The Gospel of Judas is not revolutionary

The Apostolic Fathers ^ | 130-202 AD | Irenaeus

[jude24]

1. Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.

[xzins]

This one had seven seals which were not to be opened until the anointed fat lady sang.

You'll have to get with Marlowe on that one. He knows her 'cause he plays the guitar for her when she does her hollerin'.

She's more into the "roll" than the rock, so I 'spose she'll fit in most non-Saddleback churches.

BTW, Pentecost was the founding of the first Mega-Church.

[P-Marlowe]

This one had seven seals which were not to be opened until the anointed fat lady sang.

Oops, what that yours? I found it laying around on my coffee table collecting dust and termites, so I traded it for the original geniune John Chapter 8 Sand-Scribble. Perhaps you can let me know who absconded with the stones that were dropped at the scene. I'd be willing to trade my genuine King Solomon Equidistant-Letter-Sequencing Decoder-Ring (that I miraculously found in a 2000 year old box of Kosher Cracker Jacks) for the John Chapter 8 stones so that I can complete my John Chapter 8 collection.

BTW I accidentally broke open one of the seals when packing it. I put some scotch tape over it really quick, but I think it was the same day as the big Tsunami.

[MarDav]

My original thought was to reply that the reason Christ is not portrayed as laughing or enjoying a light-hearted moment is because there is nothing funny about sin. If Christ is who He claims to be (God come in the flesh) and with the work of redeeming fallen, hopelessly lost man staring Him squarely in the face, a work that inevitably pointed the Savior to the cross, what would there have been to laugh about?

[blue-duncan]

"Perhaps you can let me know who absconded with the stones that were dropped at the scene"

Aha, had you done your homework and reached the 11th circle of Zobah you would know that the answer to your question is in the mystical secrets of the 32nd verse. I am surprized that someone who is the keeper of the sacred tag line numbers would not know this. May the Schwartz be with you!

[P-Marlowe]

Aha, had you done your homework and reached the 11th circle of Zobah you would know that the answer to your question is in the mystical secrets of the 32nd verse.

I guess I'm getting senile. How could I, of all people, fail to see that? Now, according to that verse, the John 8 rocks were used to seed the legendary Great Gravel Pit of Zubah Nubah.

I am puzzled however as to how I can pick the original stones out from their clones. Any suggestions?

[blue-duncan]

"I am puzzled however as to how I can pick the original stones out from their clones. Any suggestions?"

Good question for this time of year. When the donkey passes over the stones and they cry out in Hebrew they are the monotheistic originals. If they cry out in Aramaic, they are syncretistic. If they cry out in Greek they are polytheistic. If they cry out in Latin, they are clones.

Now for that secret double agent OP who conned us into seeing the movie "V", I thought "24" was intense until "V" came along. That makes Jack Bauer look like a marriage counselor.

[redgolum]

Thanks for posting this. I was talking about this with a friend, and remembered that Iraneus had mentioned it, but wasn't sure where.

[jo kus]

It is true that the earliest Gospel (Mark) was the least anti- Judas story. As each successsor Gospel was written 20-30 years later, Judas was transformed into an evil figure, transformed into a figure that was intended to defame Jews in general. This was to serve Rome's interests.

Two problems with that assertion. First, Mark was written to CHRISTIAN Gentile communities who were undergoing persecution from ROME. The Letter was not written to serve Rome's interest, but the Christian community to persevere in their time of suffering, just as Christ did. And secondly, one who reads that John is defaming Jews in general has little understanding of the Gospel. John is writing against ANYONE who refuses to believe in Jesus Christ! Since the narrative is set during the life of Christ, many such people are Jews. But many believers are ALSO Jews. It becomes clear throughout that John is attacking non-believers of God's Messenger, not Jews.

Regards

[floridaobserver]

Do most Christians believe that Jesus didn't laugh now and then?

