(Christian History) Judas Iscariot: Misunderstood for 2 Millennia?

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
April 6, 2006
'Gospel of Judas' Surfaces After 1,700 Years
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD and LAURIE GOODSTEIN

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.

Terry Garcia, an executive vice president of the geographic society, said the manuscript, or codex, is considered by scholars and scientists to be the most significant ancient, nonbiblical text to be found in the past 60 years.

"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 account goes on to relate that Jesus refers to the other disciples, telling Judas "you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." By that, scholars familiar with Gnostic thinking said, Jesus meant that by helping him get rid of his physical flesh, Judas will act to liberate the true spiritual self or divine being within Jesus.

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."

The Gospel of Judas is only one of many texts discovered in the last 65 years, including the gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene and Philip, believed to be written by Gnostics.

The Gnostics' beliefs were often viewed by bishops and early church leaders as unorthodox, and they were frequently denounced as heretics. The discoveries of Gnostic texts have shaken up Biblical scholarship by revealing the diversity of beliefs and practices among early followers of Jesus.

As the findings have trickled down to churches and universities, they have produced a new generation of Christians who now regard the Bible not as the literal word of God, but as a product of historical and political forces that determined which texts should be included in the canon, and which edited out.

For that reason, the discoveries have proved deeply troubling for many believers. The Gospel of Judas portrays Judas Iscariot not as a betrayer of Jesus, but as his most favored disciple and willing collaborator.

Scholars say that they have long been on the lookout for the Gospel of Judas because of a reference to what was probably an early version of it in a text called Against Heresies, written by Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, about the year 180.

Irenaeus was a hunter of heretics, and no friend of the Gnostics. He wrote, "They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas."

Karen L. King, a professor of the history of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School, and an expert in Gnosticism who has not yet read the manuscript released today, said that the Gospel of Judas may well reflect the kinds of debates that arose in the second and third century among Christians.

"You can see how early Christians could say, if Jesus's death was all part of God's plan, then Judas's betrayal was part of God's plan," said Ms. King, the author of several books on the Gospel of Mary. "So what does that make Judas? Is he the betrayer, or the facilitator of salvation, the guy who makes the crucifixion possible?"

At least one scholar said the new manuscript does not contain anything dramatic that would change or undermine traditional understanding of the Bible. James M. Robinson, a retired professor of Coptic studies at Claremont Graduate University, was the general editor of the English edition of the Nag Hammadi library, a collection of Gnostic documents discovered in Egypt in 1945.

"Correctly understood, there's nothing undermining about the Gospel of Judas," Mr. Robinson said in a telephone interview. He said that the New Testament gospels of John and Mark both contain passages that suggest that Jesus not only picked Judas to betray him, but actually encouraged Judas to hand him over to those he knew would crucify him.

Mr. Robinson's book, "The Secrets of Judas: The Story of the Misunderstood Disciple and his Lost Gospel" (Harper San Francisco, April 2006), predicts the contents of the Gospel of Judas based on his knowledge of Gnostic and Coptic texts, even though he was not part of the team of researchers working on the document.

The Egyptian copy of the gospel was written on 13 sheets of papyrus, both front and back, and found in a multitude of brittle fragments.

Rudolphe Kasser, a Swiss scholar of Coptic studies, directed the team that reconstructed and translated the script. The effort, organized by the National Geographic, was supported by Maecenas Foundation for Ancient Art, in Basel, Switzerland, and the Waitt Institute for Historical Discovery, an American nonprofit organization for the application of technology in historical and scientific projects.

The entire 66-page codex also contains a text titled James (also known as First Apocalypse of James), a letter by Peter and a text of what scholars are provisionally calling Book of Allogenes.

Discovered in the 1970's in a cavern near El Minya, Egypt, the document circulated for years among antiquities dealers in Egypt, then Europe and finally in the United States. It moldered in a safe-deposit box at a bank in Hicksville, N. Y., for 16 years before being bought in 2000 by a Zurich dealer, Frieda Nussberger-Tchacos. The manuscript was given the name Codex Tchacos.

