The Gospel of Judas [Archive]

dcfcsteve

10/04/2006, 12:59 AM

Anyone else see that show on National Geographic tonight about the Gospel of Judas ??

Seriously interesting stuff. I didn't realise that there'd been loads of gospels written - possibly up to 30 - and that the reason why only 4 survived into modern times is because the early church had a cull of them.

Great show. Mad to think that the gospel sat rotting in a safety deposit box in New York for 16 years as well. I wonder how much of it got destroyed as a result of that ? :mad:

Block G Raptor

10/04/2006, 9:35 AM

Bought the novel a few months back but cant get into it. its really really slow to get starterd the first 100 pages are all about some priest who's in love with a high society french woman. have'nt even got to the part about the actual gospels yet. must try again see if i cant get into it this time

dcfcsteve

10/04/2006, 10:22 AM

The show didn't mention anything about a priest and a French dolly bird - unless we're talking about 1500 years ago in Lyon !

The programme was 2hrs long and a little slow as well. They spent far too long setting the scene about how it got discovered. Interesting - but bottom line is you want to know what's in the gospel. Still worth watching though - I'm sure it'll make it onto terrestrial TV (CH4 or BBC2 or TV3) at some point.

Ash

10/04/2006, 10:55 AM

Yep, saw it last night. It was on striaght after a Da Vinci Code programme.
Very interesting programme, especially the part about picking 4 gospels
just to give Christians being executed a concise set of beliefs to warrent
sacraficing themselves for.

The piecing together the papyrus looked cool, if it was me I'd probably
sneeze at the last minute and send all the fragments flying :eek:

pineapple stu

10/04/2006, 12:48 PM

Seriously interesting stuff. I didn't realise that there'd been loads of gospels written - possibly up to 30 - and that the reason why only 4 survived into modern times is because the early church had a cull of them.
There's a book called "Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code" I think (Bart Ehrman is the author) which looks at that. I'm curious as to how this Gospel is called the Gospel of Judas though. The gospels were all anonymous and not written by the apostles (such as Matthew or John). They were written about 50-100 years after Jesus' death as well. So it sounds unlikely the Gospel of Judas would have been written by Judas. The idea of Judas actually bringing completion to Jesus' task on earth is a very interesting one. The story in the gospel seems to imply that Judas' turning Jesus is was central to him getting "convicted" and crucified. And by extension from that, had Judas not done that, we wouldn't have been saved, etc. In which case, Judas actually wasn't as bad as he was made out to be...

I assume this'll be covered in an upcoming issue of National Geographic magazine as well?

drinkfeckarse

10/04/2006, 12:56 PM

Looked forward to it all week but fell asleep 15 minutes into it due to the pints I'd consumed in the pub beforehand. Woke up on the couch an hour later slightly confused so I went to bed.....:o

Ash

10/04/2006, 1:04 PM

I'm curious as to how this Gospel is called the Gospel of Judas though. The gospels were all anonymous and not written by the apostles (such as Matthew or John). They were written about 50-100 years after Jesus' death as well. So it sounds unlikely the Gospel of Judas would have been written by Judas.

I think they said the "Gospel of Judas" was more than likely written by the
Gnostics as they believed the body was like a cage for the soul and therefore,
according to their beliefs, Jesus asked Judas to betray him so as his body would
be killed in order to free his soul.

micls

10/04/2006, 1:21 PM

John83

10/04/2006, 2:11 PM

I'm curious as to how this Gospel is called the Gospel of Judas though. The gospels were all anonymous and not written by the apostles (such as Matthew or John). They were written about 50-100 years after Jesus' death as well.
Not all. The four recognised (for lack of a better word) gospels were written between 70 and 100AD. They weren't anonymous, but the Matthew and John involved aren't the same ones as the apostles. I didn't think anyone claimed that they were.

Matthew, for instance, is thought to have been the leader of a small group of breakaway Jews around 70AD. He based his gospel on that of Mark, who wrote the first one.

I assume this'll be covered in an upcoming issue of National Geographic magazine as well?
Dunno, but the book is here (http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/jump.jsp?itemID=3051&itemType=PRODUCT&path=1%2C2%2C105%2C114%2C214%2C330).

