Gospel of Judas

[wolfgang336]

The Gospels of Judas! Somebody had to start a thread on it eventually...

Very interesting from what I've read of them. Anybody know where I can find the complete texts?

Evan

[Steve Minnoch]

Someone already beat you to it!

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=26346.0

Steve

[wolfgang336]

ooops! My bad..

Evan

[Robert_Brenchley]

The text hasn't been published yet unfortunately. It was written too late to tell us anything about historical events, but what it does say is that there was a tradition out there that Judas wasn't the traitor he's been made out to be. There's long been a scholarly suspicion that the betrayal wasn't historical.

[Mervin Zroback]

Here is a link to the partial English translation and original Coptic if you're interested:

http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/document.html

[Robert_Brenchley]

It's a classic Gnostic document, with the developed mythology of others of the same genre. I'm wondering whether its making the persecuted, and in this version stoned, Judas the hero could reflect problems between the group that produced it and 'orthodox' Christianity which identified with the Twelve, and of course rejected Judas.

[slokind]

Yes, the only thing that's new here is funding from National Geographic, responsive to current interest in literal readings and in textual authority for points of view.  The high middle ages were alert to the temptation of what they called Curiosity (not to be confused with serious inquiry) as a spriitual sin.  No, I'm not going to continue talking about sin!!!!  Pat L.

[basemetal]

Interesting angle on the "thirty pieces of silver".  I think the gospel (Judas) says "Some money".

[Rhetor]

There's an intriguing medieval apology for Judas in ballad form, alleging that he sold Christ for 30 pieces of silver because Judas' sister stole the same amount from him which had been entrusted to him by Jesus for food.  Of course, I think this has less to do with preserving Gnostic teachings about Judas and more to do with medieval misogyny (as Jimmy Buffet reminds us, there's always a woman to blame....)

The short ballad is Child #23: http://www.peterrobins.co.uk/ballads/ballad.php?23

[Robert_Brenchley]

Judas says 'some money' or whatever similar saying was in the original behind the Coptic, assuming that it wasn't written in Coptic that is. That's often a problem; you're dealing with a translation of a translation, so you can't quite get at what the guy actually wrote. Mark has 'argyrion' (silver), Luke has the same, and Matthew alters it to 'triakonta argyria'. John doesn't have it. So 'thirty pieces' is simply Matthew's editing, referring to Zechariah 11:12. Matthew is a Jewish writer who never misses an opportunity to refer back to the Hebrew scriptures, and here takes an opportunity to compare the Temple leadership with the false shepherds of Zech. 11.

The writer of Judas may not necessarily have known Matthew, and if he did, he clearly chose not to follow his reading.

[basemetal]

Shame.  I've had an otherwise logical steely-eyed coin dealer say to others while I was in his presence, this is the "Tribute Penny" and recite the scriptures to the would-be buyer about "rendering-ect" all the while implying that his inflated price for a Tiberius silver coins was justified.  Well, market demand rules all, I guess.  Personal opinion is that possibly the widow's mite is only biblically justified coin for price.

[basemetal]

Also in terms of the Gospel of Judas I sense from the program that there is the possibility of awakening people to the fact that there was also a gospel of Peter (pretty heavy credentials there), a gospel of Mary (Magdelene) and others that have already been discovered.  I think the idealistic idea (sorry for the awkwardness of that) is that once the other gospels are proven it will make a difference somehow in the modern perception of the scriptures.
It won't.  Judas will reman Judas, a perjorative in the modern world especially when used as a noun.
Mary Magdelene will remain a reformed hooker who saw the light.
Peter's gospel will remain in the shadows, because he (or the writer) made the mistake of unknowingly getting into a controversy that hundreds of thousands died about (was Jesus mortal, god, or both)
It is similar to what I've posted elsewhere.  I feel intuitively certain that roman empire ships were blown offcourse and reached the Americas in ancient times.  It made no difference historically.  History is written as if they never did.  Same for other than the four accepted gospels.

[basemetal]

Lol...by the way Rhetor...in the gospel according to Jimmy (of which I'm a devout believer) he ends up acknowledging it's his own damn fault.

[Robert_Brenchley]

Also in terms of the Gospel of Judas I sense from the program that there is the possibility of awakening people to the fact that there was also a gospel of Peter (pretty heavy credentials there), a gospel of Mary (Magdelene) and others that have already been discovered.  I think the idealistic idea (sorry for the awkwardness of that) is that once the other gospels are proven it will make a difference somehow in the modern perception of the scriptures.
It won't.  Judas will reman Judas, a perjorative in the modern world especially when used as a noun.
Mary Magdelene will remain a reformed hooker who saw the light.
Peter's gospel will remain in the shadows, because he (or the writer) made the mistake of unknowingly getting into a controversy that hundreds of thousands died about (was Jesus mortal, god, or both)

You're right, it won't make any difference at all except to scholars. It's important to me, since it sheds a bit more light on trends in the early church, but that's about all. Occasionally it's possible to use the apocryphal Gospels to shed a bit of light on trends which can be seen to be present in the canonical text, but cases like that are the exception rather than the rule.

