The Gospel of Judas Iscariot

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospeljudas.html

For over 2000 years, the name Judas has been synonymous with sin and betrayal. With the discovery of the so-called "Gospel of Judas," an entirely different picture has been painted of Jesus' most trusted confidant. What if, as the Gospel suggests, Judas did not betray Jesus? What if Jesus asked Judas to turn him over to the Romans? If you think about it from a political point of view, it does make sense. If the historical Jesus was, indeed, a freedom fighter, his martyrdom by Rome may have been a calculated political move to encourage the Jews to rise up against their oppressors. But nevermind all that for now. What about the impact this revelation has on Christians today? It questions one of the most widely accepted "facts" in the traditional Gospels and, for me at least, underscores the role of the early church (a role that continues to this day) in suppressing the truth, or the perceived truth, about Christ for political reasons. If we do accept the fact that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not privy to all Jesus' actions, motivations, and plans, then how can we take their testimony at face value? Did they lie to incriminate Judas? Did they lie to cover up the truth, to hide the purposeful martyrdom behind a holy veneer, to perpetuate Judas as the bad guy and Jesus as the Christ, suffering at the hands of ungrateful humans? Or did they simply hate Judas for his betrayal (as they perceived it), or for being Jesus' favourite? Did they do it to protect themselves from prosecution by angry Christ Worshippers? For me, this is only scratching the surface of what this Gospel means to Christianity. Is the Gospel true? I don't know. The relationship between Jesus and Judas has been recorded in many Christian writings, including the four Gospels, as being unusually close. If, as the GoJ suggests, Judas really was the only Apostle to truly understand Jesus, and if other early Christian writings support this theory, should we believe it? Even if it is true (which will be impossible to prove) the Church will not accept it as such, ever. But will it have an impact on traditional Christianity, or just be a blip that has no lasting impact? Personally, the whole thing absolutely blows my mind, but I can't imagine what (if any) lasting effects will come of it.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

What does it matter?

They're both dead and long gone. So Judas may or may not have been a horrible traitor to Jesus. Either way - so what? How does it affect anything today?

Maybe someone can clue me in to why this is so important to Christians.

If Christianity is wrong about Judas, then what else are they wrong about? It has been an accepted, undeniable, unquestionable FACT that Judas betrayed Jesus. So what if that fact was fiction? What else of the Christian faith has been misinterpreted or misrepresented by political forces? The Gospel of Judas was deliberately suppressed and destroyed by the early church. Why? Because Jesus having asked Judas to betray him threatens Jesus identity as an omniscient being. Ok, Jesus knew he was going to be crucified, say Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But does that remain such an amazing feat if you ASKED your friend to turn you in for the purpose of martyrdom? Is knowing that you're going to die because you planned your own death the same as knowing you were going to die because you have some great cosmic knowledge? No. Besides all that, Judas has been demonized and reviled for thousands of years. PArt of it may simply be about setting the record straight. I mean, a few years ago, the Vatican apologised for the Sack of Constantinople. The church is very much a historical entity and is responsible for shaping the world and human perception. They are accountable for the truths they fabricate.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by MetheGelfling

Jesus knew full well what he had to do, and he knew that Judas would be the one to set things in motion. In many ways, Judas is a metaphor for mankind, and I think it's been unfair for the church to demonize him in such a way. If it wasn't Judas, it would've been somebody. He was merely a pawn in a bigger plan.

This is true, but you have to look a little deeper. According to Christianity, God doesn't make men into robots. You always, always, always have a choice. So Judas *chose* to betray Jesus, he wasn't forced into it by some cosmic guiding hand. Judas was flawed, Judas was the betrayer of the Christ. And though Jesus had to die to fulfill his role as Christ, his betrayer still sold out the son of God, by choice.

Sassafrass...

The question of Judas' betrayal matters to Christians on a level of fundamental belief and truth. Christianity has been a political tool since its inception. This is still true today. Like it or not, Christianity has influenced almost every aspect of Western life, and has played a pivotal role in the course of history. The Vatican is and was a political machine, but it is not the only Christian organization that has been involved in politics. Beginning even before Constantine, and progressing right to the present, Christian beliefs have influenced culture and basic human understanding, and thus have influenced the world. North America is what it is today in large part because of the worldview of Christian followers. Religion, more than anything else, defines who people are as a group. It defines their way of life, their actions, their reality. To your average Christian, to the butts-in-pews, this might not make a fundamental difference right now. But to Christian theologians and philosophers, this might be a significant revelation, or may lead to a new perspective on the Bible and its meaning. If Judas is no longer the typical sinful human, if he is a loyal friend, what does this mean to the eternal forgiveness of sins via the passion? Judas is a metaphor for all the fundamentally flawed human beings that Christ had to save by dying. If Judas wasn't so flawed, if he was actually the most loyal of all the Apostles, what does this say about us? Jesus died because of Judas's sin, and FOR our sins. If one of those is wrong, is the other wrong too?

And I'm not giving the Vatican too much credit. They were an extremely wealthy, extremely important political contingent for centuries. This is not really debatable. It is true. No historian would argue with this. Please don't think I'm trying to be evangelical; I'm not. I'm an atheist as well, but I don't really care what people believe, either way. On a personal level, I find the whole thing extremely interesting, and I think it makes political sense for the church to have suppressed the GoJ at the time it disappeared. IMO, the most fascinating part of religion is how it effects the people who believe it, and the world they control. Oh, and while Dan Brown tells amusing stories (but is a terrible, terrible writer), I am able to draw the line between fact and fiction; something many Christians are having a hard time doing.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Honestly, I'm a little confused about what Dan Brown has to do with any of this. Is it all the Da Vinci fever? Any freshman Christianity course will give you an overview of the political machinations of Christianity from the very beginning. At one moment you're dismissing the idea that Christianity is a political tool, and the next minute you're waving it away like its an old truth. I never said that Christianity was good or evil, simply that it exists and has influence over both believers and non-believers.