[MarDav]

I have no doubt that He experienced everything that makes up the human experience (except for sin). I'm sure most Christians believe that He laughed and enjoyed humorous exchanges. Indeed, in the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15) we read the father explaining to the older son why a party was thrown for his wayward brother, "It was meet that we should make merry and be glad; for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost and is found." Christ's story if full of merriment and laughter--over the return of a lost, disobedient child. I think, though, what most Christians do with the Biblical accounts of the life of Christ is to dwell on what is emphasized and not what is de-emphasized. Far more time and space is given in Scripture to the Lord's service to the Father, His ministry to His disciples and His mission to seek and to save the lost than there is dedicated to His wit, His sense of humor, His willingness to chuckle at life's little inanities. I imagine as He is the very source of life and creation, He must have, on occasion just shaken His head in utter disbelief (like an incredulous father at a child who just doesn't get it) at the naivete of men and women in their ignoranat attempts to demonstrate righteousness and personal holiness.

[Revelation 911]

This proves that there are many questions that are not answered in the original Gospels and a few contradictions as well.

thanks for your fine points - but I have to comment on this one - be discerning in the authorship and be discerning of the authors themselves and the circumstances surrounding the canon

First century Chirstianity was an oral culture - word pictures are all important - ....let me put it this way - did Judas leap into a spiritual abyss by killing himself?

be careful with literalism

[floridaobserver]

Who was worse? Peter who denied having anything to do with Jesus three times to save his own skin? Or Judas who told the Temple Guards where Jesus could be found?

Jesus was really not trying to hide or avoid the Roman or Temple authorities was He?

Peter supposedly repented, but Judas was so crestfallen that he killed himself out to blot out his pain.

They are both sympathetic figures , I suppose. But Judas seems to have gotten the short end of the stick here.

Judas has been associated with the Jews, and Peter with the Romans, perhaps that is why the Roman Church made Peter a saint and Judas a devil.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

It is true that the earliest Gospel (Mark) was the least anti- Judas story. As each successsor Gospel was written 20-30 years later, Judas was transformed into an evil figure, tansformed into a figure that was intended to defame Jews in general. This was to serve Rome's interests.

Actually, one of the primary circumstantial PROOFS of the Authenticity and Reliability of the Canonical Gospels is precisely their status as Contra-indicatory Testimony (I speak here in collegiate Debate terms; since I don't know the "Legal Terminology", I will have to trust my young Paduan "Jude24" to supply me with the Legal description).

Which is to say...

• MATTHEW was a HATED TAX COLLECTOR. "And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him." -- Matthew 9:9
• MARK was considered by many in the Early Church to be a FAILED COWARD. "When Acts 15 says that John Mark deserted them, the Greek word is apostanta from which we get our English word "apostate". So there's no weaseling out of it, there is no other word for it; John Mark was a failure, pure and simple." ~~ Dr. Thomas Erickson, The National Presbyterian Church
• LUKE was the attendant Scribe of a former Enemy of the Church (Apostle Paul) who never personally dealt with Jesus during His Earthly Ministry; and Luke himself, probably a Gentile or at least a Hellenized Jew (Colossians 4).
• And JOHN was himself little more than a CHILD during Jesus' Earthly Ministry, probably no more than 14 years of age when he ran off to join the Messiah; certainly, "the Disciple whom Jesus Loved" (Jesus loved children, Mark 10:14), but nonetheless, basically a starry-eyed young teenager.

In other words, when considering the natural Biases of the original, Jewish-influenced, early Christian Church, one could scarcely imagine a more UNLIKELY Mötley Crüe of Traitors, Cowards, Misfits, and Children to author the Biography of the Living Son of God.

AND YET... the Early Christian Church, across the entirety of the Roman Empire, from the Jewish-Christians of the Jerusalem Council to the Gentile Christians of Rome itself, unanimously accepted THESE FOUR GOSPELS SPECIFICALLY as being a genuine and accurate biography of their Resurrected Rabbi.

WHY? Conspiracy Theories won't work here; there was no "Evil Vatican Papacy" with the Absolute Power to change and "white-wash" the Scriptures, as the Revisionists claim; at the time, there was no Papacy at all -- Christianity was at that time administered from Jerusalem (NOT ROME!); and Apostle James (NOT PETER!) was the Primary Administrator of the Council of Jerusalem... And even Patriarch James had only the power to advise Gentile Christians to "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." (Acts 15:28-19)

SO THEN WHY, please tell me, were the Gospels of these disreputable SCREW-UPS actually unanimously accepted by the Early Christian Church as the most accurate Biographies of the Lord God Incarnate? And that DESPITE the alleged existence of far-more "Prestigious" Gospels, such as "The Gospel of James", "The Gospel of Mary", "The Gospel of Peter", "The Gospel of Thomas", "The Gospel of Philip" , and what have you.