Block G Raptor

10/04/2006, 2:25 PM

Link to the novel here

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316973742/002-7741379-7791247?v=glance&n=283155

dcfcsteve

10/04/2006, 3:29 PM

There's a book called "Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code" I think (Bart Ehrman is the author) which looks at that. I'm curious as to how this Gospel is called the Gospel of Judas though. The gospels were all anonymous and not written by the apostles (such as Matthew or John). They were written about 50-100 years after Jesus' death as well. So it sounds unlikely the Gospel of Judas would have been written by Judas. The idea of Judas actually bringing completion to Jesus' task on earth is a very interesting one. The story in the gospel seems to imply that Judas' turning Jesus is was central to him getting "convicted" and crucified. And by extension from that, had Judas not done that, we wouldn't have been saved, etc. In which case, Judas actually wasn't as bad as he was made out to be...

I assume this'll be covered in an upcoming issue of National Geographic magazine as well?

None of the gospels were written at the time - they were just passed down verbally to people originally. Apparently it was only when the Christian faith underwent dramatic growth in the 300 years after Jesus's death that they staretd to write them down. Up until that point Christianity had been just an obscure Jewish sect.

There were significant time gaps between when the 4 gospels that we are familiar with today were written. None were written as 'The Gospel according to XX' - they were orignally nameless, and those titles were put on them much later. The first to be written (Matthew or Mark) has a much more lenient and less central role for Judas than the latter ones. The last written is the most anti-Judas - mentioning him dying a grizzly death in 'the Field of Blood'.

The story is that, after the uprising of Judea when the Jews rebelled against the pagan Roman rule, the new Christian sect sought to distance itself from the rest of Judaism to avoid blame/persecution. They made Judas an ostensibly Jewish character (even though they all were in the bible), and painted him in a negative light. This representation has exacerbated over time, and 'popular' Christianity still holds the Jews responsible for Jesus's death (even though he himself was a Jew and he died at Roman hands).

Bald Student

10/04/2006, 3:38 PM

Speranza

10/04/2006, 3:48 PM

I was wondering when I would be able to use my A Level R.E again. :) All the Gospels were subject to editing to bring them in line with early church thinking. Each author spun the facts in a particular way depending on their own opinions and values.

If you look at Luke's gospel in particular he tends to focus on certain subjects - oppressed, women, ill. This can be explained by his background in Antioch in Syria where values were different to those in the Holyland.

Church goers just accept the gospels at face value but there are fascinating stories behind every one.

dcfcsteve

10/04/2006, 3:55 PM

I was wondering when I would be able to use my A Level R.E again. :)

That wasn't gleaned at the hands of Marty McIlveen at the college by any chance...?

REVIP

10/04/2006, 3:56 PM

None of the gospels were written at the time - they were just passed down verbally to people originally. Apparently it was only when the Christian faith underwent dramatic growth in the 300 years after Jesus's death that they staretd to write them down. Up until that point Christianity had been just an obscure Jewish sect.

Mark was the first written about CE 65, John was the last about CE 90

There were significant time gaps between when the 4 gospels that we are familiar with today were written. None were written as 'The Gospel according to XX' - they were orignally nameless, and those titles were put on them much later.

Luke is very definite about his authorship. He wrote the Gospel and Acts for a specific person.

The first to be written (Matthew or Mark) has a much more lenient and less central role for Judas than the latter ones. The last written is the most anti-Judas - mentioning him dying a grizzly death in 'the Field of Blood'.

Matthew is very strongly against Judas, having the account of hi suicided in Chapter 27. Luke has the gory details in Acts Chapter 1, not in the Gospel.

The story is that, after the uprising of Judea when the Jews rebelled against the pagan Roman rule, the new Christian sect sought to distance itself from the rest of Judaism to avoid blame/persecution. They made Judas an ostensibly Jewish character (even though they all were in the bible), and painted him in a negative light. This representation has exacerbated over time, and 'popular' Christianity still holds the Jews responsible for Jesus's death (even though he himself was a Jew and he died at Roman hands).

After the Jewish rebellion in CE 70, worship was based in the synagogues and the rabbis introduced the Prayer of Minim, a prayer which cursed Jesus. The Christians found themselves put out of the synagogues and found themselves facing persecution - which sadly led to the sectarianism you find in the book of Revelation.

Speranza

10/04/2006, 4:46 PM

That wasn't gleaned at the hands of Marty McIlveen at the college by any chance...?

Naw Steve, Martin is my next door neighbour but I went to Derry's* new premier school Lumen Christi ;). Marty (Dick Dastardly) is a sound man!

*and in the UK top 3. Can't help but spoof since all my mates went to the College.

Plastic Paddy

14/04/2006, 7:41 AM

I went to Derry's* new premier school Lumen Christi ;).

