Posted on 12/19/2005 7:19:55 AM PST by laney
The heresy-fighting bishop Irenaeus of Lyon, France, mentioned the Gospel of Judas about 180 AD, linking the writing to a Gnostic sect. Some two centuries later, Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, criticized the Gospel of Judas for treating the betrayer of Jesus as commendable, one who "performed a good work for our salvation."
Until recent years, no copy of the text was generally known to exist. It was not among, for instance, the 46 different apocryphal texts of the Nag Hammadi Library discovered 60 years ago this month in Egypt. Other fragmentary texts, such as the Gospel of Mary, were discovered well before that.
But in 2004, Rodolphe Kasser of the University of Geneva announced in Paris that by the end of 2005 he would be publishing translations of the Coptic-language version of the Gospel of Judas. As it turned out, the owner was a Swiss foundation, and the torn and tattered papyrus text had been hawked to potential buyers in North America and Europe for decades after it was found at Muhazafat Al Minya in Middle Egypt.
The "Judas" saga was confirmed in detail last month at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Philadelphia. Retired Claremont Graduate University professor James Robinson, general editor of the English edition of the Nag Hammadi Library, said he was first contacted in 1983 about negotiations to buy certain texts, including the Gospel of Judas. Many years later, he saw blurry photographs of part of the text.
Robinson said that early in November he learned that Kasser and several European, Canadian and U.S. scholars had signed agreements with the National Geographic Society to assist with a documentary film and a National Geographic article for an Easter 2006 release and a succession of three books.
Robinson was critical of the secrecy and inaccessibility surrounding the document—a recurring academic problem that delayed for decades the publishing of translations of some Dead Sea Scrolls and many Nag Hammadi codices. In his talk, Robinson called the practice "skullduggery"—with a glance at fellow panelist Marvin Meyer of Chapman University, a longtime colleague in the field and one of the contracted authors.
Meyer refused to describe the text's content, but he essentially confirmed the basic publishing arrangements to Robinson and to the Century at the Philadelphia meeting.
In amended remarks to his speech, Robinson said Meyer told him that he was sworn to secrecy—not by the document's owner but by the National Geographic Society, a procedure Meyer said was justified by the organization's large financial investment.
A spokeswoman for the National Geographic headquarters in Washington declined to comment. But Meyer said in a brief interview, "It will all be out for everyone to see by the spring." He added without elaboration, "It will be good. It will be good."
Hardly anything is known about the document's contents "other than a few personages" it names, said Robinson, identifying them as the mythological figure Allogenes (literally, "the stranger") known from some Nag Hammadi texts, and Satan, Jesus and Judas.
Another scholar, Charles Hedrick, who recently retired from Missouri State University, saw photographs of six damaged pages from the gospel in 2001. Hedrick agreed with Robinson that the original Gospel of Judas was probably written in Greek in the second century AD. Scholars also agree that the scribal hand used in the Coptic translation would date that text to the fourth or fifth century.
"I don't think it will unsettle the church," Hedrick said in an interview. "I mean we are not talking history here. We know very little about Judas from the New Testament, and some people have even challenged whether Judas was a historical person."
The Coptic texts, owned by the Maecenas Foundation, consist of 62 pages and also contain "The First Apocalypse of James" and "The Letter of Peter to Philip"—two texts also found at Nag Hammadi. How many of the 62 pages contain the Gospel of Judas has not been disclosed.
Hedrick said the last six pages of the Judas document describe a heavenly scene in which Allogenes is being tested and tried by Satan, followed by an earthly scene in which Jesus is being watched closely by scribes. At one point Judas is told, "Although you are evil at this place, you are a disciple of Jesus." The last line of the text says, according to Hedrick: "And he [Judas] took money and delivered him [Jesus] over."
So, Hedrick said, "it appears that Judas is working at the behest of God when he betrays Jesus as part of the divine plan." When translations of the Gospel of Judas are released with accompanying analyses, Hedrick expects that "there will be a lot of sensationalism, but it will dribble out, leaving only the scholars interested."
Yet, in academic and religious circles, the text may stir excitement for years, according to a scholar from the University of Ottawa. "It is a major discovery not only for Coptic, Gnostic or apocryphal studies, but also for ancient Judaism and early Christianity," said Pierluigi Piovanelli in an e-mail to colleagues in 2004 when the first plans to publish were announced.
Some scholarly discussions will focus on whether the document was produced by a branch of the Sethian Gnostics called Cainites by church leaders. The Cainites were said to have glorified Cain and other disgraced figures in the Bible because, according to Gnostic viewpoints, they were doing God's work.
Church discussions conceivably could revolve around the extent to which New Testament Gospels present events in Jesus' life and passion as ordained from the start. Judas Iscariot, depicted minimally by the Gospel of Mark, receives elaboration in Matthew, Luke and John. The latter Gospel says Satan entered Judas at the Last Supper just before Jesus told the disciple, "Do quickly what you are going to do."