The answer seems to me obvious:

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty. (I Corinthians 1:27)

The Four Canonical Gospels were universally accepted by the Early Christian Church IN SPITE OF the Low Pedigree of the Authors -- precisely because the Original Apostles still running around before Nero's Great Persecution were able to say, "Yep, that's an Accurate Biography of the Jesus of Nazareth with whom I spent three years of my life", together with the confirmatory testimony of Saint Paul the Repentant Persecutor.

CONTRA-INDICATORY TESTIMONY -- the Writers of the Four Canonical Gospels are about the WORST Mötley Crüe one could possibly imagine for any self-interested Preacher wishing to establish a Religion.

That, in itself, is powerful evidence of their Authenticity and Truth. The Authors of the Four Gospels were, in sum, considered by most Christians in the Early Church to be Traitors, Cowards, Gentiles, and Children; their Biographies of the Living Son of God were universally-accepted by the Early Christians BECAUSE they were known to be the MOST Factually-Accurate "Gospels" in existence.

Best, OP

[xzins]

Another question would be any attempted rehabilitation of the reputation of Judas among the early Apostles.

Rather than mellowing with age and giving way to more understanding toward Judas, the Apostles seemed to gravitate toward a consensus that Judas was a secret evil among them for much of the time he was present with them.

Yet, there doesn't seem to be much of a focus on him at all. In proof of that, why is there no recounting of the day when Judas joined their inner circle, if Judas were such a central figure among them?

The bible indicates that day by day Judas saw miraculous signs in Jesus' life. It also indicates that day by day Judas pilfered cash from the treasury. ONe gets the impression that Judas was both unimportant and self-centered.

[jude24]

Contra-indicatory Testimony (I speak here in collegiate Debate terms; since I don't know the "Legal Terminology", I will have to trust my young Paduan "Jude24" to supply me with the Legal description).

I'm not aware of any technical terms for that(though there probably is one). It's realistic though - prosecutions go on all the time despite the backgrounds of informants. Choir boys don't tend to have information about criminal enterprises.

one could scarcely imagine a more UNLIKELY Mötley Crüe of Traitors, Cowards, Misfits, and Children to author the Biography of the Living Son of God.

Not if you were trying to present a sanitized version of Christianity, but what it was, warts and all. It would certainly be a whole lot more convenient if the Apostles weren't working-class men, but were Pharisees. The flight of the apostles is damned inconvenient - the people who are spreading this new message are admitting they were cowards. The crucifixion is inconvenient, since Christ's own people rejected him. The fact that only disciples saw him is inconvenient - wouldn't it have been a more compelling story if Pilate had seen the risen Christ? And that 6-week gap between the resurrection and Pentacost is difficult to explain. These are inconvenient facts that are not likely to be fabricated.

Then there's the ways the Gospels tell the story. In my mind, this is the most compelling argument for the veracity of the Gospel stories. People like to claim the gospels are contradictory, when they forget that the gospels are not transcripts of what Jesus said, but purported eyewitness accounts. If two witnesses testimony is too similar, then lawyers and jurors begin to wonder about collusion. Loose strands are a natural result of different emphases. Matthew focused on one aspect; Luke another. That disqualifies neither.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Judas was turning Jesus over to the Sanhedrin, hopefully to resolve the issue and abate all the controversy that Jesus' Ministry was causing for the Temple and Roman Power Elite. The Romans had taken notice and had said if the Jewish community didn't quiet this Prophet down and neutralize him, then they would. Judas was okay with this. But when he was turned over to the custody of the Romans, he killed himself.

"FloridaObserver"... you poor, stupid young Fool. (Psalms 14:1)

You have, of course, been educationally conditioned by modern Publik Skool Edumbifikashun to dis-believe the New Testament Gospels; this depite the fact that the Manuscript Evidence for the Reliability and Authenticity of the New Testament is literally a thousand times superior to that of any other ancient Book in existence:

In considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed (Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri were discovered in 1935, which have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D. and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).