*and in the UK top 3. Can't help but spoof since all my mates went to the College.

I never thought that a man of Doire would boast about any form of pre-eminence in the United Kingdom, whatever the field! :eek:

:ball: PP

dcfcsteve

14/04/2006, 10:45 AM

I never thought that a man of Doire would boast about any form of pre-eminence in the United Kingdom, whatever the field! :eek:

:ball: PP

To be fair - you can only quote a measure if the measurement is taken.

Quoting our standing in Norn Iron alone would hardly be a great accolade. If it was ranked on an all-island or a pan-Europen basis, and the result was good, I'm sure he would quote it.

Anyways - you have to work this whole UK thing when it suits yee...... :D

Vitruvian Man

14/04/2006, 11:35 AM

Among Bible scholars there is a generally held theory that there was an original gospel which acted as source material for the others and this was written in or around the time of Jesus death by a person who knew him personally. It is designated the "Q" Gospel and is purported to be a collection of Jesus parables and sayings - the wisdom of Jesus so to speak. No copies of this Q gospel are known so it still stays in the realm of theory.

There is also debate on whether there is another lost gospel called "P" which is a history of Jesus life or whether the Gospel of Mark (the oldest of the synoptic gospels) fills that function.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_gospel

It's worth bearing two points in mind.

Hundreds of gospels were probably written by all of the different sects down through the years until Roman Christianity and Talmudic Judaism slowly gained their respective monopolies over the period 200 - 600AD. These are not attempts at historical documents but are trying to set down the belief system of the writer to act as a frame of reference for other worshipers. They are full of poetic license, prejudice, fiction and fact. From time to time some of these gospels are discovered, the two most famous ancient document finds were at Nag Hammandi in Egypt - the Gnostic Gospels, and at Qumran - The Dead Sea scrolls. Every time there is a new find we are told it will explode Christianity as we know it - but nothing ever seems to change.

The second point is that the church has never denied that there are many gospels - in fact they are still considered holy books and you can probably get a copy of most of them off your parish priest if you ask. They are called the Apocryphal Gospels. Different traditions Protestantism/Catholicism etc differ on what they consider part of the canon - official religion and what they consider apocryphal - interesting, definitely holy, but not of core importance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocryp...anonical_Books

As you get into religious history you begin to notice more and more that religions develop over time and are heavily influenced by the culture in which they operate. They are not faxed down directly from God's Press-Release office. The big religions have had explosive revelations and violent (literally) debates for centuries , millennia even, a few newspaper sensations are no big deal.

jebus

15/04/2006, 11:31 AM

Church goers just accept the gospels at face value but there are fascinating stories behind every one.

Thats the type of thing that bothers me about books like the Da Vinci Code, the Gospel of Judas and generally peoples perceptions of Christians today. Although before I go into this I'd like to say thgat this isn't intended to be a pop at Speranza, this is just venting my own frustrations at certain peoples attitudes to Christians in the modern day.

Seriously though, the amount of times I've been called ignorant, brain washed, naive, stupid etc. when it comes out I'm a Christian is beyond laughable at this stage. Never do I push, or impose, my beliefs on ANYONE, and yet a decent perchantage of people I meet feel its perfectly aceptable to push their non-beliefs on me. I mean if it was a constructed argument I wouldn't mind so much, it would still get annoying, but at least it would be a discussion. But no, I'm subjected to insults and Dan Brown 'facts' at every turn. I even had one girl say to me, "its so stupid to believe everything they tell you in that book (the Bible), I've just read the Da Vinci Code and what really happened was......" I mean how do you argue you with that?? And would the same people put up with me if I started attacking them over what they read/believe and started ranting about what John 3:16 has to say? I doubt it somewhat.

But getting back to the Speranza quote. The problem I have with that, is that it generalises all Christians into people who believe everything they are told. I don't believe everything in the Bible, in fact I think most of it (the Old Testament especially) are just fables that you have to read through to get to the inner message. I don't think Jesus fed 5,000 people on 5 loves of bread and two fish, nor do I know any Christian or church goer that does, but I do think that his words gave comfort and hope, he fed their souls so to speak (thats corny I know :o )

As far as the Gospel of Judas goes, well I haven't read it, but I've read the Guardian article about it, and from what I can tell it sounds an interesting read. That said, if it is 'proven' that Judas was acting under Jesus' wishes I don't think its anything major, sure at the last supper he basically spelt out what was in store, and he knew that Judas was going to betray him so in that way Judas was working within Jesus' wishes.

