'Gospel of Judas' discovered

Am I correct in saying that while philosophers may appreciate mysticism, they still analyze it with an intellectual method? There are large parts of life that are ruined by over-thinking them (sex?)

I'm hard put though to think of an intellectual investigation that's harmed by over-thinking.

SoulD,

Thanks for the links. In the first I could find no allusion to Gnosticism or it Gnostic Gospels ever being accepted or even close. Maybe I missed something.

In the second, even Bruce Metzger, who is dating the 4 gospels later due to his refusal to believe that Jesus actually prophecied the destruction of the temple, does not rule out the possibilty of the 4 gospels being written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In fact the only real reason he gives for this is that the apostles were too old to write since he believes they had to be written after the destruction of the temple in 70AD.

Dr. Metzger is still in the minority, and for good reason. Here are some throrough discussions on the authorship of the gospels.

Matthew

Here is an excerpt:

Although there are some difficulties with Matthean authorship, none of them presents major obstacles, in spite of some scholars calling Matthean authorship "impossible." On the positive side, the universal external evidence which seems to lack motivation for the choice of Matthew (as opposed to any other apostle), coupled with the subtle internal evidence, makes the traditional view still the most plausible one.

Mark
Here is an excerpt:

As with Matthew's Gospel, no manuscripts which contain Mark affirm authorship by anyone other than Mark.1 As with Matthew, this is short of proof of Markan authorship, but the unbroken stream suggests recognition of Markan authorship as early as the first quarter of the second century.

Luke
Here is an excerpt:

As with the other gospels, no MSS which contain Luke affirm authorship by anyone other than Luke.1 Once again, as with the others, this is short of proof of Lukan authorship, but the unbroken stream suggests recognition of Lukan authorship as early as the first quarter of the second century.

John
Here is an exerpt:

In conclusion, although John's Gospel is, as one author put it, "a maverick gospel," the traditional view of Johannine authorship is still the most reasonable hypothesis. The four strongest reasons, it seems, are (1) the strong external evidence, (2) the most plausible identification of the beloved disciple (coupled with the absence of John's name in this gospel), (3) the authoritative independence from the synoptic tradition, and (4) the amazing pre-70 topographical accuracy. Perhaps the reasons for fighting so hard against authenticity have to do with the theological import that must be wrestled with if this gospel is indeed a historically reliable document.

This is for the most part the concensus among Biblical scholars.

Again let me reiterate my initial thought. The Gospel of Judas, like the other Gnostic Gospels is nothing new. It has never been accepted by scholars and the biggest reason it is getting press now is the upcoming movie The DaVinci Code. Dan Brown himself said the book is fiction and does not propose to give acurate historical evidence. The Gospel of Judas is not astonishing new revelation that turns the Bible on its ear as so promoted by the new special from National Geographic. The Gospel of Judas was discovered over 50 years ago in Egypt, and has been known about since it was mentioned in Against All Heresies in around 180AD.

I'm skimming, I'll admit.

But, I never understood this hatred of Judas. I mean, without him, would Christianity even have it's religion? So much of the religion is that he died on the cross for humanity's sins. Without that death, what would he have even been? I mean no insult or suggestion that he was not what many believe to have been, but I can't help but believe that things would have been quite different without the "betrayal."

Either way, the idea that Judas was recruited for this role definitely brings up an interesting question of Judas's character. Remain an elevated and esteemed character, or do your duty for the good of all, and be hated forever. Can't help but say that if this text is true, that it makes him one of the more intesting people in the Bible for me.

Demosthenes wrote:

Either way, the idea that Judas was recruited for this role definitely brings up an interesting question of Judas's character. Remain an elevated and esteemed character, or do your duty for the good of all, and be hated forever. Can't help but say that if this text is true, that it makes him one of the more intesting people in the Bible for me.

Yeh, and Abraham got pat on the head for similar stunt, so Judas is definititely being unjustly shunned.

Lobo, I think we should start our own thread on the topic. I'd love to hear how you feel in love with philosophy, and you might be interested with my path through that field. Robear suggested I start a topic on it, I think I'll do that sometime in the next couple of days. To be continued!

Robear wrote:

I am not familiar enough with the accounts to know if they were there from the start, or why some writings mention them and others don't. Any references that would be accessible to a layman would be appreciated.

The issue I highlighted is generally referred to as the synoptic problem. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke all describe the same events in Jesus' life and generally use the same wording. The difference between them can be small but profound.