Manuscript Evidence for Ancient Writings

Author	Written	Earliest Copy	Time Span	# Mss.
Caesar	100-44 B.C.	900 A.D.	1,000 yrs	10
Plato	427-347 B.C.	900 A.D.	1,200 yrs	7
Thucydides	460-400 B.C.	900 A.D.	1,300 yrs	8
Tacitus	100 A.D.	1100 A.D.	1,000 yrs	20
Suetonius	75-160 A.D.	950 A.D.	800 yrs	8
Homer (Iliad)	900 B.C.	400 B.C.	500 yrs	643
New Testament	40-100 A.D.	125 A.D.	25-50 yrs	24,000

You poor, stupid young FOOL. Are you really HAPPY with your Publik Skool Edumbifikashun? Surely you cannot be.

You say, "Judas was turning Jesus over to the Sanhedrin, hopefully to resolve the issue and abate all the controversy that Jesus' Ministry was causing for the Temple and Roman Power Elite"... pardon me, but are you DAFT?

Judas "Iscariot"s name is little more than a corruption of "Sicarius" or "Sicarii/Iskarioi", meaning "assassin" or "dagger-man", suggesting that Judas belonged to the Sacarii, a radical Jewish Zealot group who specialized in Anti-Roman political murder.

(Did you somehow not know this? I suppose that you will have to learn the Bible from an Orthodox Presbyterian, since the Atheists have failed you so badly.)

It is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD for you to say that "Judas was turning Jesus over to the Sanhedrin, hopefully to resolve the issue and abate all the controversy that Jesus' Ministry was causing for the Temple and Roman Power Elite" -- DO YOU NOT RECOGNIZE that Judas, as a member of the Radical Zealot "Sacarii", had NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in "resolving the issue"? That Judas, as a Radical Anti-Romanist, had become disappointed in Jesus' unwillingness to directly challenge the Roman Authorities? And when Judas decided to force the issue, and Jesus willingly gave Himself up to the Romans, Judas became completely disheartened in his vision of Jesus as a Military Revolutionary?

It's no surprise, then, that Judas went out and hanged himself over a cliff.

Judas had followed this Messiah for three years, and even when Judas tried to force the confrontation, the Messiah willingly gave Himself up to the Romanists. What a profound disappointment for a Political Zealot who was looking for a Military Revolutionary Messiah.

It just goes to show... you can't trust Politics to Save you. Jesus Alone Saves.

Isn't it interesting that one Gospel says he hanged himself and the other one says he jumped in an abyss?? This proves that there are many questions that are not answered in the original Gospels and a few contradictions as well.

No, it only proves that Judas probably hanged himself over the very field purchased by his own Preistly employers... call it a Radical Zealot's one last "Suicide Note" against the Priests, against the Romans, against Jesus, against everyone... sadly, Judas probably died a very unhappy man. (Of course, happy or not, that is exactly what the Four Gospels suggest).

---

FloridaObserver, here is what will happen:

• 1.) EITHER you will examine all the Evidences (as I did), and you will come to the Logical Conclusion (as I did) that there is No Rational Choice for a Logically-Minded, Aristotelian-Causality Kinda Guy EXCEPT to believe in LOGICAL, CALVINIST CHRISTIANITY;

• 2.) OR you will choose to Reject the Facts, Reject the myriad-superiority of New Testament Manuscript Evidences, Reject the Proofs of Logic and History, and in SPITE of Rationality you will continue to search for any reason NOT to admit the Accuracy, Authenticity, and Truth of the New Testament.

And you know what? It's just my Biblically-Commanded Duty to Preach the Facts.
Beyond that, YOU have to decide how you are going to DEAL with the Facts.
Rhett Butler to Scarlett, baby:
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn".

(The Arminians may here accuse me of having given up on Evangelism. I have not. "I am become all things to all people"; This is simply my method of Evangelism... Present the Facts. The Atheists can deal with it, or not.)

Best, OP

[jude24]

Couple of points:

: 1. Neither you nor I know floridaobservers academic history or credentials. Further, while some might appreciate this end result, your condemnation of public education would disqualify me, since I have continuously been educated in public institutions from high school through law school.

