for our sins, die because an act of goodness and heroism.

This is to me is probably the most fascinating aspect of the Gospel of Judas. In one interpretation, it completely changes the meaning of the gospels and of Christianity so that the redemption of sins is not meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus - instead, his teachings become the central focus and his death/resurrection are the prototype for what happens to those who follow his teachings. In other words, it's not about sin and redemption but rather about how to get closer to God.

Another way to look at the Gospel of Judas that would affect one's view of Christ relates to the issue of his divinity and humanity. In the canonical gospels, when Jesus says at the last supper that "one of you will betray me," and when he prays in the garden before his arrest, it would seem that because he's God he has divine knowledge of what is about to happen. But if, as in the Gospel of Judas, he asked his disciple to arrange the arrest, than he knew what was about to happen as a man, with no divine or psychic vision.

I agree that this will have little or no effect on mainstream Christianity. But I think it may have great significance on people (like me) who are drawn to the teachings of Christ yet are unable to accept a lot of the tenets of mainstream/organized/orthodox Christianity. I listened to an NPR show on this new gospel today and a few people called in to say that as children raised Christian, they always felt a lot of confusion and saw contradiction in the figure of Judas - he was the catalyst for God's divine plan, so why was he portrayed as a betrayer? Also, (here my memory falters a bit) didn't Judas hang himself just after "betraying" Jesus? I never understood why, if he was so treacherous, he felt guilty enough to kill himself after Jesus was captured - it makes more sense that he did as his beloved leader asked, but felt grief and devastation enough to kill himself afterward.
 
 
Blake Head
23:23 / 10.04.06
Apologies for perhaps further straying off topic, just wanted to again recommend The Last Temptation of Christ (the book, though the film is excellent) and to expand upon the idea that “Christ used Judas as his instrument to attain godhood”. Kazantzakis plays on Judas less as an instrument of divine purpose, and not only as Jesus’ confidant, but also someone who is pushing an unwilling Jesus beyond or deeper into his humanity, by confrontation with his own. Jesus being unwilling because of a reluctance on his own part due to his fallible human aspect. Similar to ibis is saying above about getting closer to god, this moves from a conception of Jesus simply dying for our sins into where Jesus’ role is in showing the path for fallen mankind in the process of the transformation of the inherently sinful flesh into spirit. The more sympathetic reading of Judas, while not exactly being celebrated, is included in the essential dichotomy of matter/spirit that informs Christian living, rather than in the exclusive model that has him sitting in the mouth of the devil, along with the rest of us poor mortals. Which is, well, deeply individual as a creed, and somehow I can’t see it having much relevance in contemporary politics or indeed how a single document will alter long-standing social and political structures in the short-term.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
01:20 / 11.04.06
One thing that struck me in the commentary was what was said about "the Judas kids were taught to revile in Sunday School". I remember getting this message pretty strongly. How can you square teaching little children to "revile" someone with Jesus' message of forgiveness and loving your enemy? No wonder we're as screwed up as we are.

See, I was brought up CofE (my dad was a vicar) but I was always told Judas was to be pitied and forgiven, and nobody was to be despised EVAH!!!11!!. Judas had made a terrible mistake, had fallen for the temptation of money, but was still capable of redemption, as was everyone else. (I know this is probably more suited to the Temple thread on the same subject, and I know a lot of what's passed off these days as "Christian" teaching sucks ass, but for the sake of balance I thought I'd chuck it in here, just to make a point for the "not all Christians are evil" cause).
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
17:31 / 11.04.06
Interesting, my experience of Christianity was only what I wasn't allowed to skip at school, but I wonder whether other Brits on here would agree that this was the impression they were given about Judas, as opposed to a more muscular American "Jesus is back, and this time he's pissed! And Judas will burn in hell forever!!" attitude.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
19:12 / 11.04.06
I don't really regard Judas as anything except a characteristic of Christianity. As you've kind of broached different types of Christianity regard Judas in different ways and all of those readings are coloured by 2000 years of monotheistic religion and the cultural perspectives that effect branches of Christianity now.

I think that this thread is a little off topic for Switchboard. Is there anything that people want to say about the political implications of this gospel or the politics of the construction of the bible?
 
 
sleazenation
21:22 / 11.04.06
Yes, I think if we are going to have a thread on this subject in the Switchboard, we should probably try to examine it from a politics/current affairs perspective...
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
06:29 / 12.04.06
It gets better: Apparently, Jesus not only lived to have a son (Jude) with Mary Magdalene, but was fathered by a Roman soldier (cf. Monty Python), named, get this, Pantera.
 
 
Baobab Branches and Plastic
11:38 / 13.04.06
Now that really is a vulgar display of paternity...
*boom tish*
I'm very very sorry....