Anyways, this isn't really about the church, or about Joe Christian. On a theological level, I'm curious as to whether this will make a difference to Christians. Please don't assume that I mean Catholics, or Protestants, or Baptists, etc. On a purely theological, philosophical level, will a Christian (any Christian) look at this and get something from it. Will they ask these questions, and if so, what will come from it? Christianity has as many different sets of beliefs as it has followers. I'm not saying this will change anything within the Vatican, but it may change God for an individual thinker. If this happens, what may result? Schism-esque instances happen frequently; I wonder if we could ever have a Christian sect dedicated to Judas, or living by his moral code as they perceive it. A group like the Franciscans or Dominicans, though clearly not living within the boundaries of institutional Christianity.

Quote:

I like how you're taking the Bible as some kind of fact. You realize it's been twisted a million times in order to control the populus in question, right?

Any real Christian would probably not define their personal value as a human being based off of what Judas may or may not have done to Jesus. Thats absolutely ridiculous.

I don't take the Bible as fact. No one looking at it from an academic perspective could reasonably do so. But if you are going to address issues in the Bible from the point of view OF A CHRISTIAN, you have to regard it as the truth. I can't make historical evaluations of the Bible and impose them on a Christian worldview. As for "real Christians," I don't really know what you mean. Most Christians are fairly ignorant about the fine details of their religion, from my experience. If you asked a Catholic, for instance, why wine and bread are called the body and blood of Christ during the Eucharist, most would probably tell you it was a metaphor. Again, I don't mean that your average Southern Baptist will come away from this new codex with an altered view of his faith. I'm just wondering if anyone, of any sect, will take the GoJ seriously, and what the consequences may be.

Quote:

You can not convince someone with faith in something that there IS fact and not. They think God is fact.

Much like yourself, they see fact in something that just isn't there.

What am I imagining to be factual?

How ya doing, buddy?

Perhaps I should have phrased that differently. "If you are going to address issues in the Bible from the point of view OF A CHRISTIAN, you have to regard these issues as relevant and important." I never meant to suggest that Christians cannot interpret the Bible differently, simply that these interpretations have to be regarded as genuine if you want to see the world through Christian eyes. Basically, you have to see the Bible as having some value, either factual or philosophical.

Quote:

But even if there's any shred of credibility to this discovery, it's foolishness to put the horse before the cart and claim that it serves to solidify centuries of suspected lies and cover-ups.

I'm not sure when I made these foolish claims. The Gospel of Judas was suppressed, sure, but it was more or less forgotten about after that happened. I never suggested that the Vatican, Canterbury, or anyone else has been sitting in a dark room, rubbing their hands together, trying to hide the Judas Gospel from the unknowing public. The church hides things, as does every other organization on the planet. Honestly, I don't care. Like I said before, I'm more interested in what impact this may or may not have on the theological public (however slim a population this may be). I also don't have a vendetta against Christianity, if this is what you are implying. I'm curious to know what would have made you think I did. o_o

Quote:

It's an interesting idea. It would be best to leave it at that.

Yes. And nothing ever comes of interesting ideas. I mean, like, the idea that salvation is by faith alone. Nothing happened there, it was just a neat little thought in a tower. Oh, wait...

I was speaking idiomatically.

I didn't allude to anything that hasn't been documented and known to historians for some time. The Judas Gospel was suppressed, but this wasn't uncommon in the upheaval of the early church. It's not something I would suggest Christians be ashamed over. Those were dangerous times, and it was important for Chrisitianity to retain a foothold. I don't think suppressing the Gospel was a bad thing, but it was politically motivated. The church did what it had to do to survive. No big deal.

Quote:

So what I meant, and should've clarified, is that right now, the Gospel of Judas is an idea. Like black holes. If and when we obtain better evidence to support its factuality, it's at that point that we should reexamine the implications that evidence brings. The same holds true for any part of the Bible, or any other religious text, for that matter. For lack of evidence, currently, speculation is all we have and it proves nothing.

Yes, the Gospel of Judas is an idea, but so are all the other Gospels. What you are failing to understand is that factuality doesn't have much to do with religious interpretation. All the unknowns that apply to the Gospel of Judas also apply to other Christian writings, including the entirety of the NT. This doesn't stop people from analyzing them and drawing religious meaning from them, nor should it. It's fine for you to say, from a view point that is outside Christianity (I assume), that no one should take these writings, or any religious writings seriously until we know for sure. But many religious people already *do* know with absolute certainty that they are right, that God exists, that their religious interpretation is correct. You have to add faith to the equation when you discuss these things. Science and scientific rationality do not always have a place here. I'm not sure how this all went astray, really. My initial interest was a faith-based one, not a scientific one. What does this discovery mean for the theological, faithful Christian? I didn't mean to imply that the Judas Gospel was historically or factually accurate, but rather that it exists and may influence matters of faith.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

FallDragon, I'm wondering if you read ANY other posts in this thread before hitting "Reply." I gots my doubts.

Most amazing jew boots