2. The textual evidence is useful to show that the New Testament is substantively what it was ca. 150 AD. It does not, standing alone, prove authority. Ultimately, it is not sufficient to answer to floridaobserver's allegations that the NT misrepresents Judas's actions.

3. The aforementioned said, you are absolutely right about his misunderstanding of the origins of the word "Iscariot" - that he was a Zealot.

[jo kus]

Who was worse? Peter who denied having anything to do with Jesus three times to save his own skin? Or Judas who told the Temple Guards where Jesus could be found?

Put yourself in Peter's shoes for a minute. They saw Jesus do miracles for several years. Then Jesus is captured by the religious authorities - and Jesus tells Peter to put away his sword. Peter's idea of the Messiah, a political ruler, must have been destroyed by Christ's capture and trial. The jig was up, Peter thought. In this time of despair, I don't see Peter or the other apostles' cowardice as unwarranted, given the circumstances of their knowledge. We view things from AFTER the resurrection. The Apostles didn't. I would say that this cowardice was NOT the same thing as Judas' revealing to the authorities where Jesus' private spot was so that He could be arrested without the crowd's presence.

They are both sympathetic figures , I suppose. But Judas seems to have gotten the short end of the stick here.

All traitors to a particular cause get the short end of the stick. The people who are given the most venom are so-called "collaborators", those people on the inside who aid the "enemy". That is fact, whether you are looking at Judas, the French Vichy, or Hellenistic Jews of the Book of Maccabees. Those who we thought were are friends and then turn around to stab us in the back give us the worse pain to bear.

Judas has been associated with the Jews, and Peter with the Romans, perhaps that is why the Roman Church made Peter a saint and Judas a devil.

Judas AND Peter were both Jews. That Judas was a traitor has nothing to do with Peter going to Rome years later. What is interesting is that Peter AND Judas had sinned greatly - one asked for forgiveness, the other didn't. One is highly regarded in the Kingdom of Heaven, the other "would have been better if he had never been born". If this isn't a lesson on the necessity for seeking forgiveness, I don't know what is...

Regards

[floridaobserver]

What "Iscariot" signifies is unclear> There are two major theories on the meaning of this name, each of which must satisfy certain expectations in order to be credible: One etymology, accepted by the majority, and credited to Jerome, derives "Iscariot" from Hebrew איש־קריות, Κ–Qrîyôth, that is "man of Kerioth", the Judean town (or, more probably, collection of small towns) of Kerioth, not otherwise related to any person or event in the New Testament, nor mentioned in any document of the period. As Aramaic was the main language of the time, and all other biblical characters have Aramaic surnames and nicknames, this Hebrew Judaean name would have marked out Judas as different from the Galilean disciples. In the second etymology, "Iscariot" is considered to be a transformation of the Latin sicarius, or "dagger-man". The Sicarii were a cadre of assassins among Jewish rebels intent on driving the Romans out of Judea. It is possible then, that this Latin name might have been transformed by Aramaic into a form more closely resembling "Iscariot". But many historians maintain that the sicarii only arose in the 40's or 50's of the 1st century, so Judas could not have been a member. While Judas may or may not have actually been a sicariote, the term may have been used for him pejoratively. Therefore, if Judas is largely synonymous with Judean and if Iscariot means Sicarius, then Judas Iscariot would mean Judean Assassin. But one factor arguing against "Iscariot" deriving from Judas' betrayal of Jesus is the reference in John 6:71 to Judas as "son of Simon the Iscariot." In light of this, Iscariot appears to be a family name, which would make the Kerioth theory more likely.

[floridaobserver]

Regarding your analysis of Judas . . it really makes no sense.

If Judas was truly a Zealot, he would have been delighted when handed off to the Romans and certain execution.

If he was as you say, he would be laughing his head off . . a false prophet had been eliminated, and the true Messiah could now be found, to liberate the Jews from Roman oppression.

But Judas did not act in that way. He was hoping that the Temple Elders could reach some sort of compromise. The Elders were interested in keeping their power and position, something Jesus could care less about.

When Jesus was handed over to the Romans, Judas was shocked and disheartened. He felt responsiblity for Judas' execution and committed suicide.

A true Zealot wouldn't have been sad about Jesus' death. Judas was not a zealot, by definition.