The So-Called ‘Gospel’ of Judas: Unmasking an Ancient Heresy

Breakpoint with Charles Colson ^ | 4/12/2006 | Charles Colson

[trisham]

Great post.

[dread78645]

You have a very poor grasp of church history, my friend. The Gnostics had pretty much vanished long before Constantine's reign.

Wow. Speaking of poor grasp ...

The sects of Valentinus and Basilides were extremely popular until the 4th century.
Marcionites plagued the Church well past the 5th century.
In the west, the Manichean school lasted into the 5th century (St. Augustine was a member for 10 years before he accepted the orthodoxy in 382). It was still active in Persia and Tibet until the 17th century.
A resurgence of Manicheanism spawned the Paulicians of Anatolia and the Cathars of France in the 9th century.

It was the suppression of the Cathars (Albigensian Crusade 1147-1229) that led to the creation of the Dominican Order. After the war the Inquisition was established to root out any remaining heretics. Which it infamously did until the last Cathar was executed in 1321.

The Apostle's Creed was the church creed written to ferret out Gnostics, and it was in use by the early 2nd Century.

Marcionites, and late 2nd Century (Confession of St. Irenaeus 180CE).

[dread78645]

I got into the history of the New Testament period as a committed Baptist in my 20s. Turns out the Bible didn't float down to earth from God's hand, and the history of Christianity isn't all that Christian.
So nowadays I label myself an agnostic.

For anybody that's interested: Early Christian Writings

Wasn't this also related to Arianism?

Yep. The Arian heresy was widespread among gnostic and the orthodox sects.
Arius held that the Father existed before the Son. Since he was 'begotten', he came after. Jesus was therfore the lesser deity.

[narses]

+

[Phsstpok]

Uh, dude, The Da Vinci Code is fiction.

Uh, dude, it's being sold as "historically accurate" fiction.  It's "fiction" with the same central theme as Islam, that Jesus is not the Son of God and did not die on the Cross.  It's "fiction" that is being used to promote supposed "history" like "The Gospel of Judas."

It's not just a book.  It's part of a movement bent on denying and desecrating all that Christ taught and his followers hold dear.  It has much the same moral standing as well as the same general intent as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Others may believe in God or Jesus, or not, as they choose, but no one can honestly fend off criticism of these works with the lame "it's fiction" cantrip.  And the fact that the NAZIs promoted the same beliefs and the Jihadists do so today as well is enough for me to suspect the whff of evil is associated with all who espouse these views and either evil or willing ignorance with those who even intellectually defend it.

And do not try to hide behind the "you said NAZI" crap.  Look up Theosophy, things like the "Ahnenerbe Forschungs und Lehrgemeinschaft" or people like Blavatsky or Otto Rahn, among tons of other references.  The concepts championed by Brown in DaVinci Code and the folks now pushing the Gospel of Judas are not historically, intellectually or morally neutral.  They are the stuff of racism, eugenics, murder and genocide.

[Luircin]

Put me on the list, would you please?

[horse_doc]

Not all Gnostics are the same. The first post referred to the original Gnostics that bedeviled the early church, and were pretty much dealt with long before Constantine.

Sure, you can find subgroups of Gnostics staggling on, right up to the present day. But they don't trace their lineage directly to the 1st Century Gnostics, any more than modern druids can trace their lineage back to the old druids. More to the point, they never posed a genuine theological threat to the church after the first century.

Otherwise, Nicea would have been about Gnosticism. And it wasn't - it was about Arianism. Did Constantine "slaughter Gnostics"? Nope.

[TheGunny]

2Tim 3:16-17

[TheGunny]

thank you, you beat me to it....talk about over reactions, 4Q needs to take his pills.

[BearArms]

They are unfamiliar with the work of the ancient canonical councils of the Church (which rejected the Gnostic “gospels” time and again)...

I wonder, who exactly gave these councils the authority to determine what was to be included or excluded from the biblical canon?

[VOA]

bump

[Sam the Sham]

Any talk about "special knowledge" turns religion into sorcery.

[eleni121]

Yeah we should believe these documents written 300 years after The Lord's resurrection in heresy-ridden Egypt but the gospels written by Judas' friends should be put aside.

Nikos Kazantzakis had lots to say about Judas and Mary Magdalene as well 50+ years before Mr and Mrs Brown plagiarized the concept...too bad Nikos has passed on and can't sue the plagiaristic pants off the Browns.