When attempts to resell the codex failed, Ms. Nussberger-Tchacos turned it over to the Maecenas Foundation for conservation and translation.

Mr. Robinson said that an Egyptian antiquities dealer offered to sell him the document in 1983 for $3 million, but that he could not raise the money. He criticized the scholars now associated with the project, some of whom are his former students, because he said they violated an agreement made years ago by Coptic scholars that new discoveries should be made accessible to all qualified scholars.

The manuscript will ultimately be returned to Egypt, where it was discovered, and housed in the Coptic Museum in Cairo.

Ted Waitt, the founder and former chief executive of Gateway, said that his foundation, the Waitt Institute for Historical Discovery, gave the National Geographic Society a grant of more than $1 million to restore and preserve the manuscript and make it available to the public.

" I didn't know a whole lot until I got into this about the early days of Christianity. It was just extremely fascinating to me," Mr. Waitt said in a telephone interview. He said he had no motivation other than being fascinated by the finding. He said that after the document was carbon dated and the ink tested, procedures his foundation paid for, he had no question about its authenticity. "You can potentially question the translation and the interpretation, he said, but you can't fake something like this. It would be impossible."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/s...&en=d58e9f87384d906d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Something not entirely unplausible in the slightest. Considering the reputation he has ("the betrayer"), his purpose in turning Jesus in is totally functional. Imagine if he hadn't!
 
It's a trap!
admiral_ackbar.jpg


...just like evolution and the heliocentric system...
 
Judas being a collaborator with Christ doesn't surprise me at all. Try reading the Bible from Genesis to Revalations. Christ was intentionally creating situations to purposely fullfil prophecies in the Old Testament. The Bible clearly spelled out that they weren't accidents. This is just the latest "proof" that Christ was intent on fulfilling yet another prophecy, and needed help from a friend to do it.
 
If he hadn't?

Jesus would have a popular talkshow on foxnews, I mean, given the history of the Catholic church, who would be more fair and balanced?
 
Very good read! I kinda always thought this myself, I mean, if Jesus was enlightened enough to forsee his demise, why wouldnt he just not pick Judas, knowing he would betray him in the end?

Great leaders are only as great as their followers, and Jesus, picked his collection of fishermen knowing they would follow him, no matter the circumstances.

Though I dont believe that his suicide was part of the plan.

[quote name='Snake2715']Mike I thought you were an atheist?[/quote]

Does it matter?
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']

Does it matter?[/QUOTE]

Not in the least.

When I read this:
Imagine if he hadn't!

It just kind f shocked me. Then i though I would ask in case I was mixing Myke up with someone else.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']Mike I thought you were an atheist?[/QUOTE]

Yes and no. Atheism means "without religion," and is often mistakenly used to mean a disbelief in any supernatural/metaphysical existence. The latter, I am not. I was raised Catholic, though I don't claim to be that (though I have my continual ties to them, like a ridiculous affinity towards Mary).

OTOH, I don't consider myself Catholic. I don't agree with the coverups done over decades to hide abuse, and I don't agree with their approach to fixing the problems (by blurring the lines between their belief that homosexuality is chosen rather than innate, by thinking they can reduce abuse by not recruiting homosexuals - a superficial, irresponsible, and ultimately meaningless fix based on anything other than reality). I also don't care for the inherent patriarchy of Catholicism, though few Christian faiths are egalitarian in terms of gender.

I like to think, and I love to argue; outside of religious scholars (Jesuits and the Christian Brotherhood, for example), few like to debate religion, instead believing in the 100% certainty of their view of faith.

****THE SHORT ANSWER****: To paraphrase Bill Hicks, I'd be a Catholic if I wasn't afraid of turning into a fuckin' Christian.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yes and no. Atheism means "without religion," and is often mistakenly used to mean a disbelief in any supernatural/metaphysical existence. The latter, I am not. I was raised Catholic, though I don't claim to be that (though I have my continual ties to them, like a ridiculous affinity towards Mary).