I'm curious as to why all these new ideas about Jesus' life make him more palatable (again sorry) to people? Is it a reaction against the church per se or something else... Does humanising of icons makes them more acceptable
to Moderns? Tabloid Christ anyone?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
15:41 / 13.04.06
I suspect that non-Christians would be doing it for 'look, he's not really the son of God! He's just a rabbi/prophet/roman soldier that got tied to the tree!' while Christians are probably doing it for 'look! he really existed! So therefore he really was the son of God too!' reasons.
 
 
ibis the being
20:20 / 13.04.06
I'm curious as to why all these new ideas about Jesus' life make him more palatable (again sorry) to people? Is it a reaction against the church per se or something else... Does humanising of icons makes them more acceptable
to Moderns? Tabloid Christ anyone? - Boabab

I suspect that non-Christians would be doing it for 'look, he's not really the son of God! He's just a rabbi/prophet/roman soldier that got tied to the tree!' while Christians are probably doing it for 'look! he really existed! So therefore he really was the son of God too!' reasons. - Flowers

Sorry, this isn't really the place for me to respond to the above, but sadly the Judas thread in Temple is sinking like a two ton stone....

"Humanizing" Christ is not necessarily just about making him more relatable. The question of 'how' human Jesus was has real theological import, as it relates to how fallible he was, whether he was good because he was God/Perfection or because he was following God, and from that whether we can strive to be like Jesus by following his teachings or are inherently flawed/evil and can only be 'saved' or Godlike through Grace.

As for the news/political angle... is there one? Seems to me this is in Switchboard because of what's happening to the companion thread in Temple (ie no one reading, no one posting). I suppose there is a possible political angle in that some Christians (and some Biblical translations) have long called Judas "the Jew" and pinned the blame for Jesus's death on Jewish people for the rest of time (see Mel Gibson). However, I feel that, being an irrational hatred, anti-Semitismdoesn't need a "reason," and will quite easily dismiss the Gospel of Judas as unreliable, inauthentic, and irrelevant.
 
 
Hieronymus
22:29 / 13.04.06
I suppose there is a possible political angle in that some Christians (and some Biblical translations) have long called Judas "the Jew" and pinned the blame for Jesus's death on Jewish people for the rest of time (see Mel Gibson). However, I feel that, being an irrational hatred, anti-Semitismdoesn't need a "reason," and will quite easily dismiss the Gospel of Judas as unreliable, inauthentic, and irrelevant.

Not to be pedantic but that anti-Semitism didn't appear out of nowhere. Much of Luke, which is the heaviest handed of the Gospels regarding Judas and the Jews, is predominantly to blame. Gibson's Passion relied intensely on it.

Elaine Pagels, a theology professor at Princeton and a chief scholar on the Gnostic Gospels, put out a succinct book (The Origin of Satan) about the long history of Christians associating their enemies with Satan. In one particular chapter she tackles Luke's demonizing of the Jews, an anti-Semitic knack that differed from the other Gospels, and illustrates how Judas and the Jews are placed in league with the Devil.

Then, Luke says, as that fateful Passover drew near, "the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to put him [Jesus] to death." This was the opportunity for which Satan had been waiting: "Then Satan entered into Judas Iscariot," who immediately conferred with the chief priests and the Temple officers, to arrange their betrayal. But here, as in Mark, Jesus himself declares that neither Satan's role nor God's preordained plan absolves Judas's guilt: "The Son of man goes as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed" (22:22; cf. Mark 14:21)

John mentions armed Roman soldiers among the arresting party, but Luke mentions only Jews, and omits a saying common to Mark and Matthew, that "the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners (that is, Gentiles). Instead, when the armed party arrives at Gethsemane, Luke's Jesus turns directly to "the chief priests and temple officers and elders who had come out against him," and identifies them as Satan incarnate: "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs? When I was with you in the temple every day, you did not lay hands upon me. But this is your [plural] hour and the power of darkness" (22:52-53; emphasis added).

It's that clash between Luke and The Gospel of Judas that I find so fascinating.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
08:31 / 15.04.06
Pope resists attempts to rehabilitate Judas. Well, there's a surprise. The only way Benedict would support Judas is if evidence turned up that he was a paedophile.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
08:15 / 17.04.06
Well, at least John Paul II was a little more open minded on the subject. He wasn't sure if Judas was burning in Hell or not.
"Even when Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, 'It would be better for that man if he had never been born' (Mt 26:24), his words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation."
 
 
eye landed
09:31 / 21.04.06
maybe judas really did make a mistake, and that mistake was to take his divine delusions too seriously, over the rational human response of saying 'no'. the lesson is something along the lines of 'think for yourself' instead of doing everything jesus says.

im imagining a crew of robed hippies tripping in the desert on lsd when one says, 'dude, if you kill me i will come back to life'. maybe true, but its still a stupid idea. you cant reduce life to philosophy, no matter how powerful.

i can imagine the church disliking this line of thinking if they are trying to establish a top-down theocracy.
 
 
diz
20:52 / 22.04.06
I don't understand why anyone thinks this is or should be considered important as a historical document. It's from the 4th century. That's far enough away from the time that Jesus and Judas allegedly existed that it's useless for that purpose.

Possibly interesting from a theological perspective, but really has no bearing on what "really" happened or who Judas and Jesus "really" were, presuming, of course, that they really existed at all.
 
  
Add Your Reply