[GSlob]

Well, even the old heresies were once new and appeared the first time around. But to pull out a new heresy now is difficult. They could start a contest.

[Jaded]

There are Christians who believe DVC is fact. That is scary.

[Jaded]

I want THAT as a tagline! Pleeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaase?

[Monolight]

John was the last at ~90-120CE.

You do make some assumptions in your post - for example, you state that John's Gospel was the last at circa 90-120 A.D. Your data is based on critical research and it appears you are bringing your theology to your scholarship.

Biblical scholars do not all agree with that at all. Sure, the "Left Behind" series puts Revelation in a 90-95 A.D. timeframe of origin, but historically, the church has thought and taught otherwise.

For example, Hank Hanegraaff writes:

First, let me say this: it's instructive to note that the late dating for Revelation is largely dependant on a single -- and markedly ambiguous -- sentence in the writings of a church father named Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. That sentence can be taken to mean either that John or that John's apocalyptic vision was seen toward the end of Domitian's reign. Moreover, the credibility of Irenaeus as a source is called into question by his contention in the same volume that Jesus was crucified when he was about fifty years of age. I don't think there are too many evangelicals that hold to that proposition.

Furthermore, if the apostle John were indeed writing in AD 95, it seems incredible that he would make no mention whatsoever of the most apocalyptic event in Jewish history -- the demolition of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple at the hands of Titus. This would be tantamount to writing a history of New York City today and making no mention of the destruction of the World Trade Center at the hands of terrorists on September 11, 2001. More directly, imagine writing a thesis on the future of terrorism in America and failing to mention the Manhattan Massacre.

Here's another parallel. Imagine that you are reading a history concerning Jewish struggles in Nazi Germany and find no mention whatsoever of the Holocaust. Would it be historically ridiculous or historically reasonable to suppose this history had been written prior to the outbreak of World War II? The answer is self-evident. Just as it stretches credulity to suggest that a history on the Jews in Germany written in the aftermath of World War II would make no mention of the Holocaust, so too it is quite unlikely that Revelation could have been written twenty-five years after the destruction of Jerusalem and yet make no mention of the most apocalyptic event in Jewish history.

Finally, those who hold that the book of Revelation was written in AD 95 face an even more formidable obstacle! Consider one of the most amazing prophecies in all of Scripture. Jesus was leaving the Temple one day when his disciples called his attention to its buildings. As they gazed upon its massive stones and magnificent structures, Jesus uttered the unthinkable: "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down....This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." Less than forty years later, this prophecy, no doubt still emblazoned upon the tablet of their collective consciousness, became a vivid and horrifying reality. Josephus describes the utter devastation as the altar was surrounded by "corpuses, blood flowing down the steps of the sanctuary." He says "The temple was in flames, the victors stole everything they could get their hands on. They slaughtered all who were caught, no pity shown for age or rank, old or young, children, men, women, the laity, the priests, they're all massacred." And he also notes that the Temple was doomed August 30 AD 70, "the very day on which the former temple had been destroyed by the king of Babylon."

I'm not trying to "attack you" in this post but just want to defend my Christian faith as I feel it has been misrepresented by someone who doesn't even espouse the faith any longer! Anyway, thanks for the intriguing dialogue.

[Tokra]

Where in the Bible is there the instruction for a canonical council to determine what should be in the Bible?

Do you think the Bible just dropped out of the sky one day - fully written, edited and translated?

Of course different PEOPLE wrote it, other PEOPLE edited it, decided what should stay and what should go and other PEOPLE translated it from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greeek to Latin to English.

Where in the Bible is there the instruction for all that?

[Phsstpok]

great research and post.  Do you have any links for this info or is it only available in dead tree form?

I checked out your about page. what's a "huband?" <grinning, ducking and running away>

[dread78645]

> John was the last at ~90-120CE.

You do make some assumptions in your post - for example, you state that John's Gospel was the last at circa 90-120 A.D. Your data is based on critical research and it appears you are bringing your theology to your scholarship.

Biblical scholars do not all agree with that at all. Sure, the "Left Behind" series puts Revelation in a 90-95 A.D. timeframe of origin, but historically, the church has thought and taught otherwise.
...