One of the more important hyphothesis suggests that Matthew and Luke copied Mark and also another "lost gospel" which contained a collection of sayings of Jesus. This lost gospel is referred to as Q and might be seen in The Gospel of Thomas but is generally considered a different document. The author of this theory, Christian Hermann Weisse, seems like an interesting philosopher, and was also a theologian. I imagine everyone in this discussion would like him.

As for the description of miracles, I can't really say. Can you link that book? I'd like to read it. I would want multiple eyewitness accounts that correlate with each other, beyond what something like the Bible would offer. I've been around groups that claimed (innocently) that their leader made miracle healings, but they were always accounts of accounts of accounts. Miracles like in the book of Exodus describe events so long ago that the fog of time might have transformed some of the events into mythological terms, I don't know. No one knows, really. I don't buy arguments either way, usually.

While I might make a personal decision as to the validity of an account, I would never suggest to others that something was real without modern scientific proof (I've been thinking about our ghost conversations, can you tell?)

That said, I think the best example of a modern miracle, captured on video all across the world is the Milk Miracle. I don't think that mass hysteria is a satisfactory explanation, as I cannot think of another single example of mass hysteria that is contained in a single day and was reported by news sources like BBC, NY Times, and CNN as legitimate news.

Anyway, maybe this "miracle" might be a better place to start that discussion, as it has modern basis which we can examine. Maybe another thread, "Do you believe in miracles?"

Nomad, I am not ignoring what you said, it's just that you've sparked my interest in the whole subject and I'd like to research more, after some beer and sleep

Demos, you bring up an awesome viewpoint that I also want to address. Kind of "making lemonade out of lemons." I think its a sign of a mature mind to look at tragedy like that. For example, someone once told me, look at all the sympathy and support the jews received after the holocaust. It was a rally point for that group, something I think was wonderful, this fellow said to me, but I would still wish the holocaust didn't happen, fight to prevent it, etc.

As for Judas, there is the issue of his death, which I doubt is explained. Traitors just seem to have evil karma, I think. Also, if he died so soon after the betrayal, how could he dictate a gospel? What the Gospel of Judas suggests, though, an idea I think is profound, that Jesus accepted his worldly fate regardless of what it was. In that light, even the most evil thing is a tool for good. That is a common aspect of good religious leaders. The ones that don't tend to ask for luxury cars

Also, I believe that The Last Temptation of Christ told the story of the Gospel of Judas, that he was Jesus' closest friend and confidant, and Jesus begged him to help do God's will.

As for the description of miracles, I can't really say. Can you link that book? I'd like to read it.

No. That's the problem. (If you were referring to me.) I recall that it discussed the lack of contemporary accounts of Jesus, and the rise of the deification of Jesus (I'm being imprecise but you get the idea). I vaguely remember that the writer - a woman? - theorized that Jesus had been a relatively minor cult leader who was leveraged to much more important status as part of a power play between various Jewish Messianic cults. That accounted for the gap between his life and the building up of his "legend". (Again, don't take that word harshly.) I was hoping someone would point me in the right direction.

Wow, I've never heard of The Milk Miracle before. Incredible including the videos. That would be a great subject to discuss Soul.

Miracle, Alien needs or Milk company conspiracy!

The Gospel of Judas is not astonishing new revelation that turns the Bible on its ear as so promoted by the new special from National Geographic.

Yeah, they said as much near the end of the special. I guess they have to do something to get folks to watch.

The subjects of the early Christian Church and the formation of the Christian Bible are fascinating to me, though I'm sorry I don't have anything to add to the discussion except for a question. The failure of Gnosticism seems to be centered around 180 when Iraneus wrote his condemnation, but wasn't Arianism, which was still going strong in the time of Constantine, a Gnostic movement also? Just judging from early Byzantine history, it seems that splinter movements that were Gnostic in nature hounded Orthodox Christianity really until the rise of Islam. Would that be accurate?

Gnosticism has never left the picture. By definition is it the path to self enlightenment through the procurement of knowledge. Can you think of any schools of thought today who more or less follow that pattern? I can.

Self-redemption or Christ-redemption. This is the crux between every world religion and the Bible.

souldaddy wrote:
Mr P&C wrote:

In any event, I don't think it is contraversial at all to state that the bible was written by humans who, at times, had very clear agendas.

I hope you realize that this is true of all historians, each of whom have a different purpose and subjective point of view. The very idea of objectivity is different today than it was in ancient times. So this statement, while true, does not make any distinctions for religious writings.

Heh. "Mr. P&C".