OTOH, I don't consider myself Catholic. I don't agree with the coverups done over decades to hide abuse, and I don't agree with their approach to fixing the problems (by blurring the lines between their belief that homosexuality is chosen rather than innate, by thinking they can reduce abuse by not recruiting homosexuals - a superficial, irresponsible, and ultimately meaningless fix based on anything other than reality). I also don't care for the inherent patriarchy of Catholicism, though few Christian faiths are egalitarian in terms of gender.

I like to think, and I love to argue; outside of religious scholars (Jesuits and the Christian Brotherhood, for example), few like to debate religion, instead believing in the 100% certainty of their view of faith.

****THE SHORT ANSWER****: To paraphrase Bill Hicks, I'd be a Catholic if I wasn't afraid of turning into a fuckin' Christian.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the information. Seriously.
 
Hasn't this been a debated view for a while? That Judas was simply doing what jesus wanted? I know it's a view I heard a while ago.


Yes and no. Atheism means "without religion," and is often mistakenly used to mean a disbelief in any supernatural/metaphysical existence. The latter, I am not. I was raised Catholic, though I don't claim to be that (though I have my continual ties to them, like a ridiculous affinity towards Mary).

Why would you describe yourself as atheist instead of agnostic?
 
One can be "atheist" and thus not subscribe to any religious doctrine, yet hold religious beliefs (say, for instance, that Jesus is the manifestation of the messiah foretold in the old testament, or if you want something more general, that people are reincarnated on this planet). True "agnosticism," I believe, involves a complete abandonment of any metaphysical belief; this would be those people who are true empiricists, where if they can't taste it, see it, touch it, hear it, or feel it, they don't believe it. I have some beliefs, but religious organizations can take a hike as far as I'm concerned. Thus, athiest, and not agnostic.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']One can be "atheist" and thus not subscribe to any religious doctrine, yet hold religious beliefs (say, for instance, that Jesus is the manifestation of the messiah foretold in the old testament, or if you want something more general, that people are reincarnated on this planet). True "agnosticism," I believe, involves a complete abandonment of any metaphysical belief; this would be those people who are true empiricists, where if they can't taste it, see it, touch it, hear it, or feel it, they don't believe it. I have some beliefs, but religious organizations can take a hike as far as I'm concerned. Thus, athiest, and not agnostic.[/quote]

Agnosticism is saying there is no certainty, atheism is a complete absence of belief in god. I guess you could debate the extent of the definition, whether what's deemed "supernatural" is really outside the natural world (or just believed to be), or whether that is close enough to "god" to count as a "god" in concept. I would argue that an atheist should have a total absence of belief in the supernatural. But, having some beliefs or strong uncertainty would definately fit agnosticism.

But atheism is, in many ways, a strong form of agnostic. Agnostics may think there's some type of force or power, but not necessarily god. They could say that there's no way to be certain and they don't have an opinion on way or the other.

An atheist would say either they don't believe in god either because they are certain there's no god, or they don't believe in god because there's no evidence to substantiate such a claim. I think the latter is more common in adults than the former.

Belief in jesus as the messiah, in any form I can think of anyway, would be unlikely to fit atheism. If you believe there is actually a god, be it one from organized religion or not, then you wouldn't be an atheist. If you are pretty sure that there is no god(s), godlike beings etc. then you wouldn't be an agnostic.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']It's called spin. Watch for Judas on the ballot in '08. ;)[/quote]

:rofl:

Best post to ever come from the VS forum.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Types_and_typologies_of_atheism

Loathe though I may be to cite Wikipedia...[/quote]

I was unaware of the first definition being used as a form of atheism, though for agnosticism:

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth or falsity of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God or gods—is unknown, unknowable, or incoherent. Some agnostics infer from this that these claims are irrelevant to the meaning of life.
Concerning the etymology of the term, the Oxford English Dictionary notes an account from an 1881 letter by R.H. Hutton, which states that the term agnostic was first suggested by Thomas Henry Huxley at a party for the now defunct Metaphysical Society held at Mr. James Knowles's house on Clapham Common, one evening in 1869. He coined the term in reference to the Biblical account by St. Paul (Acts 17:16-34) concerning the story about the altar dedicated to "the unknown god." The word agnostic comes from the Greek a (without) and gnosis (knowledge).
The term agnostic is also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion. Agnosticism, focusing on what can be known, is an epistemological position (dealing with the nature and limits of human knowledge); while atheism and theism are ontological positions (a branch of metaphysics that deals with what types of entities exist). Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism.
Agnosticism is distinct from strong atheism (also called positive atheism or dogmatic atheism), which denies the existence of any deities. However, the more general variety of atheism, weak atheism (also called negative atheism, and sometimes neutral atheism), professes only a lack of belief in a god or gods, which is not equivalent to but is compatible with agnosticism. Critical atheism admits that a god or gods are meaningful concepts but the evidence for them is not in hand, so a default position of not believing in them must be taken in the interim.
Agnostics may claim that it isn't possible to have absolute or certain spiritual knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no such knowledge. In both cases, agnosticism involves some form of skepticism towards religious statements. This is different from the simple irreligion of those who give no thought to the subject.

Both of us made an error or two.

It seems that some use atheism in a much broader sense than I thought, and that atheism can sometimes be weaker than agnosticism.
 
its funny how the church and there followers are never wrong and neither is the bible..regaurdless of what proof we find of who wrote it or if it has any meaning at all.
I dont think a clear thinking person could ignore fact why not walk out infront of a moving car maybe it will go right through u maybe all that proof that the car is solid and will crush u is a hoax.

I can hear the church counting there money as we speak.
anyone for laced kool aid?
 
[quote name='Skelah']its funny how the church and there followers are never wrong and neither is the bible..regaurdless of what proof we find of who wrote it or if it has any meaning at all.
I dont think a clear thinking person could ignore fact why not walk out infront of a moving car maybe it will go right through u maybe all that proof that the car is solid and will crush u is a hoax.

I can hear the church counting there money as we speak.
anyone for laced kool aid?[/QUOTE]

Time to brush up on the reading comprehension and writing skills there, holmes.
 
One thing I wonder about is if the article means anything; the gnostic gospels aren't given much, if any, credence by mainstream Christian denominations. So, what's one more. even if it proffers a somewhat controversial stance?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Time to brush up on the reading comprehension and writing skills there, holmes.[/quote]

Always picking the low hanging fruit. Probably a good idea seeing as how you are roundly trounced in any conversation with scientists and serious philosophers.
 
I dont know as much about various religions as I would like to... How do we know that what has been found is not an interpretation or even heresay from back then?

Just becuase its one supposedly proven (age dated) document doesnt mean thats actually what happened. Or is it just comforting to some, in knowing that a dated document supports a rmore ecent theory?
 
[quote name='Snake2715']
Just becuase its one supposedly proven (age dated) document doesnt mean thats actually what happened. Or is it just comforting to some, in knowing that a dated document supports a rmore ecent theory?[/quote]

Other texts included in the bible suffer from the same criticism. Biblical documents aren't first hand accounts either. When the bible was put together it was with a specific point of view in mind. Many books were included and excluded based on the message they contained. It was not put together until late in the 4th century.

The Gospel of Thomas is one of the most interesting one. It doesn't tell a story, but is simply sayings. Some think it may be the earliest gospel, written only about 10 years after jesus's death, while others think it may be from the 2nd century. One of the most interesting sections of that gospel is this:

Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.
For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone.

Whether he said that or not, it isn't exactly wrong.
 
bread's done
Back
Top