[Numerianus]

Robert, I have a feeling from your threads  that you have a great respect to the canonical  text and
is very suspicious to the non canonical.  In other words your are not  ready to accept any new fact or interpretations.   
In fact, the selection was done 3 cnturies after the events and was influences by political and spiritial environment of the epoch
and could be quite biased. 

[slokind]

Even unbelievers who are interested in the history of early Christianity and its texts are convinced of the marginal value of these non-canonical texts.  The reasons for accepting the canonical ones (and not all of them equally) are serious and not so much biased as conditioned by profound knowledge and lifetimes of close study.  None of them comes straight from the mind of deity, for sure; they all are the texts of a human church in formation.  Some of the non-canonical ones, however, are utterly flaky, interesting as they are, and here and there, as Robert says, informative (almost in spite of their evident main purpose).  That is my considered opinion, but it is authoritative only for me.  As an Anglican, no one ever asked me to be sure, but certainly to do my own study seriously before making judgments.  Pat L.

[basemetal]

Also, the accepted gospels have the broadest appeal.  Think of it as hiring an ad agency. 
"We've got all the gospels that cover the gamut of interpertation of the life and intent and authenticity of Jesus.  Which ones will appeal to all and offend the least?
Judas apparently to the outside eye betrayed Jesus.  Saying after the fact that it was all part of a grand plan still doesn't eliminate a basic human cultural bias against betrayal.  Though it's been done since the beginning of human thought, most people (even betrayers) will at least give lip service to the idea that it is morally wrong. 
At the time of the writing of all the gospels, Christianity was still a very new concept and in the running along with a lot of other religions.  Having as part of the belief system a gospel  that in essence said:
"And then there was Judas.  He pointed out Christ to the Roman soldiers but-hey that was part of the plan you see, because Jesus said it was ok beforehand.
Much of the emotional thrust of the whole story is it's drama. The basic human instinct is to wish that Jesus was "rescued" somehow.
Different groups have been persecuted for having a hand in the "killing" of Jesus for millinia (sp?).
Alaric (maybe) has an aphocryphical story attached to him that has him saying after first hearing the story of the cruciifixon of Jesus:
"If only I had been there at the head of my valiant Goths!"
The Judas Gospel would have been very bad press for the budding religion.

[Robert_Brenchley]

Robert, I have a feeling from your threads  that you have a great respect to the canonical  text and
is very suspicious to the non canonical.  In other words your are not  ready to accept any new fact or interpretations.   
In fact, the selection was done 3 cnturies after the events and was influences by political and spiritial environment of the epoch
and could be quite biased. 

Actually I'm equally suspicious of the canonical texts! I studied New Testament years ago under a notorious unbeliever (who proved to be the most religious atheist I ever met!) and I've used his rigorous approach to the text ever since, or tried to anyway. As I say, GosJ fits neatly into the style of mainstream Gnosticism, and there's quite a bit known about that already. So it won't make any big difference. If only someone would find a complete copy of the Gospel of the Ebionites or something similar, then I'd get excited!

Most of the existing New Testament canon was actually pretty much settled by the end of the Second Century, with a few things like the status or Revelation not being tidied up for some time. They never did get general agreement on the Old Testament; it's often forgotten, but different churches have significantly different Old Testaments to this day.

[Ecgþeow]

it's often forgotten, but different churches have significantly different Old Testaments to this day.

How is that possible, when, as far as I know, the Hebrew Bible (Christian "Old Testement") is set in stone for Judaism, which predates Christianity?  What are the disputed books that different churches claim are or are not part of the Hebrew Bible?

[Robert_Brenchley]

I knew I'd start something there! In New Testament times, what Christians call the Old Testament existed certainly in two languages, Greek and Hebrew, and possibly a third, Aramaic. The known Aramaic texts (known as Targums) are all later but it would be foolish to rule it out in the 1st Century. There was no canon - no official list of sacred texts - but there does seems to have been a large measure of agreement over most of the books. The Greek and Hebrew versions of books were often significantly different; the Septuagint, as it's called, wasn't a translation so much as an independent textual tradition which was in use in the Diaspora.

The Jews decided on their canon in the same period as the church picked out the NT canon, but the Septuagint contained a good deal of material which doesn't exist in Hebrew; either it was written in Greek, or the Hebrew version was left out of the canon and eventually lost. Since the church was largely Greek-speaking, they used the Septuagint, as the Orthodox churches do to this day. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church adds 1 Enoch, which is quoted in the NT, but nobody else includes it.

Around the 3rd Century, possibly due to Christian use of the Septuagint, the Jews decided to use the Hebrew canon rather than the Greek. The church in the Eastern Empire, which was obviously Greek-speaking, carried on using in, while in the West, Jerome translated the Hebrew, and produced the first Latin Bible. That left the books which are left out in the Hebrew in limbo as far as the Western Church was concerned. Known as the Apocrypha, they stayed in limbo till the Reformation.