I am fully aware that many historians have used the craft to portray the past in a way that supports their agenda (eg: Churchill stating that it is unfortunate that "history will be unkind to Chamberlain" because he will be the one to write the history), but I think it is a bit of an overstatement to say that this is true of all historians. Many historians are genuinely interested in preserving the memory of the past for future generations. They may have their own perspective, but there is a huge difference between, say, stating that we are at war with folks and have real geopolitical differences and God(s) told us to kill them because they are the product of incest and spiritual pollution.

The craft of studying history, therefore, demands that one examine sources for such motivations and search for evidence to corroborate and/or refute claims made in such tellings. To this, I don't doubt that there existed a man people would have called Yeshuach bin Yusef. We have meticulous Roman records that state he existed. We, however, don't have Roman accounts recording his crucifixion -- conspicuous considering how meticulous records of such things were kept. This, combined with the existance of gospels that tell different stories indicates to me that the picture of the bible as authoritative history is far less clear than believers would state. This, I believe in your case, is preaching to the converted.

A common adage in historiography is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 100 primary source historians can all write corroborating testimony that Hannibal destroyed Rome with a Nazi Zepplin, but unless we find evidence that the Carthaginians were capable of separating hydrogen in 220 BC, it is probably best to treat those stories as "highly allegorical". This is largely how we should treat things like people being transported to foreign lands in the bellies of giant fish, resurrection, and bread falling from heaven.

Gnosticism has never left the picture. By definition is it the path to self enlightenment through the procurement of knowledge. Can you think of any schools of thought today who more or less follow that pattern? I can.

Wrong, in implication anyway. The Gnosis, or knowing, refers to the knowledge of the *religious* mysteries of the world. Science, for example, is not Gnostic, because it does not pretend that knowledge of it leads to a Christian salvation. Nor would a Gnostic consider scientific knowledge sufficient for salvation. It would probably take it as a *celebration* of the gross matter of the world, rather than an addition to Gnostic mysteries.

The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word (gnosis "knowledge", gnostikos, "good at knowing"), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were "people who knew", and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know. A more complete and historical definition of Gnosticism would be:

A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and pantheistic-idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of Christianity, held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to the Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent Saviour.

However unsatisfactory this definition may be, the obscurity, multiplicity, and wild confusion of Gnostic systems will hardly allow of another. Many scholars, moreover, would hold that every attempt to give a generic description of Gnostic sects is labour lost.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/0659...

Note the reference to Christian salvation through "faith and works". Can you think of anyone who would disagree with that? I can.

karmajay wrote:

Wow, I've never heard of The Milk Miracle before. Incredible including the videos. That would be a great subject to discuss Soul.

Miracle, Alien needs or Milk company conspiracy! :)

Here ya go!

Wrong, in implication anyway. The Gnosis, or knowing, refers to the knowledge of the *religious* mysteries of the world. Science, for example, is not Gnostic, because it does not pretend that knowledge of it leads to a Christian salvation. Nor would a Gnostic consider scientific knowledge sufficient for salvation. It would probably take it as a *celebration* of the gross matter of the world, rather than an addition to Gnostic mysteries.

I think you missed my implication sir. Science is not evil. There are however still religions around that believe you can attain enlightenment through knowledge.

Note the reference to Christian salvation through "faith and works". Can you think of anyone who would disagree with that? I can.

I can too! Me.

The Bible clearly shows salvation is by GRACE through FAITH alone.

Eph. 2:8-9
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Isaiah 64:6
For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
And all of us wither like a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

Nomad wrote:

Gnosticism has never left the picture. By definition is it the path to self enlightenment through the procurement of knowledge. Can you think of any schools of thought today who more or less follow that pattern?

Ah, no, gnosticism made must stronger claims than mere quest for knowledge. Aside from what Robear said, the Gnostics were also infamous for their odd, almost polytheistic view of the world. They considered different aspects of godhood - divinity, perfection, etc. - as separate ontological entities, which made up God and were primary to God's existence. Then there's the question of Jesus, which was both man and God, both perfect and limited - the gnostics tried to solve it by mixing up the different aspects of godhood for the father and the son like colors from a palette - and it ended up a metaphysical mess.

Needless to say, the early church decided all of this was absurd, and anathematized anyone who came anywhere near gnosticism.

I think you missed my implication sir. Science is not evil. There are however still religions around that believe you can attain enlightenment through knowledge.

Sorry, it's hard to tell on the Internet. What religions did you have in mind, besides Scientology?

I can too! Me.

I know, do you think I'd not give you an opening like that? It's the only gentlemanly thing to do!

You know, I should look up "salvation" in that encyclopedia. Maybe the knowledge will sa...help me out.