Speranza

15/04/2006, 1:57 PM

Jebus, sorry if my post came across as arrogantly suggesting that Christians believe everything the church/scriptures say. I was more trying to say that people just aren't aware of the fascinating editing that occured. The process is called "biblical criticism" and shows the links between the 4 main gospels and their influences.

Anto McC

15/04/2006, 8:04 PM

Thats the type of thing that bothers me about books like the Da Vinci Code, the Gospel of Judas and generally peoples perceptions of Christians today. Although before I go into this I'd like to say thgat this isn't intended to be a pop at Speranza, this is just venting my own frustrations at certain peoples attitudes to Christians in the modern day.

Seriously though, the amount of times I've been called ignorant, brain washed, naive, stupid etc. when it comes out I'm a Christian is beyond laughable at this stage. Never do I push, or impose, my beliefs on ANYONE, and yet a decent perchantage of people I meet feel its perfectly aceptable to push their non-beliefs on me. I mean if it was a constructed argument I wouldn't mind so much, it would still get annoying, but at least it would be a discussion. But no, I'm subjected to insults and Dan Brown 'facts' at every turn. I even had one girl say to me, "its so stupid to believe everything they tell you in that book (the Bible), I've just read the Da Vinci Code and what really happened was......" I mean how do you argue you with that?? And would the same people put up with me if I started attacking them over what they read/believe and started ranting about what John 3:16 has to say? I doubt it somewhat.

Thank you,you managed to sum up exactly how i feel much better than i could have!

John83

18/04/2006, 11:15 AM

...Seriously though, the amount of times I've been called ignorant, brain washed, naive, stupid etc. when it comes out I'm a Christian is beyond laughable at this stage.

...But no, I'm subjected to insults and Dan Brown 'facts' at every turn. I even had one girl say to me, "its so stupid to believe everything they tell you in that book (the Bible), I've just read the Da Vinci Code and what really happened was......" I mean how do you argue you with that??
You call her ignorant, naive and stupid for treating a work of fiction as a factual source.

Roverstillidie

18/04/2006, 6:47 PM

You call her ignorant, naive and stupid for treating a work of fiction as a factual source.

come on john, some of the bible happened im sure

John83

19/04/2006, 11:36 AM

come on john, some of the bible happened im sure
:D Sure, but it's supposed to be true. The Da Vinci code doesn't even claim that.

Dassa

19/04/2006, 3:22 PM

Have to ask yourself,who took it upon themselves to include or exclude books from the bible.

Lionel Ritchie

19/04/2006, 3:52 PM

Have to ask yourself,who took it upon themselves to include or exclude books from the bible.

...and why? ...and for who's benefit?

Dassa

19/04/2006, 5:19 PM

OK then I have to ask myself for my own benefit.

John83

21/04/2006, 7:57 PM

Have to ask yourself,who took it upon themselves to include or exclude books from the bible.
...and why? ...and for who's benefit?
The Roman emperor Constantine is supposed to have had a hand in it. He chose to go down a different path to his predecessors, who had pilloried the Christians, and converted to Christianity himself. He gave some story of having seen three crosses (I think) over Rome as he rode home from war, but it's generally thought that it was mostly oppertunism on his behalf that caused him to convert.

Anyway, he wanted a unified church - much easier to deal with. The details are a little hazy - it's a while since I read about this stuff, but I think taxation came into it. The church at that time was pretty divided - plenty of squabbling. There wasn't a canon as such. Constantine pushed for a single canonical scripture, a unified church (look up the council of Nicea if you want to see more of what he did) and he got it (tax breaks are kind of interesting to most people).

The books chosen were picked to get a reasonably consistant gospel. The rejected gospels were considered spurious, uncanonical or even heritical in some cases.

For more info, I'd suggest starting with a Google search like this one (http://www.google.ie/search?q=canon+New+Testament+gospel+Constantine&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official). Be careful though, most of the stuff you'll find has a slant on it.

Dassa

21/04/2006, 8:09 PM

For more info, I'd suggest starting with a Google search like this one (http://www.google.ie/search?q=canon+New+Testament+gospel+Constantine&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official). Be careful though, most of the stuff you'll find has a slant on it.

Cheers, lets face it everything is told for a reason with a slant of some sort in it.

Ash

26/04/2006, 3:13 PM

I assume this'll be covered in an upcoming issue of
National Geographic magazine as well?

This months issue just arrived in the post today and that
was the cover story. Didnt get a chance to read it yet.