First, let me say this: it's instructive to note that the late dating for Revelation is largely dependant on a single
...
Finally, those who hold that the book of Revelation was written in AD 95 face an even more formidable obstacle! ...

Uhh ... I said the Gospels, the 'Gospel according to John', -- Not the 'The Apocalypse of John' (Revelation).

But since you mentioned it, from Revelations:
' 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. '
- and -
17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

The 'seven mountains' are clearly a reference to to Rome. The 'seven kings' are the Roman emperors. Nero Claudius Drusus or Nero was the fifth emperor; and according to text, he has already fallen.
In 69CE the Roman empire was in a state of civil war (the 'Year of Four Emperors') concerning the Julius-Claudian secession. Eventually, Caesar Vespasianus Augustus (Vespasian) was recalled from Judea where he commanded the Roman forces suppressing the Jewish revolt of 66. His son Titus continued the campaign in Judea. So Vespasian was the 6th emperor since Julius Ceasar.
He was succeeded by his eldest son Titus (of sack of Jerusalem fame) in 79. Titus the seventh emperor.
When Titus died (probably by poison), he was succeeded by his younger brother, Titus Flavius Domitianus (or Domitian) in 81CE -- making Domitian the tyrannical eighth emperor.

Vespasian is generally seen as a reformer, removing corrupt officials and promoting the able functionaries -- and notably for repealing Nero's laws concerning treason. It was those laws that affected nascent Christians the most by requiring a sacrifice offering the Emperor-God as a test of loyalty. Disloyalty in Roman times was a very bad thing.

So whether you accept that 'John of Patmos' was the same individual as Apostle John or not. The Book of Revelations is clearly after Nero (the fallen fifth king), after Vespasian (a good guy for repealing the sacrifice laws). And Titus, his son is unremarkable, besides he reigned for less than two years (the seventh king of the short space). So we're at Domitian at 81CE as the terminus a quo. Significatly, Domitian revived the treason laws to use against perceived enemies. And that included 'disloyal' Christians.

St. Jerome and Eusebius put the exile of John during the reign of Domitian.
Polycarp -- bishop of Smyrna, (one of the churches addressed in Revelations), specifically places the exile of 'John of Patmos' in the 14th year of Domitian's reign (as retold by Irenaeus). Clement of Alexandria reports John returned from exile to Ephesus after the death of Domitian.

So the the text itself says it was Domitian (the eighth emperor); the church fathers says it was Domitian.
What's to argue? It was during the reign of Domitian 81-95CE.

And if you take the text seriously, 'was in the isle that is called Patmos', it was after Domitian was assassinated in 96CE.

Okay back on topic: 'Gospel of John'

Consider one of the most amazing prophecies in all of Scripture. Jesus was leaving the Temple one day when his disciples called his attention to its buildings. As they gazed upon its massive stones and magnificent structures, Jesus uttered the unthinkable: "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down....

Except it wasn't prophecy. The 'Christ as the symbolic Temple' theme (and the interpolation in the 'Parable of the Wedding Feast') was developed after the sack of Jerusalem.
'John' in the 'Gospel of John' seems unaware of the existence of the Sadducees. He seems to think the Pharisees are the priestly authority in the (7:45-53; 9:13-38). Which was true after the destruction of the temple, but certainly not in the time of Jesus.
'John' is under the impression that Jesus and his followers we're not permitted in the synagogues (Jn 9:22, 12:42, 16:2), but the expulsions of Christians didn't occur until the Council of Jamnia in 90CE.
John mentions the 'Kingdom of God' just twice. Certainly an odd thing for a Jewish fisherman from Galilean Jew. While not conclusive, it indicates that the fervor of the parousia was waning as the apostles die or killed.

The Gospel was late in coming to be widely known because it originated in the Gnostic community. Naassene Fragment quoted by Hippolytus (Refutation ~120-140), and Valentinian texts comment on it (Clement of Alexandria's c. 140-160). The oldest known fragment of the New Testament, (the John Rylands fragment c. 120-130) was the Gospel of John from Gnostic sources.

I'm not trying to "attack you" in this post but just want to defend my Christian faith as I feel it has been misrepresented by someone who doesn't even espouse the faith any longer!

Not to worry. I don't sense that you're attacking at all.
I just share what I've learned.
I don't intend any attack on Christians or Christianity. I hope you don't feel you need to defend yourself.