Needless to say, the early church decided all of this was absurd, and anathematized anyone who came anywhere near gnosticism.

Nothing worse than trying to build a Church Universal and Triumphant with doctrines that say "everything you thought you knew was wrong!". It's like a big "Insert Schism Here" sign taped to the back of your leader's robe.

Nomad, I felt the articles you posted about authorship were rather liberal in the conclusions they came to. I only read the first one (those articles are huge!) but it only had 2 external sources. And for the Gospel of John, Wallace actually says that proper geography is a sure sign of authorship, which I thought was "cute."

Still, assuming that the gospels are historically accurate, plenty of people witnessed Jesus' miracles first hand and denied him. Faith always plays an important part. There is also something called an axiom, which are the assumptions in a logic or math proof, without which the proof is pretty much useless. The axiom of any religion is that it is true

I found this fascinating discussion of the philosophical contradictions of Judas on wikipedia:

Judas is also the subject of many philosophical writings, including The Problem of Natural Evil by Bertrand Russell and "Three Versions of Judas", a short story by Jorge Luis Borges. They both allege various problematic ideological contradictions with the discrepancy between Judas' actions and his eternal punishment.

* If Jesus foresees Judas' betrayal, then it may be argued that Judas has no free will, and cannot avoid betraying Jesus. If Judas cannot control his betrayal of Jesus, then he is not morally responsible for his actions. The question has been approached by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, which differentiates between foreknowledge and predestination, and argues that the omnipotence of the divine is not sufficient grounds for eliminating the existence of free will.
* If Judas is sent to Hell for his betrayal, and his betrayal was a necessary step in the humanity-saving death of Jesus Christ, then Judas is being punished for saving humanity. This goes hand-in-hand with the "free will" argument, and Aquinas's Summa deals with the issue of free will in demons and other beings instrumental in the life of Jesus that are nevertheless damned.
* If Jesus only suffered while dying on the cross, and then ascended into Heaven, while Judas must suffer for eternity in Hell, then Judas has suffered much more for the sins of humanity than Jesus, and his role in the Atonement is that much more significant. Standard Christian dogma holds that the suffering of Jesus was infinite, and that the suffering of Jesus was not time-dependent. This position holds throughout orthodox Catholicism and many forms of Protestantism. (As above: Judas did nothing for humanity, he was just an unimportant piece of the story of Jesus, who was punished in life for his betrayal as well as in death.)
* Does Jesus' plea, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do," (Luke 23:34) not apply to Judas? Is his atonement insufficient for Judas' sin(s)? [A condition of forgiveness is acceptance - thus, Judas' sins aren't forgiven.]
* It has been speculated that Judas's damnation, which seems to be possible from the Gospels' text, may not actually stem from his betrayal of Christ, but from the despair which caused him to subsequently commit suicide. This position is not without its problems, but it does avoid the paradox of Judas's predestined act setting in motion both the salvation of all mankind and his own damnation.

The entire premise of the validity of the authorship of John is not based solely on geography as you posted. You might want to read over it again, or at least even just the part I quoted.

Your Judas quandry, while interesting is at its core the question of free-will vs. predestination. I don't believe these 2 concepts are mutually exclusive. I believe that man has the abiblity to choose his own path, but that God sits outside of time. There is no "foreseeing" with God. It is not possible to look ahead to an event if you are not inside of time. In Exodus 3 God calls Himself I AM.

Exod 3:14
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
(KJV)

In John Jesus says:

John 8:58-59
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
(KJV)

I have no idea if Judas is in hell right now or not, if he is, it is not because he betrayed Christ. It would be for the same reason that everyone else is, the rejection of the free substitutionary payment for our sins through Christ crucified.

I believe that man has the abiblity to choose his own path, but that God sits outside of time.

Kind of like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, right?

I mean that with all seriousness. That was the first thing I thought of.

Heh, not exactly. If I remember correctly Bill Murray was stuck in the same day over and over. It's a bit hard to wrap one's mind around the absence of time.

Nomad wrote:

Heh, not exactly. If I remember correctly Bill Murray was stuck in the same day over and over. It's a bit hard to wrap one's mind around the absence of time.

Sir, may I please introduce my friend alcohol...

Groundhog's Day always struck me as more of a Buddhist allegory - rebirth through phases until you get it right. Carnal lusts -> helping others -> Nirvana.

DrunkenSleipnir wrote:

Groundhog's Day always struck me as more of a Buddhist allegory - rebirth through phases until you get it right. Carnal lusts -> helping others -> Nirvana.

reincarnation; exactly right, though.

So how do you feel about the trinity, Nomad. What's you're take on that?