For Robinson, the significance of the Gospel of Judas has to do not with first-century history but with second-century mythology. Still, he offered these half-serious reflections in his closing remarks last month: "Where would Christianity be, if there had been no Judas, and Jesus—instead of dying for our sins on the cross—had died of old age?" he asked. "So: Thank God for Judas? Even the most broadminded among us would call that heresy!"
Some of you would find this interesting.
Sorry for the "misuse" of ping list file. ;)
The point is not that we can't use logic to think about God, but that we have to be very careful doing so. Using logic means that there must be a base set of assumptions before we stat. Some are clear, some not so clear, like thinking about God existing in time. We as humans have no real concept of anything existing outside of time. It is so fundamental that we don't question it. That is why the theology of predestination can be so frustrating. On one hand, if you say that we all have 100% free will, then all of creation was a crap shoot. If we say that there is 100% double predestination, then we are little better then automatons acting out our fate. Most Christians believe we fall somewhere in the middle.
If you have bad assumptions, you can get bad results. Part of what is so horrible about the Nazi's wasn't just that they did terrible things, but that they were so logical about it. They started with a set of assumptions, and then progressed along that line till the Holocaust. They did horrible things in an orderly fashion. Much like the abortion genocide today.
Logic is a great tool, but can trap you just the same.
He knows what you will do... because he exists in future,present,past and all the other frames of reference we will not or can not understand. If you could know the future and know that I would respond to your post...or not.. it doesn't effect whether I will or not. In my mind I have replied... I could have chosen not to reply.
So if you were God and wrote that "Dickvomer will respond" somewhere else... then you'd be omniscent without making my choice. I think that's kinda what God has done. He's seen what's going to happen and how to avoid pitfalls and even with all that we CHOOSE to continue to go contrary to what he's taught us... myself included and in fact myself more than most.
Say he (God) knows how this whole "thing" is going to turn out. He told some fellers a couple of thousand years ago. They wrote down or gave verbal stories to others that wrote it down and now we're reading it.
Some will chose his path, some will chose another, some won't know that there even is a path..... some will go to Heaven others will chose the alternative. He knows that many will not make the correct choice even with all he's given us. I think that's what bothers most people... there is no "trade off". You...or I or anyone can't put God in "our debt" by doing a couple of nice things to offset the "bad things".
So a lot of people just say "F#ck it" and merrily go along poo-pooing people that are struggling to find their way.
The only way is written down by the big guy in the Bible. I don't think it's easy, I don't think it's hard... it just is what it is. I mean the path to salvation.
I don't think I've got the stones to do what it takes but I pray everyday that some small part of him comes out of me and shows me how to live a life honoring him and his gifts and sacrifices. But the funny thing is everyday, I chose the wrong path... so there I am. I can see the road but chose the "other" option of ..." you can't get there from here".
Oh well, wherever you go. There you are...
Don't you have to assume that Augustine is correct in his theories?
I believe that the difference is that God knows what we will do, and creates us, knowing that is what we will do. My just knowing, wouldn't really matter
Seems a distinction without a difference to me. Each is for their OWN reasons. In fact, Peter's may be the graver sin. Judas' greed was just a common human failing but Peter's denial meant he did not believe the message that he would have eternal life and be with Jesus in Heaven. That seems the greater betrayal.
That's not a problem with "our logic," or with logic per se; it's a problem with sloppy applications of logic which assume things they shouldn't.
As humans, we can only apply our logic as we know it, this doesn't mean it is adequate to define God. Everyone makes assumptions, it's necessary.
Know what as a fact? That God is outside of time?
Logic. :-) God is necessary existence (cf Aquinas), hence he existed "before" all else (because everything else is contingent upon him for existence), and created everything else, including time itself. Being time's creator, he is not subject to it.
Yes and no? Isn't that too convenient?
Aren't you are making assumptions?
Nobody ever said it was "adequate to define God"; only that it was useful in understanding him. Not least, it useful because it can shoot down false claims about him, and if you shoot down the falsehood, what is left?
When did he have time to write a gospel?
It's probably fake. And why would I want to read a "gospel" from the dude who betrayed my Lord? What on earth does he have to offer me since most likely he's in the "hot place"?
Its probably fake.
The most dangerous assumption I'm making is probably that you are looking for real answers. Are you?
I was being honest. Some of Augustine's stuff goes right over my head or around me. In City of God, he goes into all kinds of analysis of the Psalms that I just don't get. But that is probably because I don't understand him as well as I might, and that I am trained as an engineer, not a rhetorician. My thought profiles are such that I do not "get" things that more philosophical types do.
From your profile, it appears you are more of an agnostic. But you also say you believe in a supreme God. Kind of curious about that (and not trying to set up flame bait). Why do you believe that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.