The Reformers decided they weren't canonical, on the dubious grounds that Jesus never quoted them. So the Council of Trent, inevitably, decided to include it in the Catholic Bible. So a Protestant Old Testament is strictly limited to the Hebrew books, and is shorter than anyone else's. The Catholic version adds some books and parts of books taken from he Greek, while still using the Hebrew elsewhere. The Orthodox Churches use the Greek version throughout, and the Ethiopian Orthodox add 1 Enoch. When people start talking about 'the Bible' the first question should be, 'Whose Bible?'

[Cleisthenes]

. . .in the West, Jerome translated the Hebrew, and produced the first Latin Bible. That left the books which are left out in the Hebrew in limbo as far as the Western Church was concerned. Known as the Apocrypha, they stayed in limbo till the Reformation. . .

So a Protestant Old Testament is strictly limited to the Hebrew books, and is shorter than anyone else's. The Catholic version adds some books and parts of books taken from he Greek, while still using the Hebrew elsewhere.

(The emboldened text is my doing.)

Hmm . . . if I may, as a kind of codicil, I would appeal to the 1997 Oxford University Press' publication of The Bible, Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. 

"The editors of this World's Classics version have chosen for their text the 1611, King James translation--also more familiarly called 'the Authorized Version'--not because of any presumed impartiality, but because historically it has had greater influence on the development of the cultures and literatures of the English-speaking world than any other translation of the Bible" (Prickett, Stephen, ed. "Introduction,"The Bible, Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1997. v)

"In the sixteenth century parts of the Apocrypha offended Reformers by appearing to support medieval Catholic practices, and though Protestants continued to accept the Apocryphal books as valuable, they were denied canonical status.  Calvinist, puritan, and Presbyterian Bibles excluded the Apocrypha altogether, while Lutheran churches, like the Roman Catholics, kept it.  In the Authorized Version (King James) they (the Apocrypha) were included as a separate section rather than integrated with the canonical books. 

"In the 1820s, at a time when Protestant ideology seemed threatened by Catholic emancipation, in what became known as 'the Apocrypha affair', the British and Foreign Bible Society came under pressure to drop the Apocrypha, (Protestants subtract texts from a 200+ year old Protestant Tradition) and the printing and distribution of Bibles without it became a common practice.  The inclusion of the Apocrypha in this edition of the Authorized Version represents fidelity to the original 1611 edition" (Carroll, Robert, ed. "Notes," The Bible, Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1997. 386).

"Just as the Bible has appropriated the concept of a book, so, for the English-speaking world, the Authorized Version has appropriated the notion of the Bible.  All other versions still exist, as it were, in its shadow.  It has shaped, formed, and moulded the language with which the others must speak" ("Introduction,"The Bible, Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1997. xxix).

In fact, the so called deutero-canonical (Apocrypha) books from the Vulgate (think Catholic version of The Bible) enjoy a long and important history as part of the most influential Protestant Bible (the most influential version of The Bible in English, period!): The Authorized King James Version.

One of the many ironies in omitting the deutero-canonical books from the Torah is the expulsion of both books (some Eastern churches have four books attributed to the Maccabees) of the Maccabees: the poignant portrayal of "the Maccabean resistance to the Hellenistic king's imposition of alien ideology" (King James/World Classics, 386) and how the Maccabees re-establish independence in the land of Israel.  Within this tale there exists the origin of Chanukah (1 Maccabees) and the traditional lighting of the Chanukah menorah. 

In the late fourth century, Saint Augustine of Hippo held this notion concerning the Apocrypha, " . . . they must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).  This is, of course, almost 1200 years before the Reformation.

[Ecgþeow]

The Jews decided on their canon in the same period as the church picked out the NT canon,

But there seems to be a great deal of solidity by the time of the Talmud, which is the time of the organization of the Christian canon.  The Talmud goes through and interprets the Bible, and uses exact phrasing, extrapolating meaning from exact wording, suggesting that there was an official version from at least the time preceding the Temple's destruction.  The courts in ancient Israel were all based off of this judicial/biblical tradition.

[Robert_Brenchley]

But how can the Talmud, which is Third Century and later, possibly give relaible information about what was in use in the First? the place to look is the Dead Sea Scrolls. There's a great range of Biblical documents there, and they're more or less in line with later texts, though some are more akin to the Hebrew and some to the Septuagint. The question was, exactly which books to include, and in what version? There was no question about the Torah and the Prophets, but the Sadducees supposedly didn't recognise the Writings, and Greek speakers in the Diaspora tended to use the Septuagint. Courts used the Torah, but probably interpreted it differently depending on who exactly made up the court. The Pharisees and their followers used the oral law, while the Sadducees rejected it, and even among the Pharisees, Shammaites and Hillelites had different ideas on, for instance, divorce.

[Ecgþeow]

I see, that makes sense.  I can see how the Writings would be less solidified, I just couldn't see how the first two parts could be fluid at such a late date.

[Robert_Brenchley]

Going from memory, I think there was some fluidity around the edges. The Septuagint of the Prophets, particularly Jeremiah, is significantly different from the Hebrew, and there are differences between the Hebrew and Septuagint Torah, though I'm not sure how significant they are. The Samaritan Torah is slightly different again. But the books we have are essentially the ones they had.

[Ecgþeow]

[Robert_Brenchley]