Trinity is the name of my dog actually. She's half doberman half lab. I was going to name her Morpheus, but since she is a female Trinity fit better.

Why am I imagining a scene with Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit riding on horseback in a canyon, when God says, "Jesus? No, it's Jr. J-H-V-H Jr. We named the dog Jesus."

"I loved that dog"

"I like Jesus."

Sorry for arriving at the party late, but I was skimming and wanted to comment on souldaddy's last quoted theory about Judas.

"It has been speculated that Judas's damnation, which seems to be possible from the Gospels' text, may not actually stem from his betrayal of Christ, but from the despair which caused him to subsequently commit suicide. This position is not without its problems, but it does avoid the paradox of Judas's predestined act setting in motion both the salvation of all mankind and his own damnation."

This to me is actually how I think of it. Or at least, when struggling to think of why the gospels say Judas was damned. It seems to me that "losing hope" may be the worst (if sin exists on a scale) sin because to lose hope is to deny Christ's power over death and despair. Basically, to deny/ignore/forget about the death and resurrection of Jesus, the central event of Christianity. Easter is a happy day because it is filled with hope. Loss of hope leads to despair. Despair leads to suffering. Suffering leads to the Dark Side. [/Yoda]

However, in my most neo-liberal non-demoninational ecumenical hippie moments, I don't believe in a distinction between good or evil or that anyone goes to Hell, so... in that scenario Judas and Jesus are rockin' some Guitar Hero up in Heaven as we speak.

Nomad wrote:

Your Judas quandry, while interesting is at its core the question of free-will vs. predestination. I don't believe these 2 concepts are mutually exclusive. I believe that man has the abiblity to choose his own path, but that God sits outside of time. There is no "foreseeing" with God. It is not possible to look ahead to an event if you are not inside of time. In Exodus 3 God calls Himself I AM.

If GOD sits outside of time, why do people pray and furthermore why do some expect results?

Not mutually exclusive?
Are you saying we have the ability to choose to go forward (not right or left) on a path made straight by GOD? So we are allowed to choose within our own predetermined context? That does not seem like free-will to me, but more like an Infocom game that will damn you if you turn it off. Anywho, by that summation, Judas was predestined to commit his act and be damned by it. Seems that GOD chose Judas. So other than the direct Father/Son connection, what makes Judas any less savoir/saint/whathaveyou of humankind than Jesus (minus the suicide and eternal damnation). Of course this tangent could directly bleed into the notion that Jesus knew his path/fate beforehand and willingly chose death (ie self inflicted suicide) and was pardoned by GOD. Silly.

/end flithy skimmer

Nim, Nice avatar. People pray because the Bible tells us to pray. We expect results (within God's will) because the Bible tells us to. James 1:5 tells us to pray for wisdom and God will give it to us.

Are you saying we have the ability to choose to go forward (not right or left) on a path made straight by GOD?

No.

So we are allowed to choose within our own predetermined context? That does not seem like free-will to me, but more like an Infocom game that will damn you if you turn it off.

There is no such thing as the free-will you seem to be thinking of. Every choice we make comes from a pre-determined context. I cannot choose to become a lobster. If I am at Wendy's I cannot choose to order a BigMac from thier menu. Our lives are made up of choices, but those choices are not limitless. In the specific instance of Judas, I have no idea of his eternal wherabouts. If he truly believed Christ was God, and that His death atoned for his(Judas) sin's then he is in heaven. If not, than he is in hell, for no other reason that the rejection of Christ's substitutionary death.

Of course this tangent could directly bleed into the notion that Jesus knew his path/fate beforehand and willingly chose death (ie self inflicted suicide) and was pardoned by GOD. Silly.

First Christ did know about his death and spoke of it many times before he died.

Matt 12:40
40 for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
(NAS)

Matt 27:63-64
63 and said, "Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I {am to} rise again.'
64 "Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, lest the disciples come and steal Him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last deception will be worse than the first."
(NAS)

Mark 8:31
31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
(NAS)

Mark 9:31-32
31 For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, "The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later."
32 But they did not understand {this} statement, and they were afraid to ask Him.
(NAS)

Secondly, show me in the Bible where it says that you go straight to hell when you commit suicide. There have been many things over the years that have been falsly attributed to the Bible like teachings on suicide, sale of indulgences, prayer to Mary, and Purgatory, that are simply not in it. That said, Jesus did not commit suicide. He did not nail himself to the cross. He did however go willingly, in love for us. By your definition would you say that every soldier that willingly lays down his life for his country is suicidal?

Good questions though.